ID: nht91-1.36

DATE: February 8, 1991

FROM: J.C. Brown -- President, MidAmerica Design Service

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to J.C. Brown (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

MidAmerica Design Service is being asked to develop a high mounted stop light and turn signal to be installed into the door of over the road trailers.

This light will be wired to the existing system as an "add on".

After reviewing FMV-108, I can find no reference to any high mounted stop light for trailers in any form. Therefore, it appears, that as long as I add to the existing system and not eliminate any standard lighting, we will be in compliance with the standards.

Please forward to me your opinion and any other steps I must take to ensure compliance.

ID: nht91-1.37

DATE: February 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S.V. Kaaria

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Marvin A. Leach to S.V. Kaaria (OCC 5648); Also attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from S.V. Kaaria to NHTSA

TEXT:

Our Denver Regional Office has forwarded your letter of January 3, 1991, to this Office for reply. You are "the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars." In attempting to negotiate a settlement with vehicle manufacturers, you have been informed that because "elevated brake lights" are required by our agency, the government "should negotiate with me for 1% of replacement cost of these taillights." You have asked that we clarify our position in this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that every passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp, mounted on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle. The only requirement relating to design is that the lens have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, but the standard does not specify the shape of the lens. Within these parameters, manufacturers have located their lamps both inside and outside of the car, from the roof to the deck, and have equipped them with circular and rectangular lenses of varying sizes. Our standards are generally expressed in performance terms so that manufacturers have the freedom to design their vehicles in the manner most suited to them to meet the performance requirements, and so that a specification that appears to favor a proprietary device (e.g., mandating a specific design solution to a standard's requirements) is avoided.

Because of the latitude in design that Standard No. 108 affords, we do not regard the lamp as having any single inventor or designer. While it is possible that you have designed a lamp with some proprietary elements, your search for recovery is properly directed towards lamp and vehicle manufacturers. You have been ill-advised to seek recovery from the government, for you have no legal basis to do so.

ID: nht91-1.38

DATE: February 11, 1991

FROM: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS Number 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Delbert N. Pier (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Hyundai requests assistance with an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Number 108 (lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment).

In regards to the interchangeability of headlamp bulbs, the procedure (571.108) requires that the terminals must be perpendicular to the base and parallel within plus or minus 1.5 degrees.

Hyundai would like an interpretation on whether the bulb fixture can be rotated approximately 11 degrees, as shown in the attachment, view X. This will not change the terminal logistics by the rotation of the bulb fixture. This rotation will not change the constants, (attachment, view Y, from 49 CFR) or the relationship of the terminals to the constants.

Hyundai is requesting an interpretation for a future production vehicle and needs a prompt answer. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should further clarification be required, feel free to contact me at the telephone number listed above.

Attachment 1

S571.108 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-89) Interchangeability Drawing Headlamp Bulb Assembly (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-1.39

DATE: February 12, 1991

FROM: Richard F. Land -- Director of Licensure, State of Tennessee, Bureau Of Manpower and Facilities, Division of Emergency Medical Services

TO: Deidre Fujita -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard F. Land (A37; Std. 124; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The NHTSA office of Enforcement has referred me to your office in a matter regarding the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to ambulance design and maintenance.

Upon recent inspection of a fleet of ambulances operated by a private provider near Chattanooga, Tennessee, our inspectors discovered that wooden blocks had been mounted beneath the accelerator pedals as a makeshift speed governor.

While such action seems to violate common sense, in that there are times when acceleration is critical, such as merging with interstate highway traffic, we find Tennessee list no Statutory offense that our office or highway patrol may cite.

We would appreciate any guidance or assistance with enforcement that may be appropriate to this matter.

Should you wish to discuss the situation or acquire further information, please call me at the Division of Emergency Medical Services, 615-367-6278.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

ID: nht91-1.4

DATE: 01/01/91

FROM: UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

COPYEE: THE MINISTER'S OFFICE; THE UNDER SECRETARY; INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS; STANDARDS & METROLOGY DEPT.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (PART 574; STD. 109; STD. 119; A40; PART 571)

TEXT: We have studied your above mentioned standards with interst and we would appreciate if you please reply to following questions:

1) Do all tyres manufactured and sold in the US must bear the (DOT) mark?

2) What are the basises for granting the right to use the (DOT) mark by the manufacturer on their tyres?

3) Is the (DOT) mark required for local consumed and exported tyres also?

4) Is there a validity time for the use of the (DOT) mark?

5) What is the relation ship between your administnation and the Department Of Transportation concerning the implementation of the use of the (DOT) mark?

6) What are the legal responsibility of the manufacturer by using the mark.

7) What are the responsibility of the manufacturer in case of violation of mark's roles.

