ID: nht95-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1995

FROM: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TO: J. Medlin -- FTA

TITLE: Urban Bus, GVWR more than 10,000 LBS For NYCTA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ORLANDO FERREIRA (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD 101)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Medlin,

This confirms our phone conversation of this afternoon.

The master switch (# 2 on page 12-Drivers side control panel) has 4 positions: Engine stop, Run, Lights and Park.

These positions are engraved so that a back light allow liability in might driving conditions.

My questions is to comply with FMVSS-101-Controls and Display these positions of the master switch have to be illuminated?

If yes, please indicate where this requirement is established?

Thank you in advance [Illegible Words] in this matter.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht95-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki MATSUI -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Stanley Electric Co.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Accessory Lamp with LEDs

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/9/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Yoskiaki Matsui (Std. 108)

TEXT: We, a Japanese manufacturer of automotive lighting devices, are now developing a new type of combination rear lamp that contains red LEDs as accessory lamps. (Please refer to the attached drawing). Would you please advise us about the categorization of this kind of LED accessory lamps.

The operating condition of the LED accessory lamps are as follows,

a) Construction of the combination rear lamp

Tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp vertically arranged. Red LEDs are disposed along the outer edge of the combination lamp to be used as accessory lamps.

Light source Colour of Colour of the lens light emitted Tail & stop Incandescent bulb Red Red Rear turn Incandescent bulb Amber Amber signal

b) Operating condition for the accessory lamps

When the tail lamp is switched on, the Accessory Lamp A of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the tail lamp, and the Accessory Lamp B of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp, are lit.

Question 1: Red LEDs adjacent to the tail lamp (Accessory Lamp A)

The tail lamp is designed to comply with FMVSS No. 108 using incandescent bulb only, therefore red LEDs need not to be lit for the purpose of the regulatory requirements. Moreover, when the tail lamp and the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) are lit together, the intensity of the light emitted from them does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for one lighted section tail lamp.

In such a condition, we believe the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp a) could be regarded as an accessory.

As for the safety, red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) will contribute to safety by improving the comspicuity of the vehicle, when lit with the tail lamp.

If our interpretation is not acceptable, please inform us of the conditions required in order to regard the red LEDs portion (Accessory Lamp A) as an accessory.

Question 2: Red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B)

Q2-1: As for the red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B), the LEDs emit a red colour light through the amber lens. The lighted section of the red section of the turn signal lamp by a parting rib prepared in the housing, so that the red light from red LEDs will not be emitted through the lens area of the lighted section of the rear turn signal lamp. Therefore, we believe the light from the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) will not adversely affect the rear turn signal function even if the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) continues to operate when the rear turn signal lamp is operated. Please advise us if our interpretation is acceptable.

Q2-2: If our interpretation described in the above A2-1 is not acceptable, are the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) regarded as an accessory provided that the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) are turned off during the rear turn signal operation?

Following table shows the lighting condition of Accessory Lamps and our interpretation.

Tail lamp ON Operating Accessory Lamp A ON condition Accessory Lamp B ON OFF Rear turn signal lamp ON OFF ON OFF STANLEY's question Q2-1 Q2-2 Question STANLEY's interpretation OK OK OK OK NHTSA's answer

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht95-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1995

FROM: Ben Ray

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Ben Ray (A43; Std. 121; Part 571.7)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

This letter is in regards to brake adjusters for log trailers. I am currently building log trailers for resale. These trailers are used mostly in the woods transporting logs from the woods to the mills. I am using used axles under them. These used ax les already have regular brake adjusters on there when I buy them. What I would like is some paperwork saying if this is alright to use these regular brake adjusters instead of automatic adjusters. I was referred to you by Richard Carter, (202-366-5274 ). Mr. Carter said there was a fine line in regards to which one to use because of the fact that the axles that I use are used. He also said being that the trailer is not considered new, that I could use a regular brake adjuster. I would really apprec iate it if you could send me some paperwork stating that it is alright to use these regular brake adjusters. If you should have any questions, please call me at home, 901-925-2727 or work, 901-925-1893.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1995

FROM: Alison Vredenburgh -- Vice-president, Research and Development, Error Analysis, Inc.

TO: Kenneth Hardie -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Alison Vredenburgh (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am currently directing a research project pertaining to motorcycle conspicuity. We have developed, and are testing a Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (MCES). A copy of the paper, which I will present at the Annual Human Factors and Ergonomic s Society (HFES) meeting next month, is enclosed.

