ID: nht91-3.24

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Paul R. Kirchgraber -- Souvenirs of the Future

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request For Interpretation of Federal Standards Compliance

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul R. Kirchgraber (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a legal interpretation from your office on exactly which standards, if any, my firm needs to comply with in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover for on-road vehicular use. This tire cover is to be made from a new fabric that our company has developed which is both solar heat reflective and highly reflective of light (see enclosed).

We believe that when this cover is placed on the exterior mounted tire of a motor home, trailer, passenger van or four wheel drive, it will provide a significant safety enhancement by making the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic.

The THERMAL reflective characteristic of this tire cover currently has important use in the off-road motor car racing industry in that it helps keep the temperature of high performance racing tires at a constant level prior to race time. Because of the LIGHT reflective characteristics, we are also interested in adapting this product for on-road use as an external tire cover.

In order to offer this product for commercial sale, we want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard. I would be grateful if you would please cite any appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories.

ID: nht91-3.25

DATE: April 19, 1991

FROM: Andreas Geis -- Robert Bosch GMBH, Automotive Division

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, Effective: January 1, 1969. Loading State for developing (VISION) AREAS A,B,C.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Andreas Geis (A38; Std. 104); Also attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Kadoya

TEXT:

being a manufacturer of windshield wiper systems we are often required to develope the (Vision) Areas A,B,C as defined in FMVSS 104 S4.1.2.1 in conjunction with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

We know from developing other vision areas and it has been recognized by the SAE (see SAE J903c, Nov 1973, para. 3.1.1) that the loading state of the vehicle is not without influence on the position and size of the Vision Areas. Unfortunately neither FMVSS 104 nor the older SAE J903a, which FMVSS 104 refers to, make any mention of the loading state.

May we kindly ask you to inform us how this problem is normally handled? Is there perhaps a newer edition of FMVSS 104 or a preamble or a comment on this subject? Or is it left to the discretion of the manufacturer on which loading state he bases the development of the Vision Areas?

We would greatly appreciate your early reply.

ID: nht91-3.26

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kent Morris -- President, Memory Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Kent Morris to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5812)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, with reference to compliance of your product, the M-53 replica of the 1953-55 Corvette, with Federal regulations. You have also asked two specific questions which I shall answer first.

You report that Texas does not consider a "manufacturer" to include persons assembling vehicles with any used components, and you ask whether this is correct, and whether it matters "on a national basis". We are unable to advise you on Texas law. However, whether a person is a "manufacturer" under the laws that this agency administers is determined with reference to Federal statutory definitions and not State laws. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "manufacturer" is defined in pertinent part as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ." As no qualifier is used in the definition, a "manufacturer" is any person assembling more than one motor vehicle, whether or not the parts are new.

Your second question is whether production quantity has "any bearing on compliance with federal safety laws or emissions." We are unable to answer your question with respect to emissions, as relevant statutes and regulations are enforced by an agency outside the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency. However, production quantity is irrelevant to the obligation to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if only one vehicle per month is produced (such as the turnkey version of the M-53). Nevertheless, the Safety Act permits low-volume manufacturers (those producing 10,000 or less new motor vehicles a year) to petition for a temporary exemption of up to three years from any standard where immediate compliance would create a substantial economic hardship for the manufacturer.

Kit cars, especially those manufactured from a combination of new and previously used parts, have presented problems of interpretation for the agency from the beginning. The root of the difficulty is that Congress apparently did not consider this type of manufacturing operation when it promulgated the Safety Act, and we have had to use the authority that was provided us to fashion interpretations on an ad hoc basis as varied fact situations arise.

With respect to the M-53, you state that it is sold both as a "kit" and as a "turnkey." As a kit, the M-53 is sold as a rolling unit, and you have enclosed a list of "Donor Parts Necessary to complete the M-53", the items that the kit purchaser must furnish. As both a "kit" and a "turnkey", a

new fiberglass body is mounted on "a used chassis from a 1978-85 Chevrolet Monte Carlo", but one that is shortened and given new side rails. The Memory kit retains the existing rear axle assembly and front end components. On the turnkey, Memory installs a new engine and a used (but rebuilt) automatic transmission.