We would appreciate if you please kindly furnish us with all information and document concerning the above mentioned subject.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

ID: nht91-1.40

DATE: February 14, 1991

FROM: Anne Lombardi -- Acting Director, Office of Passenger Enforcement and Facilitation, Department of the Treasury

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Anne Lombardi (A37; VSA 102(3) Part 591)

TEXT:

We have Military Customs Advisors stationed around the world who provide information and guidance to Military Customs Inspectors performing preshipment examinations of automobiles and other vehicles. We would appreciate your opinion on a question which was raised by our Advisor stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines.

Military and DOD civilian employees stationed in that country frequently purchase automobiles which are composites of old chassis and engines, of U.S. manufacture, and new bodies and interiors, fabricated and attached to the chassis by local Filipino car shops. Normally, the chassis and engines were not taken abroad by the importers, but were purchased in the Philippines from other sources. In most cases the chassis are said to have been manufactured prior to January 1, 1969.

The question is simple. Which DOT regulations apply to these automobiles, those applicable to the year the chassis was manufactured, or those applicable to the year the new body is attached?

We are writing to you at the recommendation of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Additional information, if needed, is available from Sid Allshouse at (202) 566-5607.

ID: nht91-1.41

DATE: February 14, 1991

FROM: Michael L. Harmon -- President, Classic Interiors

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Console

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael L. Harmon (A38; Std. 213)

TEXT:

It was brought to my attention after having a conversation with Dee Fujita that the built in child restraint system (photo enclosed) we developed and tested to FMVSS 213 for use in multi purpose passenger vehicles may or may not comply with code 213's definition and/or application of built in child restraint systems. If you could please clarify S4. of Part 571 of FMVSS 213 defining a "build in child restraint system" as to whether or not the use as an"integral part of a passenger car" includes multi purpose passenger vehicles. If it is considered part of please advise if not what can I do to encourage the inclusion of multi purpose passenger vehicles in the code 213 test standards.

Attachment

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM TEST RESULTS

Tests conducted for CLASSIC INTERIORS

Purchase order M. Harmon

TEST NUMBERS: HF 9003-07 Testing date: October 25-30, 1990

The University of Michigan Medical School Department of Surgery, Pediatric Surgery Section

Child Passenger Protection Research Program c/o UMTRI, 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Test methods and data limitations and use. (Text omitted)

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM Test Number: HF 9007 TEST DATA SUMMARY Test Date: 10/30/90 Model: Hassel Free Safety Seat integrated in Classic Interiors chair, Dygert frame with stop pins, Atwood track, Monitor reinforced pedistal

Manufacturing Status: experimental

SET-UP

Part 572 3-year-old Frontal impact Forward facing 30 mph, 20 G Chair full rearward Seatback at 4th detent

RESULTS Average Velocity 30.5 mph Acceleration 20.4 G

Buckle Release Force Pre-Test NA Post-Test NA

Head Excursion 27.4 in. Knee Excursion 20.0 in.

Head Injury Criterion 343 Interval 85 to 188 ms Chest Peak Resultant 32 G Duration over 60 G 0 ms

Seatback/Cushion Angle Maximum 62 deg.

Post-Test 83 deg. (right)

Comments: No head/leg contact. Seatback latch operational after test. More seatback rotation on left side, where back of-frame slipped past stop.

Sled Profile and Head Acceleration and Chest Acceleration Graphs dated 10-30-90. (Graphs omitted)

Brochure describing the Classic Safety Seating System. (Text and photos omitted.)

Copy of Federal Register, section 571.1. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 3-23-87, proposed rules dealing with FMVSS - Child Restraint Systems. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 1-22-88, final rule. (Text omitted.)

Copy of Part 552.1-552.9 petitions for rulemaking, defect & noncompliance orders. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht91-1.42

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TO: John D. Dingell -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-10-90 from John D. Dingell to Jerry R. Curry; Also attached to letter dated 1-9-90 from Mehdi Rowghani to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani

TEXT:

Your letter of July 10, 1990 about the applicability of NHTSA's safety standards to replacement parts was misplaced. This is indeed unfortunate, embarrassing, and I can assure you extraordinary. You asked me to review an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter from our Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Rowghani, which indicated that Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, applies only to new vehicles, and not to doors sold as replacement parts.

In view of your concern about replacement parts, we have reviewed that interpretation, and our authority regarding replacement parts. Many of our safety standards apply only to complete vehicles, while others apply only to the individual components (whether original or replacement equipment). Some apply both to vehicles and to the components involved. Each of our standards includes an "Application" section, which clearly defines the scope of coverage, based on the nature of the safety issue and the vehicle/equipment items involved.

