ID: nht91-3.15

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Vicki Haudler

TO: Mr. Kratzke

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Vicki Haudler (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am currently a second year law student from Mpls., MN. As part of my law school education requirements, I am writing a paper for an evidence Seminar class. My topic is the treatment of seat belt non use evidence in civil litigation. In support of my argument that seat belt evidence is relevant to questions of proximate cause, comparative fault and damages, and therefore should be admissible; I've obtained a copy of the rule promulgated by NHTSA, regarding Fed. Motor Vehicle Standards (49 CFR 57 Subordinate section S4.1.5 of 571.208 entitled "Mandatory seat belt use laws". It states that IF the Sec. of Transp. determines no later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory seat belt laws have been enacted by two-thirds of the 50 states, then each passenger car manufactured after the date of the Secretary's determination must comply with certain federal requirements.

My question is, has the Secretary made that determination and if so, where can I find a copy of this determination? The only amendment to 571.208 occurred in Feb. of 1991 and concerns only "Hybrid II testing" on test dummies. (Fed. Register Vol. 56, No. 40, 8282).

I know this would be a perfect research assignment but I'm running out of time and our law librarians have been of little help. So that's why I've decided to write directly.

I'm giving an oral presentation on my paper on May 2nd and I'm sure I'll be asked about this so I'd like to be prepared.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation - it will be much appreciated!

P.S. I've enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.

ID: nht91-3.16

DATE: April 10, 1991

FROM: Julia D. Darlow -- Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Julia D. Darlow (A37; VSA Sec. 108(b); Sec. 1397(a)(1)(A))

TEXT:

This letter requests your advice concerning a course of action that a client of this firm proposes with respect to Section 1397 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1397.

Recently, we discussed our client's proposed course of action on a hypothetical basis with Mr. Taylor Vincent of NHTSA and were encouraged by Mr. Vincent's preliminary analysis of the propriety of this course of conduct. Mr. Vincent advised that formal confirmation of NHTSA's position could be sought from the Chief Counsel. Accordingly, we ask that you provide us with a ruling on the propriety of the following course of conduct under Section 1397.

Our client (the "Importer") imports certain automotive after-market equipment ("Products") that does not meet certain applicable United States federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Importer currently exports these products directly to Canada. The products are warehoused in the United States prior to delivery to Canada but are not resold in the United States.

A potential customer of the Importer located in the United States wishes to purchase Products from the Importer and itself export those Products to Canada. The customer is willing to enter into a written contract with Importer pursuant to which it promises not to sell the Products in the United States but only to export them to Canada. The Products and the outside of the containers in which they are shipped to the customer will be labeled as intended solely for export, as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1397(b)(5). Pursuant to the written agreement, the customer will provide confirmation of export of the Products to Importer.

To the best knowledge of Importer, the proposed course of action involves no ruse or subterfuge to avoid any requirement imposed by the Act. To the contrary, our client intends that the Products be imported and sold solely for export and has no reason to doubt its customer's intentions.

As you know, Section 1397(a)(1)(A) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce or importing into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in conformity with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, except as provided in subsection (b). Section 1397(b)(5) provides that the prohibition shall not apply to an item of motor vehicle equipment that is intended solely for export and so labeled or tagged on the item itself and on the outside of the container in which it is exported.

Based on the facts as outlined above, we believe that the Importer's proposed sale of the Products to its customer would not be a violation of Section 1397(a)(1)(A) of the Act, because it would conform to the exception set forth in Section 1397(b)(5).

We respectfully request that you issue your written opinion that the Importer's proposed importation and sale of motor vehicles to its customer as outlined in this letter will not violate Section 1397(a)(1)(A).

If you require further information in connection with this request, please let us know as soon as possible. Because our client hopes to implement its proposed arrangements as soon as possible, your early response would be particularly appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.17

DATE: April 10, 1991

FROM: Chris Lawrence -- Chang & Lawrence

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chris Lawrence (A37; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2))

TEXT:

Thanks for your response to my letter of January 5 to Dr. Burgett of NHTSA. You responded that rear mounting of the electric sign board would not be permissible--does this mean that you would not object to mounting the board in a side window?

Also, what other regulatory bodies need to be consulted before product marketing for a side-mounted sign board can begin?

