ID: nht91-2.48

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Dan P. Strauser -- Manager, Research and Development, Elgin Sweeper Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dan P. Strauser (A37; VSA 102(3)

TEXT:

I would ask that you review the enclosed literature on Elgin Sweeper model Whirlwind, Crosswind and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, along with Pelican "SE" and Pelican "P", 3-wheel street sweepers. I am also enclosing literature from our sister division Ravo, Models 4000 and 5000 street sweepers.

I would like a letter of interpretation on the above models.

We would also be interested in determining what the criteria is for sweepers classified as falling under the FMVSS requirements.

If additional information is required, please call me at (708) 741-5370.

ID: nht91-2.49

DATE: March 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jessie M. Flautt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Jessie M. Flautt to Steven Kratzske (OCC 5813)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, S108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute

enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

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.

ID: nht91-2.5

DATE: February 28, 1991

FROM: Z. Taylor Vinson -- Senior Staff Attorney, NHTSA

TO: Files: Interps. Std. 108; Redbook (3)

TITLE: Re Interpretation Letter to Oshkosh

TEXT:

On February 14, 1991, John Calow, Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corp. (414-255-9151 ext. 2038) telephoned me about the agency's letter of January 16, 1991, with respect to override of the stop signal by the turn signal.

Our letter assumed that turn signals and hazard warning signals (which operate through the turn signal lamps) have a common circuit, and implied that the hazard signals must also override the stop signals when stop signals are optically combined with turn signals. Mr. Calow asked whether the override would be required if the hazard signal were on a separate circuit. I informed him that the override would not be required because the SAE requirement relates only to turn signal lamps.

ID: nht91-2.50

DATE: March 26, 1991

FROM: Eric G. Hoffman -- Russell & Hoffman Incorporated

TO: Harry Thompson -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re: NEF 32; National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 49CFR, Chapter V, Subpart A-571 (the "Act")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Eric G. Hoffman (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This firm represents a private school which operates and/or rents mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers.

The school has become aware of the Act and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with the applicable regulations under the Act. We would appreciate your providing us: (1) guidance as to the continuing effect of this Act; (2) the procedures for obtaining a variance from the regulations of the Act under certain circumstances; (3) the procedures regarding modification of any non-complying vehicles; (4) the federal guidelines for the estimated cost of such modifications; (5) the terms of any grace period for modification of vehicles to bring them into compliance; (6) the applicable administrative entity charged with enforcement of the Act; and (7) any certification process for vehicles having been modified. To the extent any of the above are non-existent, please so advise us.

After your review of this letter, I would appreciate your contacting me at your earliest convenience to further discuss this matter.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

ID: nht91-2.51

DATE: March 27, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Earl C. Lempke -- President, Delavan Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Earl C. Lempke to Taylor Vinson (OCC 5720)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked whether there is "any Federal ruling stating that Trailer Clearance Lights are considered as Safety Equipment and as such are not be be included as part of the overall width of the vehicle." You have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 323.20, the clearance lamp regulation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the observation that this section does not answer the question.

I am pleased to clarify this situation for you. As the FHWA regulation states, "Clearance lamps shall be mounted so as to indicate the extreme width of the motor vehicle . . . ." This requirement is virtually identical to that in Table II of this agency's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." In 1976, NHTSA issued an interpretation that was published in the Federal Register on August 23 of that year stating that "The term 'overall width' refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . marker lamps" such as clearance lamps. I enclose a copy for your information.

The FHWA concurs with this interpretation, and has provided us with some additional comments. Federal width limits apply only on the National Network highways (23 CFR 658, Section A). The width of commercial trailers operated on these highways is to be measured across the sidemost load carrying structures, support members, and structural fasteners, as stated in an interpretation published on March 13, 1987, a copy of which I enclose. That proceeding also determined that side marker lamps and any other "non load-carrying safety appurtenance" which extended beyond these limits were excluded from width measurements. This would include clearance lamps, and thus exclude them also from width measurements. In December 1989, FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to consider if a new approach should be adopted to determine which devices to exclude from measurements of vehicle length and width. I also enclose a copy of that notice. FHWA advises that its next notice on the subject should be issued soon.

Although under FHWA regulations, the States determine whether safety equipment is to be excluded from the measurement of vehicle width, we believe that the State determination must be identical to the NHTSA position. Federal law (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibits a State from enacting or maintaining in effect any regulation covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal requirement. We believe that a State must also interpret an identical regulation in a manner identical to NHTSA's

interpretation.

Attachment

Copy of a portion of the Federal Register dated 8-23-76 regarding "overall width". (Text omitted)

Copy of FHWA interpretation dated 3-13-87, regarding 23 CFR Part 658, truck length and width exclusive devices. (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-2.6

DATE: March 1, 1991

FROM: Stanley L. Dembecki

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- National Highway Safety Administration Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stanley L. Dembecki (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It was suggested by Roman Brooks that we write and tell you of the advancement we have made to the third safety brake light.

Our "Flashin" safety brake light is at least AS SAFE as those presently on the OEM market since 1986. People who have helped in testing our complete unit on the 1984 and older vehicles and the electronic modules as retrofits on the 1986 and newer vehicles have testified that our "Flashin" third brake light is actually SAFER due to it's momentary flashing just before the full third brake light goes on. This function is repeated every time the brake is applied.

All those who have volunteered to have the brake light installed have testified that they have been approached as to where to purchase this brake light and complimented us on the added safety it gives especially in the bright Arizona sunlight. We are also in contact with one of the large OEM's at this time and they are very interested in our product.