NHTSA's standards which apply to equipment (both original and replacement equipment) generally cover those types of items which can be used in many different vehicle lines, which are frequently replaced or sold separately, and which can be independently tested. These include such items as brake hoses (Standard 106), lamps and reflectors (Standard 108), tires (Standards 109, 117 and 119), windows and windshields (Standard 205), safety belt assemblies (Standard 209), child safety seats (Standard 213), and motorcycle safety helmets (Standard 218). Other safety systems require testing in a full-vehicle context, and our safety standards are applied to the vehicle rather than the component. Examples include brake performance (Standards 105 and 121), occupant crash protection (Standard 208), head restraints (Standard 202) and roof-crush resistance (Standard 216), as well as side-door strength.

As noted in the April 9 letter, Standard 214 applies only to whole cars, not to replacement parts, as stated in the application section (see S2 of Standard 214, copy enclosed). While most manufacturers have chosen to meet the Standard by adding reinforcement beams, we are aware of at least one vehicle (a gray-market imported Mercedes-Benz) which passed the standard's compliance test without such a beam. Further, while intuitively it seems that doors without a reinforcement beam are not as safe as ones with a beam, efforts to document a safety problem have been unsuccessful.

The current compliance procedures specify testing a door as part of a new vehicle (see S4 of Standard 214), since it does not appear feasible to specify an appropriate procedure for testing an individual new door (whether original or replacement) by itself. The reason for this is that a door's performance in resisting intrusion is dependent not only on the structure of the door itself, but also other factors such as the vehicle frame into which the door fits, and the hinges and latches which hold the door in place within the frame. In addition, vehicle seats may help resist intrusion and protect occupants. The current standard reflects these factors.

While the current standard does not apply to replacement doors, NHTSA has full authority to pursue any alleged safety problems with doors or any other vehicle components under the "defects" provision of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that certain replacement doors presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, the agency could order the manufacturer of such doors to repair or replace such doors. At the present time, however, we are not aware of a safety problem with replacement doors that would warrant the commencement of a defects investigation.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of vehicle parts and hope this information is helpful. For further discussion of the legal issues regarding the applicability of standards, your staff should feel free to contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at 366-9511.

ID: nht91-1.43

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Sidney A. Garrett -- President, Brown Cargo Van Inc.

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sidney A. Garrett (A37; Std. 108)); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 rom Stephen P. Wood to J. Douglas Smith (Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturers of truck van bodies and need an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically we need an interpretation of the location of the front identification and clearance lamps.

The three amber identification lamps are to be attached at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. The two amber clearance lamps, indicating overall width, are to be attached at the same height, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as near the top as practicable.

Our question is if the truck cab comes with all five amber lamps mounted on its top as in Exhibit 1, does this meet the standard and therefore we do not need to install additional lamps? If this does not meet the standard, then we need to know if either Exhibit 2, with only the clearance lamps attached to the van body, or Exhibit 3, with both clearance lamps and identification lamps attached to the van body, meets the standard.

We are trying to minimize our costs and do not want to install unnecessary lamps as long as we are meeting all safety standards. Also, we are in the process of redesigning the front of our van bodies and would like to have the answer to our question as soon as possible so that our engineers can proceed.

If you need any additional information, please contact me at 800-255-6827.

Attachment

Photos of a cargo van (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-1.44

DATE: February 19, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Walter E. Gundaker -- Acting Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-26-90 from Walter E. Gundaker to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5576)

TEXT:

This responds to your December 26, 1990 letter concerning mechanical hand and foot driving controls. These controls are intended to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to drive a motor vehicle. In your letter you stated that, because these controls raise questions regarding motor vehicle safety, your agency would like to revoke their present classification as a class II medical device. However, before you do this, you would "need assurances that these driving controls for handicapped persons do fall in the jurisdiction of NHTSA and that significant complaints of malfunction would be investigated by NHTSA." The following is a summary of our statutory authority in this area.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The driving controls that are the subject of your letter would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of the Safety Act. However, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for controls for disabled drivers. Obviously, these controls could not be determined to be in noncompliance with a safety standard if there is no applicable safety standard.

Another possible source of authority for NHTSA would be S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies that, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This statutory prohibition would be violated if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installed a mechanical hand or foot driving control so as to "render inoperative" any of the elements of design installed in the original vehicle in compliance with one of our safety standards. However, when NHTSA has been asked about this in the past, the agency has generally stated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act against dealers or repair shops when a particular vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability.

Finally, the agency has authority to investigate allegations that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as these controls, contain defects related to motor vehicle safety, and to order the equipment manufacturer to notify owners and to remedy without charge any items of equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, as provided in sections

151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420). If there were indications that these controls contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would investigate and take appropriate actions. Of course, as with any investigation of alleged safety-related defects, the outcome would depend on the facts of the specific investigation.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.