NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht95-6.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: William Meurer -- President, Green Motorworks

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WILLIAM MEURER (PART 591; RED BOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Our firm has been selected to be the Agent for Service of Process and the United States importer for the Norwegian electric vehicle manufacturer PIVCO AS. Attached please find the original document affirming our designation and acceptance as agent for process.

As you requested, I attach herewith the Statement of Work and the BART Executive Summary which summarize the demonstration program that we will be administering. Five (5) separate California and U.S. agencies have united to provide funding for this project as a prelude to the development of manufacturing of the PIVCO City Bee EV in California. We seek to import the first 12 vehicles under section 591.5(J) and the subsequent 28 vehicles will be fully compliant. The actions we request are:

1) Please withdraw our previous request for a temporary exemption at this time.

2) Permission to import twelve (12) City Bee electric vehicles under CFR section 591.5(J).

3) A waiver from section 591.7(C) which would then allow us to operate these vehicles on the public roadways.

These vehicles will be fully insured and used by a control group of drivers to evaluate the various aspects of this demonstration project. It is vital that these vehicles be allowed to operate on public roads in order to demonstrate the station car concept as proposed in this program. After the two year demonstration project is completed, the non-FMVSS compliant vehicles will either be destroyed or exported under section 591.5(J)(3).

The testing of these electric cars is in the public interest because of the development of a zero emission vehicle and the near term creation of the U.S. manufacturing of it. Attached herewith is the letter of intent between CALSTART and PIVCO defining the goals and stipulations of this collaboration.

Our first shipment of eight (8) vehicles will leave Oslo, Norway on August 30, 1995. I greatly appreciate your prompt attention to our request. Thank-you.

attachments: Letter assigning Agent for Service of Process, Statement of Work, BART Executive Summary, Vehicle Specifications, CALSTART Letter to PIVCO.

Enclosure 1

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590 USA

Oslo, 9 June 1995

Dear Mr. Administrator:

PIVCO AS hereby designates Green Motorworks, Inc. as our United States agent upon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made on our behalf as provided in section 110(e) of the national Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718) and in section 551.45 of the code of Federal Regulations.

PIVCO AS is the manufacturer of the CITY BEE electric vehicle and is located at: PIVCO AS Stanseveien 4 0975 Oslo Norway tel: + 47 22 25 20 50 fax: + 47 22 25 41 20

Our agent for service of process is: Green Motorworks, Inc. 5228 vineland Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91601 tel: (818) 766 3800 fax: (818) 766 3969

Sincerely yours,

PIVCO AS

Jan-Otto Kingdal Manufacturer

Accepted for Green Motorworks, Inc. William Meurer, President Date 6/9/95

Enclosure 2

Statement of Work

The San Francisco Bay Area Station Car Demonstration

Summary:

Green Motorworks, Inc. (GMW) is the United States Importer and Agent for Service of Process for PIVCO AS, Norway. In the context of the San Francisco Bay Area Station Car Demonstration, GMW will act as the leasing agent to BART and administer the deployment of all vehicles in the program.

BART will enter into a lease agreement with Green Motorworks, Inc. (GMW) to provide 40 electric station cars for a 24 month period. GMW will provide insurance, NHTSA compliance, driver training, vehicle maintenance and complete towing & repair services.

Three vehicles will be held in reserve for a spare for any of the users. Each user will be charged between $ 100 to $ 150 per month per vehicle depending on the extent of use. GMW reserves the right to modify the monthly charge at its discretion.

Purpose:

The purpose of this program is to assess the visability of station cars in use for both home to transit, transit to work, and company pool applications. Vehicle operational costs, user price sensitivity, corporate support, multi-user program viability and vehicle technical assets and failings will be evaluated.

Overview of Vehicle Roll Out Phases

PHASE I, October 1995: Ashby & BART Headquarters

GMW will deliver 12 PIVCO City Bee electric cars. These cars will be the European version which meets all European standards and has a top speed of 40-50 mph.