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.18

DATE: April 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerald L. Mikesell -- Assistant Superintendent, Sierra Vista Public Schools, District Administration Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Jerald L. Mikesell, to Erika Z. Jones(OCC 5874)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1991 requesting "a copy of the federal regulations regarding school vans being used for transporting students." Your letter notes that you "are especially interested in the number of students which can be transported before a van is considered a school bus."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. The capacity of a van used to transport students will determine whether the van is considered a "school bus" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" under Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Given the wording of your letter, I emphasize that it is the capacity of vehicle, not the number of students actually transported, which determines whether a vehicle is a school bus. NHTSA defines "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 10 persons or less constructed on a truck chassis.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacturer or sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

To determine whether your school district may USE a vehicle other than a school bus to transport school children, you must look to state law. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of motor vehicles. In addition, use of vehicles other than school buses could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

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

ID: nht91-3.19

DATE: April 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-19-91 from Howard "Mac" Dashney to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5739)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR S571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210;

Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR S571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR S571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation" (49 CFR S571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR S571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

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

ID: nht91-3.2

DATE: March 28, 1991

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

TO: Scott Shadle -- Supervisor, Vehicle Certification, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Derating of Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (A37; Part 567)

TEXT:

Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc. (MFTA), is the importer and distributor of trucks as incomplete vehicles manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC Japan has asked Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. (MMA), the liaison between MFTA and MMC Japan, to make the following request on their behalf.

MMC is considering derating the GVW of the trucks imported for the purpose of marketing strategy.

In this case, the brake system will not be modified and the vehicle should be in compliance with FMVSS 105 requirements. MMC would supply the new VIN plates with the derated GVW and have MFTA replace the old ones with the new ones.

We expect this kind of modification is such an implementation that has to meet with official approval. At this time, we are asking you for your approval of this modification.

If there are any additional questions you have regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609)467-4664.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.20

DATE: April 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard F. Land -- Bureau of Manpower and Facilities, Tennessee Department of Health and Environment

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-12-91 from Richard F. Land to Deidre Fujita (OCC 5745)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 12, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning the ambulance fleet you recently inspected. Each ambulance had a wooden block mounted under the accelerator pedal to limit the driver's ability to accelerate the vehicle. You state that Tennessee law does not prohibit installation of these "makeshift speed governors." However, you would like to know whether NHTSA's requirements would prohibit installation of the blocks.

The answer to your question is no. In a March 26 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you said that the blocks were installed by the ambulance owner. Our standards do not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle.

If the blocks were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, certain requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any person in the aforementioned categories from knowingly "render(ing) inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with an FMVSS. However, there would be no rendering inoperative of compliance with the FMVSS for accelerator control systems (FMVSS 124) in the situation you described, because that FMVSS does not establish requirements for accelerator pedal actuation. Of course, the installation of the block must not have rendered inoperative compliant equipment or designs on the vehicle that were installed pursuant to other safety standards. For example, the block must not interfere with the vehicle's braking ability.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Attachment

NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 titled, WHERE TO OBTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-3.21

DATE: April 15, 1991

FROM: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Danny J. Pugh (A38; Std. 206; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 210)

TEXT:

This letter is seeking an interpretation on police vehicle's for the transportation of prisoners and the requirements for safety belts FMVSS 207, 208 and 210 in the prisoner area and door hardware FMVSS 206.

Are police vehicle's required to have seatbelts for prisoners?, if so, what type is required (Type I Lap or Type II 3-Point)? Does this also affect side facing seats?

To insure that prisoners cannot escape from the vehicle, the police market has requested camlock door hardware on rear and side doors. Does this need to meet FMVSS 206?

ID: nht91-3.22

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Keith Salsman -- Independent Inventor

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsul, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert York

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Keith Salsman (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am an independent inventor seeking a Letter of Interpretation concerning a type of brake light which I have spent several years working on and currently have patent pending status. During that time I have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, inventor contact for NHTSA, and more recently Mr. Dick Stromboten who replaced him due to his retirement. I have also talked briefly with Kevin Cavey.

