ID: nht94-6.8

DATE: April 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark M. McGregor

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/31/94 from Mark M. McGregor to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9847)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1994, with respect to Federal regulations that may apply to a motor vehicle rear lighting device that you have invented.

Your "Safe Driving Indicator Light," mounted on the rear of a vehicle, would emit one color ("possibly green") which would change to red when a vehicle following came too close.

To put it at its simplest, an invention such as yours is permissible under the Federal statutes and regulations of this agency as long as it does not negatively affect the performance of the lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This is the Federal standard that specifies what is required as original lighting equipment on motor vehicles.

More specifically, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits non- required lighting devices as original equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We believe that your invention, as described, has the potentiality to impair the stop lamp system. While running lamps of the color red are permitted (e.g. taillamps), the sudden change from green to red of the lamp of your system could be misinterpreted as a signal to the car following that the car ahead is preparing to stop. However, the purpose of your lamp is not to indicate a stop but to warn the following driver that (s)he is too close.

As a warning lamp, we believe that your use of amber as a color, rather than red, would convey the desired message without impairing the effec- tiveness of the stop lamps. But you should consider the intensity and location of the lamps to avoid impairment of the rear turn signal lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) (Section 108(a)(20)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as not forbidding activities by persons other than those named above that affect the compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards. Thus, the installation of your invention emitting a red color is not precluded if the invention is intended for installation by a vehicle owner, and is not prohibited for installation by others if the warning light color is amber.

However, you must still determine whether use of the lamp is permissible under the laws of States where it will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. 22203.

ID: nht94-6.9

DATE: April 27, 1994

FROM: DEAN LAKHANI -- PRESIDENT, GEM MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/94 from John Womack to Dean Lakhani (Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Counselor,

Our company has been in business will over 50 years, manufacturing bumper guards for the passenger car, pickup truck and van industry. These products are used in our country and sometimes exported abroad. These products have over the years saved lots of lives and a lot of money spent towards costs resulting out of collision damage.

There were several competitors in the days when all the auto vehicles had metal and five mile per hour crash bumpers. Now, it appears that (and we have been told by Ford and General Motors) we are the only bumper guard manufacturing company left in all the U.S. All the other bumper guards manufacturers have closed down because of lack of market for bumper guards.

Our primary market disappeared when the 2 1/2 mile collapsible plastic or fiberglass bumpers were approved. Now with the introduction of the air bags (Federal Motor Vehicle Standard # 208), our taxi-cab and police car markets are drying up.

General Motors and other auto manufacturers, it appears have advised consumers, taxi-cab and police fleet administrations that if a bumper guard or any other similar device is placed in front of the bumper, it would interfere with # 208 device (the air bag) and the car manufacturers guarantees or warranties would then be questionable. This has caused the consumers, taxi-cab and police car administrators enough concern so as to stop buying bumper guards from us. This has caused the taxi-cab bumper guard market and the police car bumper guard market to reduce substantially and it is now literally drying up. We may be forced soon to close our doors.

2

We need your prompt assistance, your unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard # 208 devise (air bag device).

Sir/Madam, in our company, except for three employees, the next junior most employee has been with the company for 17 years and the 2 senior most employees have been with the business 43 years and 47 years, respectfully. By closing this business, believe me, we will lose hands-on knowledge and talent that has been the backbone of our country's industrial might!

Please do help us. We are all praying for your prompt response.

ID: nht94-7.1

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John A. Boehner -- Congress of the United States, House of Representatives

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Director, Congressional Affairs, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/94 Est from John Womack to John A. Boehner (A42; Std. 108; VSA S102(a)(2)(A)) and letter dated 3/25/94 from James Ackley, Carol Baumhauer and Krista D. Subler to John A. Boehner

TEXT:

The enclosed correspondence requesting permission to use two unassigned colors was sent to me by Mr. John Cail and Mr. James Ackley.

I would greatly appreciate you providing my Hamilton office with the appropriate information so that I may reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If I may provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Attachment

C & L Safety Products Unlimited Eaton, Ohio

The Honorable John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) 1020 Longworth House Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Boehner,

We are writing to request the assistance of your office, or your personal assistance, in obtaining Department of Transportation approval and color code designation on our, LIFE LITES system. Our firm has secured a patent, foreign trade license and completed testing with the Ohio State University, and is ready to begin producing the device.

C & L Safety Products currently has a plastics firm and lighting manufacturer within your district to begin production, as well as, several organizations who have committed to purchase the final product. We feel normal, or abnormal delays, in securing approval for the device could adversely impact the economic development of your voting area. Rapid approval would permit you to utilize our firm as an example, particularly in an election environment, of the assistance you can provide to those considering southwest Ohio as a site for future business. Additionally, we are prepared to utilize our public relations firm in contacting other organizations with the details of any assistance provided by you in this matter.