The cars stationed at the Ashby BART station will be offered to employees of Sybase Systems and Ashby area residents. GMW will administer the user agreements in coordination with the City of Emeryville Projects Coordinator Ignacio Dayrit, Sybase systems and BART Project Manager Victoria Nerenberg.

October 15, 1995: (8) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 5 user cars Site # 2: BART Oakland 2 cars to be used for testing & Police Dept. Headquarters Program Office: Alameda Naval Air 1 spare car Station

December 15, 1995: (4) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 4 cars to add to fleet

PHASE II, Summer 1996: Ashby, Walnut Creek & Colma

GMW will deliver 28 cars with upgraded U.S. manufactured drive trains that will allow these vehicles to reach freeway speeds. These vehicles will be fully compliant with all 1996 NHTSA FMVSS safety requirements. All of these vehicles will be equipped with air-conditioning.

Summer 1996: (28) PIVCO EVs

Site # 1: Ashby BART Station 10 user cars Site # 3: Walnut Creek BART Station 8 user cars Site # 4: Colma BART Station 8 user cars & 1 spare car Program Office: Alameda Naval Air Station 1 spare car

Ashby- 11 vehicles delivered to increase fleet to 20. Applications for people requiring a vehicle for a transit to home location commute will be sought. One vehicle to held as spare.

Walnut Creek- BART & PG&E Employees will utilize 8 vehicles stationed at the Walnut Creek BART Station. The cars will be used to demonstrate the commute between the station to home, and the station to workplace.

Colma- GMW will deploy 8 cars to be stationed at the Colma BART station. The vehicles will be used by BART and PG&E employees.

Scope of Services

Vehicle Importation & Validation: GMW will administer the importation of all vehicles to the Port of Oakland, perform pre-delivery inspection and cycle battery systems for proper operation. All data acquisition systems will be installed by PG&E or CALSTART. GMW will prepare and provide to BART all data required by the funding sources.

Administration: William Meurer will serve as the 'Operations Manager' who will be responsible for the following areas: 1) All areas of program 2) Selection of drivers and processing of paperwork. 3) Training and success of drivers. 4) Supervision of Vehicle Service Supervisor 5) Supervision of outside vendors.

GMW will hire a 'Vehicle Service Supervisor' who will work out of space leased with other CALSTART participants at the Alameda Naval Air Station. GMW will provide a gas-powered mobile service/tow vehicle for supervisor. The supervisor will have both a cellular phone and a beeper. A 24-hour Vehicle Service Technician will also be hired to respond to service calls on a 7 day/week 24-hour basis.

Summary of Services & Milestones

Battery Warranty: GMW will administer all battery warranty claims in a timely manner. PIVCO is responsible for all battery upgrades in PIVCO vehicles. GMW is not responsible for assigned battery suppliers to provide replacement batteries within prescribed delivery schedules.

Walk Home Ratio: GMW will provide 24-hour service for failed vehicles to insure that program users will never have to walk home if a vehicle fails. Zero tolerance for walk homes.

Data Retrieval: GMW will monitor data acquisition systems and provide data to PG&E and CALSTART. Other reporting data will be given to a BART selected employee for reporting.

Program Duration: 24 Months starting October 15, 1995 and ending September 15, 1997.

Delivery Schedule: Vehicles 1-8 Delivered to Sites # 1 & # 2 by October 15, 1995 Vehicles 9-12 Delivered to Site # 1 by December 15, 1995 Vehicles 13-40 Projected delivery to Sites # 1, # 3, # 4 by Summer, 1996

User Fees: All user fees will be collected by GMW to apply to the cost of vehicle insurance.