As a human factors and safety consultants we have been asked to investigate several cases where a lack of motorcycle conspicuity has been a factor in accident causation. The development of the MCES was inspired by these cases. It is designed to attach t o the front of motorcycles to enhance visibility using a series of small lights (xenon strobes) that are supplemental to the headlight.

The MCES was built by Dr. Brian Andresen, Director of the Forensic Science Center of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. We are are in the early stages of considering patenting the MCES and hope to make it available to motorcycle riders.

In reviewing the laws pertaining to motorcycle lighting, we understand that this system may only be used during daylight hours and may not affect the headlight. If there are any additional regulations pertaining to this system of which we should be aware , please contact me directly at (619) 434-4741.

Enclosure

ENHANCED MOTORCYCLE VISIBILITY THROUGH USE OF MOTORCYCLE CONSPICUITY ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM

(Report omitted)

ID: nht95-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: T. J. Sommer -- President, White Bear Sales, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/28/95 LETTER FROM T. J. SOMMER TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 11121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sommer:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 28, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You report that Chicago's police department is using four-wheeled all terrain vehicles (ATVs) for patrol work in the downtown area, and that they have been licensed by Illinois for on-road use. You believe that the vehicles are illegal to use on the str eets and that city employees are at risk. You have been asked by the director of Chicago's fleet "to compile all federal definitions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use." Y ou have asked for our assistance.

I note first that while Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the individual States establish their own requirements for the licensing of motor vehicles. Therefore, the question of whether the ATVs may legally be used on the road is a matter of Illinois law rather than Federal law.

Your letter does, however, raise the issue of whether the manufacture and/or sale of the ATVs was consistent with Federal law. We do not have specific information about the ATVs at issue; however, I can provide general information about how Federal law applies in this area.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale i n the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.

The issue of whether the ATVs were required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is dependent on whether they are considered "motor vehicles." I have enclosed several interpretation letters which address the criteria which NHTSA appl ies in determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle (addressed to Mr. Matthew Plache, dated December 3, 1991; Mr. Hiroshi Kato, dated October 31, 1988; Mr. Wayne Kirby, dated February 8, 1983; and Mr. Leonard Fink, dat ed March 25, 1982). If an ATV is a motor vehicle, it must be certified to comply with all applicable safety standards.

If, after reviewing this information, you believe that a violation of Federal law may have occurred, you may wish to contact Mr. Luke Loy of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5288. If you have further questions about the applicabi lity of our standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International Pacific Industries Corp.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT J. PONTICELLI TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11082)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This responds to your letter asking about how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel a nd the steering shaft. The device is activated by "a key switch" and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stat ed that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below.

First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti-theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts o f a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards.

Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to "have a key-locking system which, w henever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both." Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by in stalling a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification wi th FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation.

In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without re alizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle.

Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained i n our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards.

Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the ve hicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, the person who m odifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violatio n.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult St ate regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and t he raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 per cent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Seagren -- Dealer Principal, Pony Express Dodge, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Peter F. Marthy (A43; Part 580)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter sent to this office by telefax on September 12, 1995. In your letter, you ask whether it is permissible to alter an odometer that registers kilometers rather than miles by multiplying the kilometer reading by .62, when there had been a previous attempt to convert the reading to miles. Your letter states that the earlier attempt resulted in the odometer being set back to the equivalent in miles but the odometer continued to register distance in kilometers.

As you are aware from a Federal Register notice faxed to you by Eileen Leahy of this office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal agency with responsibility for the odometer disclosure regulations promulgated pursuant t o the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 (TIMA) has stated that it is permissible to reset the odometer from kilometers to miles by multiplying the number of kilometers shown on the odometer by .62, and that it is also permissible to certify that number of mil es as "actual" when completing the odometer disclosure statement when ownership of the vehicle is transferred.

The rationale for this policy is that "mileage" is defined in the Federal regulations as distance traveled, and it is permissible to express the number either in miles or metrically if it is known that it reflects the actual distance traveled and that th e disclosure of the odometer reading specifies which system of measure (miles or kilometers) is being used. Because the conversion from kilometers to miles can be accurately made simply by multiplying the kilometers on the odometer by 0.62, the agency b elieves that there is little likelihood that permitting odometer readings that have been converted from kilometers to miles to be recorded as "actual mileage" will result in an inaccurate or misleading representation of the distance a vehicle has travele d.

The situation you describe is more complicated because a previous owner of the vehicle in question had already set back the odometer to the mileage equivalent after purchasing it with an odometer reading in kilometers, but according to your letter did no t execute properly the procedure necessary to make the odometer register miles rather than kilometers while being driven. The result of this error has been the addition of kilometers to a figure that reflected miles rather than kilometers traveled.