Sue Clark, of your Hamilton office, has been working with us, and has all the details of efforts made to date in securing approval, and has been greatly supportive in moving through the Department of Transportation process.

We have taken the liberty of enclosing a local and national press article explaining the purpose of the device, as well as, copies of the patent and foreign trade permit. Should there be any questions, please call us, to reduce the delays associated with mailed correspondence. Best wishes for continued success.

Sincerely,

John Cail Sr. James Lipps

3/29/94

ID: nht94-7.10

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Mark Willingham, Esq. -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. (Austin, TX)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/94 from Mark Willingham to John Womack (OCC 9640)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...(or) a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. S1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"(T)o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner --

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112, and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale." NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

ID: nht94-7.11

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. MacAdam -- President and CEO, trans2 Corporation (Farmington Hills, MI)

COPYEE: James Freeman, Esq. -- Hogan and Hartson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to two letters dated 11/3/93 from William J. MacAdam to John Womack (OCC 9283)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation that an electric vehicle that trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Your counsel, Mr. James Freeman, informed Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you do not object to the manner in which this letter describes the trans2 vehicle.

We have determined that the trans2 electric vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. "Motor vehicle" is defined at Section 102(3) of the Act as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

It is unclear from your letter whether the trans2 vehicle is manufactured for on-road use. However, NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles.

These criteria appear to be met by trans2's vehicle. You stated that the top speed of the vehicle is 20 miles per hour. Photographs of trans2's vehicle show that it is approximately the size and height of a golf cart. From the side, the passenger compartment appears to be an oval. From the rear, the vehicle has tail lights built into the two headrests. These unusual body features make the trans2 vehicle readily distinguishable from "motor vehicles."

Accordingly, we determine that trans2's vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Since the trans2 vehicle is not a motor vehicle, none of NHTSA's regulations or standards apply to it.

Please note that except for the features of the trans2's vehicle described herein, the remaining vehicle specifications described in your letter of November 3, 1993 are protected under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. The protection will continue until trans2 discloses details of its vehicle to the public.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.12

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.13

DATE: March 31, 1994

FROM: Mark M. McGregor

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/28/94 from John Womack to Mark M. McGregor (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec. 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have been instructed to contact your office in an effort to determine any federal regulations that may apply to a new invention, which I wish to market in the United States.

This invention is a "Safe Driving Distance Indicator Light." It is a simple electric light that can either be built into the rear of an automobile or installed on the rear bumper. This light would emit one color (possibly green), which could be seen by the driver of a following automobile. If the following automobile is following closer than the "predetermined" safe distance, the indicator light that is attached to the lead automobile would change color, possibly from the original green color to red. This new color (red) would then be viewed by the following automobile, indicating that he is following at an unsafe (too close) distance.

The goal of this invention is to reduce the number of rear-end automobile accidents in the United States. The shape and size can vary from a small square device to a long, thin shape. The light would come on automatically as soon as the engine is started and automatically dimmed when the headlights are turned on. Refinements could be made by the manufacturer, such as incorporation of a manual or automatic adjustment for various road conditions or speeds. Although since the object of the apparatus is to act as a reminder or warning and not as an accurate measuring instrument, I feel that these would be unnecessary.

I am considering applying for a U.S. patent on this invention and would greatly appreciate it if you could advise me of any and all legal restrictions or regulations that would apply.

If further information is necessary, please feel free to contact me. Your prompt attention on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-7.14

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harry C. Gough, P.E. -- Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/2/93 from Harry C. Gough to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 9398)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1993, with respect to the term "alternately flashing" as it applies under Safety Standard No. 108 to school bus lamps. You ask for our opinion because a manufacturer of strobe lighting has supplied documentation indicating that the system complies with Standard No. 108.

According to your letter, in this system, the lamp on one side of the school bus (front and rear) "flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern." You inquire as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to this pattern, "or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating."

As you know, paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, which requires that school bus warning lamp systems "flash alternately." We believe that the light emanating from a strobe lamp that flashes four times in 0.255 second will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternately flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

Further, under this interpretation, the flash rate meets SAE J887's specification of 60-120 flashes a minute. Unlike other SAE materials incorporated by reference relating to signal lamps (e.g., J1133 School Bus Stop Arms in Standard No. 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices and J590b Automotive Turn Signal Flashers in Standard No. 108), J887 contains no "percent current 'on' time" requirements.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht94-7.15

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 3/9/94 from J.L. Steffy to Dave Elias (OCC 9753)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" 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.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.16

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Delapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc. (Springfield, MO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from Tom Delapp to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 8868)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be OPERABLE from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to

disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the ENGAGEMENT, but not with the DISENGAGEMENT, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of ENGAGING the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is ENGAGED. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do(es) not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202)366- 2992.