Under our interpretations, the kit M-53, lacking an engine, is an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, not a motor vehicle. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of this nature, or continue to apply to assemblage equipment items previously in use on the Monte Carlo that may have been refurbished for use on the M-53. Certain of the safety standards do apply to new equipment items. The standards that apply to components that appear to be used in the M-53 cover brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. Thus, if your company is fabricating (or causing to be fabricated) any of these items for the M-53 kit, they must meet Federal standards that apply to them. In general, items manufactured in the United States for sale in the aftermarket ought to comply with these standards. However, the windshield and other glazing for the M-53 will be newly fabricated and you must ensure that they comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. In addition, as the manufacturer of the assemblage, Memory is responsible for notification of owners should an item in the kit fail to comply with a Federal standard or if the assemblage contains a safety related defect, and for remedy of the noncompliance or defect. After a kit is sold, the person completing the assemblage into a motor vehicle is legally responsible for ensuring its compliance with the Federal safety standards that apply to passenger cars, if the motor vehicle appears to be "new", as subsequently discussed.

With respect to the "turnkey" vehicle, different considerations apply. The Safety Act states that Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) (which establishes the requirement that motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards) shall not apply to the sale, the offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). The basic legal question with respect to a turnkey kit car is whether it has so deviated from the original components (such as engine and chassis), and attributes (such as VIN and original registration) of a donor car that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a vehicle which has been previously purchased. For example, a kit car consisting of a new body on a used Volkswagen chassis, and which continues the original VW registration is considered to be a used vehicle, and one not required to conform to safety standards applicable to newly manufactured vehicles.

After review of this matter, we have decided that if the chassis of a donor vehicle has been modified to such an extent that it would no longer accept the original body, the chassis will be considered "new". Under your operation, the chassis is shortened, so that the original Monte Carlo body will no longer fit. Further, the body is new, and a new engine is used. The old Monte Carlo components retained include the rear axle

assembly and front end components. On balance, we believe that the M-53 turnkey is a "new" passenger car, and one that must comply with all today's safety standards, including the requirement for automatic restraint systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you. We appreciate your efforts to determine your responsibilities.

ID: nht91-3.27

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991, to the Administrator attaching a copy of a letter dated December 14, 1990, and commenting that you hadn't received a response to it. The reason you didn't receive a response to the letter is that the agency has no record of receiving it.

Your letter requests a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for an electric minibus currently being operated in Allentown, Pa. The temporary exemptions granted by this agency are not retroactive, and cover only vehicles manufactured on and after the date of grant. Thus, it is not legally possible to exempt a vehicle after its manufacture. In the event Electric Vehicles, S.A., might be interested in obtaining exemptions for future vehicles, I enclose a copy of the agency's regulation on temporary exemptions, 49 CFR Part 555, as your letter of December 14 was not adequate for this purpose.

Our importation regulations make an exception from compliance for the importation of vehicles that are used for demonstration projects such as the one you have outlined in your letter. Under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported for a period of up to 5 years (and longer, if the Administrator grants a request for an extension) if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." According to your letter, your electric bus is being used as part of a joint test and evaluation program between your company, a regional transportation authority, a State energy office, and a public utility. The importation of the bus for this use is within these exceptions to compliance. This exception would appear to cover the importation of any further electric minibuses imported for the same purpose, provided that the information specified in section 591.5(g) is supplied.

ID: nht91-3.28

DATE: April 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. White -- Manager, Reliability, Grumman Olson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-91 from David A. White to Associated Administrator For Enforcement, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your "notification of noncompliance" with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, 1991, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned "to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential", and are "seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a "defect". The Act defines a defect as a "defect in performance, construction, components or materials." Clearly this does not exist.

In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur.