In order to permit recording of a conversion of the present odometer reading from kilometers to mileage as "actual mileage" in this circumstances, two criteria must be satisfied. First, it must be apparent that the calculation at the time of the first c onversion was done properly so that it reflects the actual number of miles the vehicle had traveled at that time. From the documents you submitted reflecting the events that occurred prior to your purchase of the vehicle, it appears that the previous ow ner properly converted kilometers to miles. Accordingly, the first criterion is satisfied.

It is then necessary to establish that the reading now shown on the odometer accurately represents the distance traveled by the vehicle since the first attempted conversion. There is no indication in any of the documentation you furnished that there hav e been any intervening alterations to the odometer or changes in the way it has recorded distance that would alter the accuracy of its current reading. In addition, you state that since your company has owned the vehicle, the odometer has consistently o perated in a way that shows that it was registering kilometers rather than miles. Based on these factors, it appears that it will be possible for you to ascertain with accuracy the distance the vehicle has traveled since the first conversion from kilome ters to miles was made.

The proper way to do this conversion is to subtract the number shown as the reading in miles as a result of the calculation made at the time conversion was first attempted, from the number showing on the odometer when you transfer ownership of the vehicl e. The result will be the total kilometers the vehicle has traveled since that time. To arrive at the number of miles traveled since the attempted conversion, the result of that subtraction is to be multiplied by 0.62 as described above. In turn, the number resulting from that multiplication is added to the number of miles at the time of the first conversion and the sum is the total number of miles traveled by the vehicle at the time of transfer. You may then properly certify on the odometer disclosu re statement when you transfer ownership of the vehicle that that number is its actual mileage.

Because the Kansas Motor Vehicle Department asked that you contact this office for our interpretation of the proper way to handle the sale of this vehicle under the Federal odometer disclosure regulations, it would be advisable to provide that office wit h a copy of this letter either before or at the time of your application for a new title.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney in this office, at the address shown above or at (202)366-5263.

(9/12/95 telefax from David Seagren to NHTSA is not available.)

ID: nht95-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Cosco

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Cosco's Petition for Reconsideration Final Rule - Federal Register Volume 60 Number 129 Docket No. 74-09; Notice 42

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS (REDBOOK 4; PART 553; 74-09, N42-005-02)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the Federal Register announcement of the subject Final Rule, Cosco submitted its petition for reconsideration in a timely fashion. The petition was transmitted via Federal Express on Friday, August 4, 199 5, for next day delivery, on Monday, August 7, 1995.

Although we have not been formally advised, we have learned informally that NHTSA may contend that the petition was not received until August 10. We have confirmed with Federal Express that in fact the petition was delivered on August 7, 1995, and signe d for by NHTSA employee T. Proctor. Attached are the Federal Express forms signed by each recipient of a Federal Express delivery, showing T. Proctor under item 15 on page 2 for August 7, 1995. Federal Express has confirmed that this package was in fac t delivered to NHTSA on August 7, 1995.

Please confirm in writing that Cosco's petition is being deemed as timely received and that a response to the petition will be forthcoming in a timely fashion. Given the scope of the Final Rule and the very important concerns involved, Cosco assumes tha t the agency wishes to promptly address the issues raised by Cosco in its petition.

Please contact me if you require any further information or have any questions. I look forward to your prompt reply to this inquire.

(Federal Express forms omitted.)

ID: nht95-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Carrie Stabile; James v. Stabile, III

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Carrie Stabile (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern,

I recently wrote to Senator Alfonse D'Amato regarding both my brother James and my concept on improving the safety of children while loading and unloading on and off the school buses. It is called "VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM". Senator D'Amato co ntacted Mr. Charles Hott, Safety Engineer, who in return suggested we submit our idea to you, for further review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.

The illuminated sign would be specially designed to boldly alert other motorists to the fact that the school bus is in the process of loading or unloading children and should not be passed. The sign would be easily visible during daytime, darkness and p oor weather conditions. It is our opinion as well as other bus companies that this system would provide children with a safer loading and unloading zone. Features like the stop sign that extends out from the side of the bus do not effectively alert dri vers and the safety of children has been greatly compromised.

Our intention with your approval would be to initiate a pilot study from a supporting bus company to survey its effectiveness and approval from the various school districts. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to hearing from you with regards to your guidance and support.

Enclosure

IN THE APPLICATION OF JAMES VINCENT STABILE III

CARRIE ANN STABILE For A VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM

Filed With The United States Patent and Trademark Office

(Text omitted)