We have conformed to all regulations and standards that had to be met by all the manufacturers of the third brake light. We also have a built-in safety factor in the "Flashin" safety brake light in that should the flashing unit malfunction the full brake light still comes on as do present third brake lights.

We have four prototypes as listed:

Complete single bulb unit for 1984 and older vehicles.

Complete two bulb unit for 1984 and older vehicles.

Single electronic modules for all third safety brake lights as retrofits through 1991.

Two bulb electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.

Enclosed is a copy of the abstract submitted recently for patent approval. We are about ready to work with a sub-contractor to manufacture our "Flashin" third safety brake light.

The Arizona Department of Transportation has suggested we contact your office for evaluation if in fact this light needs further evaluation. Since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed. If

more information is needed do not hesitate to contact us.

Please let us hear from you within the next two weeks. Thank you.

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A safety brake light assembly is disclosed which, when the brake system is activated, results in a changing illumination for an initial period. Once the initial period is ended, the illumination of the safety brake system is maintained with unchanging illumination. When the brake system is no longer activated, then the illumination is no longer present. In the preferred embodiment, the safety brake light assembly includes two illumination units in a side-by-side configuration. During the initial period, the illumination units are alternately illuminated.

ID: nht91-2.7

DATE: March 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William A. Batten -- Eaton Corporation, Truck Components Operations

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-28-90 from William A. Batten to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5517)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's "applicable mileage requirement or time domain" for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard.

Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. 124, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard.

In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections 151-154 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No 124 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new.

I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-2.8

DATE: March 4, 1991

FROM: John E. Calow -- Sr. Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Chassis Division

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Gary Schmiedel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A37; Std. 105; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Oshkosh Chassis Division (OCD) is submitting this letter for a written interpretation of FMVSS 105 with regard to Parking Brake actuation times.

It is OCD's understanding that there is no requirement for Parking Brake actuation times of hydraulic brake systems. This is based upon information attained from reference material 49 CFR 571.105.

OCD would appreciate a written affirmation or denial of our understanding of Parking Brake actuation times.

Thank you for your time.

ID: nht91-2.9

DATE: March 5, 1991

FROM: Binichi Doi -- NSK Representative, NSK Corporation

TO: Mr. Kratzke -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Safety Belt Labelling

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Binichi Doi (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

This request for ruling is per our telephone communication on March 1, 1991. On March 1, you were kind enough to listen to my rather poorly composed explanation of the situation. Briefly, the problem is as follows:

1. NSK's safety belts which in this subject case are symmetrical in construction for LH and RH seats of vehicles in that both are made of the same material/part composition.

2. If these belts go into regular passenger cars for export to this market, the belt for LH seats would have a switch for restraint system display whereas RH belts have no switch, however, the subject vehicle type is that it sometimes is used for mail delivery. In such case RH belts should have the switch also.

3. Model nos. of LH belts and RH belts are different from each other because of presence/nonpresence of the switch. Therefore, if we are to cover the limited case of "mail delivery" applications separately from regular passenger cars we need to prepare two separate labels for RH belts, one showing a model no. indicating a belt with a switch and another without although these belts are exactly the same in all aspects other than the switch.

4. We would like to receive your ruling whether one type label showing both belt model nos. with and without switch can be attached to all RH seat belts shipped from us to our customer, auto manufacturer, who produces this subject model vehicles.

5. As for the necessary identification of belts for mail delivery vehicle applications the presence of a switch on a belt for RH seats should clearly indicate to car manufacturers that it be installed in mail delivery vehicles and as for the test report for certification, which in our case is prepared by the US Testing Lab, it would indicate that the subject RH seat belt would carry a label with two belt model nos., one for a belt with the switch and the other without the switch.

Hoping that the above explanation is sufficient in explaining the reason for our request for your ruling and looking forward to hearing from your office as soon as possible.

P.S. - If further clarification is needed please contact me at 1-800-521-0605 in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

ID: nht91-3.1

DATE: March 27, 1991

FROM: James E. Rooks, Jr. -- Staff Attorney, Association of Trial Lawyers of America

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to James E. Rooks, Jr. (A37; Std. 205; Std. 212; Std. 216; VSA 108(a)(1)(a); VSA 108 (a)(2))

TEXT:

In conjunction with a research project I am completing, I am writing to request a clarification of a NHTSA position.

I am attaching a copy of a "Legal Advisory" column that appeared in Glass magazine for November 1986. There the general counsel of the National Glass Association (NGA) wrote that NHTSA's chief counsel had advised NGA "that federal windshield safety standards are not applicable to replace- ment windshield installations once vehicles have left their new car dealers' lots." He goes on to state that "no kind or amount of work on a damaged windshield renders it inoperable in violation of federal law (because) it is the original damage to the windshield... that renders the windshield inoperable -- not the company that repairs or replaces the already damaged windshield." Presumably the provision of federal law referred to is Section 1397(a)(2)A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

I would appreciate knowing the following:

1. Whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 212 and 216;

2. Whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to the cited "render inoperable" provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended; and

3. Whether these positions have yet been tested in court; if so, what court, and what was the ruling?

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. The deadline for my research is Friday, March 29, 1991. I would appreciate it a great deal if I could receive a response as soon as possible.

Any written response may be sent by facsimile to 202-342-5484.

Attachment

Article from "Legal Advisory" by Jerald Jacobs entitled Urethane Versus Butyl Windshield Replacement; Must Urethane be used for windshield replacement? What are the legal consequences? (Text omitted)