ID: nht91-3.29

DATE: April 26, 1991

FROM: John Marcum -- Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A38; Part 591; VSA S108(j))

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of 22 April, 1991 concerning EVSA's request for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for its prototype electric minibus. I understand that the exemption is not possible since it was requested after the vehicle was manufactured.

As you point out, however, this imported minibus is evidently exempted from compliance for up to 5 years since it is being used for "research, investigations studies or demonstrations or training". The "research, investigations and studies" references seems clear enough, but I would appreciate clarification as to whether "demonstration and training" can include the carrying of passengers for demonstration and evaluation services. If so, are there any special conditions that must be observed. For example, could the passengers pay for the rides or should the rides be free? Is there a limit as to the length of time during which the passenger demonstration phase is scheduled?

We are reviewing the regulations you sent us and will provide any further information that may be needed.

ID: nht91-3.3

DATE: March 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gregory J. Vonderheide -- Vice President Sales, Markets Unlimited Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Gregory J. Vonderheide to NHTSA (OCC 5835)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, asking for the "application(s) necessary for the Department of Transportation approval of a new product." The product is described only as a "Safety Light."

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment, and which must be met by the manufacturers of any vehicles or equipment to which the standards apply.

Unless your product is intended to replace an existing light found on motor vehicles, it would not appear to be directly covered by Standard No. 108, which establishes Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting. If indeed it is intended as an additional light, under Standard No. 108 supplementary lighting equipment is permissible as original equipment on motor vehicles provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Supplementary lighting equipment is also permissible under the Act for vehicles in use, provided its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render wholly or partially inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Without knowing more of your device, we can provide you only this general guidance.

The use of equipment on bicycles is under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Md. and we are unable to advise you of their requirements.

The use of supplementary lighting equipment is also regulated by the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

ID: nht91-3.30

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-28-91 from Takeo Wakamatsu to Scott Shadle (OCC 5897)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht91-3.31

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: George D. Powley -- Project Engineer, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS NO. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Interpretation and/or petition for Orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George D. Powley (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like your advice regarding the orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps. We are contemplating the future production of a 2A1 type sealed beam with a contact blade orientation differing from that shown in SAE Standard J571, fig. 6 "type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit 4 x 6 1/2 in. (100 x 165 mm) rectangular unit" (Attachment A), which establishes a blade orientation that we will describe as being rotated 148 degrees 54' in the clockwise direction from the orientation established for a "type 2B sealed beam headlamp 142 x 200 mm" as shown in fig. 1 of SAE Standard J1132 (Attachment B).

We would like to produce both a large rectangular 2B1 and a small rectangular 2A1 using the same blade orientation. Specifically, we would propose to use the 2B1 orientation on the 2A1 unit. We wish to stress that the electrical function of each terminal in all cases would conform to the appropriate specification, and all the dimensional requirements, other than the "31 degrees 06' " orientation for the 2A1, would be adhered to on both products.

We do not feel that this proposed electrical contact orientation will in any way adversely effect the lamps performance or its ability to interchange with existing lamps in motor vehicles presently in the field.

We have observed that Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., of Japan is apparently presently marketing a 2A1 glass sealed beam unit with a non-standard blade orientation, and it is worthy of note that our proposed orientation differs from theirs only in that our terminal pattern would be rotated 180 degrees from theirs with respect to the top of the lamp.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact the writer at (716) 665-6214 Extension 231.

Attachments

Attachment A

Figure 6 Type 2A Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit 4 x 6 1/2 in (100 x 165 mm) Rectangular Unit (Text and graphics omitted)

Attachment B

SAE Recommended Practice 142 x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit -- SAE J1132

Figure 1 Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp 142 x 200 mm (5.6 x 7.9 in) Rectangular Unit

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-3.32

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric G. Hoffman -- Russell & Hoffman, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-91 from Eric G. Hoffman to Harry Thompson (OCC 5892)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991, addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of "mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers." Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. 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. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law.

Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents 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.