The brake light device, which I call the Braking Intensity Array, is a high mount brake light designed to effectively alert a following car as to the braking status of the forward car. The light is an array of lights that light up first in the center, exactly as the current high mount brake lights, in response to any pressure on the brake pedal. However, if any actual braking occurs then the lights on either side of the center lights will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force, the lights next to them under a stronger braking force, the next lights under an even stronger braking force, and the outer most lights lighting only under a very strong braking force such as emergency braking. Thus the light lights in both directions from the center. Research has indicated that this is very easily interpreted by someone completely unfamiliar with the device.

During the developmental process I have tried to insure absolute compliance with any rule, regulation, or past safety concern. The center lights of the array are wired directly to the current brake light switch and will comply with the regulations on high mount brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations 571 section 108. The rest of the array is controlled by a separate device which is also connected to the brake switch and will not operate independently. There are fail safe measures to insure that the light will always operate the same regardless of vehicle incline or speed. In addition, as per Dr. Clark's suggestions, the light's response time to various braking forces will be very close to 3 milliseconds which is quick enough to give the light "Real Value" and not just "Perceived Value".

In the past year I have approached several companies with my idea. Most are interested but unwilling to pursue anything because of what they called "too much government involvement" to overcome. Recently NAPA Auto Parts has expressed a keen interest, as well as TRUCK-LITE. Mr. Robert York of TRUCK-LITE has sent me an honest non-disclosure agreement and has given a favorable response. He told me that he will send a Request for a Letter of Interpretation as well. However, since he has signed a non-disclosure it is difficult for him to be specific. Therefore, I have submitted this request in addition to his.

The General Estimates System of the Department of Transportation has on record in 1988 a total of 6,875,500 Police Reported Roadway Accidents. A total of 1,622,000 were reported as Rear End Collisions. Many more of these roadway accidents could be of a secondary nature to a Rear End Collision, for example, a vehicle swerved to avoid a rear end collision and struck another object. Approximately 500,000 of the Rear End Collisions involved minor or moderate injury and 1,962 involved fatalities. The most common injury involved spinal trauma or whiplash. This injury usually persists long after the accident. High-mount headrests are installed as a safety feature now to avoid this.

A great majority of these Rear End Collisions occurred in our cities during periods of heavy traffic causing traffic jams and lost working hours. As the traffic continues to increase in the cities and urban areas, we can expect the number of such rear end collisions to increase substantially.

The following articles of the Department of Transportation Code of Federal Regulations on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment are concerned with high-mount brake lights. In S2, article 571.08, it states:

Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.

In S5.1.1.27 of the same article, it states:

Each passenger car manufacture on or after September 1,1985, shall be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp which: a) Shall have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

b) Shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

c) Shall have a the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10.

d) Need not meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.1.6 Moisture, 3.1.7 Dust Test and 3.1.8 Corrosion Test of SAE Recommended Practice J186a if it is mounted inside the vehicle. e) Shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools.

In S5.3.1.8: Each high-mounted stop lamp shall be mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the

rear. The lamp may be mounted at any position on the centerline, including the glazing. If the lamp is mounted inside the vehicle, means shall be provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.

In S5.4.1:

Two or more lamps, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp and no high-mounted stop shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

In S5.5.4:

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

In S5.5.10:

b) High-mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1986, may flash when the hazard warning system is activated.

These are all references to high-mounted brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations.

I respectfully submit that my Braking Intensity Array can be manufactured according to the regulations on high-mounted brake lights, and if so manufactured would not violate any of those rules or regulations nor would it deviate from the spirit, intent, or purpose of the Federal Code of Regulations.

In conclusion the brake light described above should help to reduce rear end collisions by alerting the car behind as to the braking condition of the vehicle. Also in congested areas of traffic it will help to keep traffic flowing more smoothly. This is due to the overreaction of many drivers to the brake lights of the car ahead. In many cases a driver may rest his foot on the brake with no braking pressure, however the car following sees the brake light come on and applies some braking force. The next car applies even more force, and so on until traffic is forced to stop. As traffic continues to increase this problem will become greater. This has been recognized and there has been some work done to install computers in cars to alert the computer in the following car as to the braking condition. Why not give the driver the information first?

ID: nht91-3.23

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Danny J. Pugh (A37; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 210; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are updating our files on auxiliary seating such as temporary or folding jump seats. This will pertain to walk-in van type vehicles under and over 10,000 GVW.

Will jump seats be required to meet FMVSS 207, 208 and 210? Also, will they need Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side facing seats?

Your help with these questions will be appreciated.