Enclosure 3:

BAY AREA STATION CAR DEMONSTRATION

Executive Summary

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District has attracted $ 1.441 million in outside funding to support the demonstration of 40 electric station cars for two years. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has granted $ 700,000 from AB434 funds (Transportation Fund for Clean Air). Through CALSTART, the project is receiving $ 521,000 from the U.S. Department of Defense (ARPA). Other contributions are $ 100,000 (plus in-kind) from the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), $ 90,000 from the California Energy Commission (CEC), and $ 30,000 from the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS).

The purpose of the demonstration is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by BART patrons. BART will contract with Green Motorworks, Inc. of southern California to lease 40 two-passenger electric vehicles manufactured by the Personal Independent Vehicle Company (PIVCo) of Norway. Twelve non-freeway capable cars will be in operation by December 1995, and twenty-eight freeway capable cars will be in operation by the summer of 1996. The use of the cars will be demonstrated in a variety of settings: home to BART station; station to work site; and pool cars for worksites. Other short trips are allowed.

The program will attempt to maximize pollution reductions per electric vehicle by giving priority to carpoolers. Carpool teams, individuals or their employers will pay Green Motorworks $ 100 to $ 150 per month to use a vehicle (cost depends on the extent of use). An added personal cost would be recharging at home, if needed (the cost should average less than a dollar per night).

BART statistics show that thousands of commuters drive all the way to work each day and end up a mere one to five miles from a BART station. The link from BART to their work site is not well served by either public transportation, taxis, company shuttles or any other service. This untapped commute market is ideal for a station car service, especially if offered in cooperation with major employers who are mandated by statutory air quality regulations to implement employee trip reduction programs.

BART and PG&E will install 20 charging outlets at the Ashby BART station, 8 at the Walnut Creek station, 10 at the Colma station, and 2 at BART headquarters.

Meters will record the amount of electricity used at each station. Data acquisition instrumentation will be on each vehicle as well as personal-use logs. Three vehicles will be held in reserve to be used as replacement cars if necessary.

The delivery of the first eight cars will be by October 15, 1995, four by December 15, 1995, and the subsequent twenty-eight vehicles by August 1996. The cars will be used by BART and PG&E employees and selected public/private participants.

Enclosure 4

PIVCAL Inc. DRAFT 11.06.95

SPECIFICATIONS 12 Vehicles, 8 shipped 30th Aug. 95 Vehicle: 1995 PIVCO, City Bee, Prototypes Color: Blue, red, green Body/frame Thermoplastic, mass colored body/ aluminum space frame, both easily recyclable. Dimensions: L: 9.2 feet, W: 5 feet, H: 5 feet Decals: Provided by BART, can only be placed on side and rear windows. Safety Certificat.: European standard 1994 Weight, Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR): approximate: 2200 lb.

Curb Weight: 1750 lb. Capacities: Passenger capacity - 2. Turning diam.: 26 feet Brakes: Disc front w/regen., drum rear. Steering: Rack and pinion. Propulsion Sys: Motor: Solectria or Brusa with AC induction, 3-phase, 2-pole, with optical encoder and peak power of 22 kW.

Controller: Solectria or Brusa Control Systems, DC to three- phase AC inverter. DC/DC Conv.: Curtis 12V 35A Charger: On board 110V AC, or 208V AC 15A Battery Pack: Traction battery voltage full charge, nominal 120 volts DC. Batteries: Maintenance-free, sealed lead acid battery, Optima or an equal battery. Charging Port: Located at front of vehicle w/ retractable cord Transmission: Single speed, non-shift drive. Wheels/Tires: Aluminium 13" x 5"/All-season steel- belted radial tires. HVAC: 1.5 kW electric heating and defrosting Radio: FM/AM Comment: Passenger seats are situated higher than in a conventional car and together with a deep dash and a wide windshield this gives the driver a good view and a comfortable feeling.

This adds also to the safety. PERFORMANCE Top speed: 50 MPH Range: Constant 40 MPH 45 miles.

Adverse driving conditions (Stop and go) 35 miles Acceleration: 0 - 30 MPH 14 seconds 0 - 50 MPH 25 seconds Charging: 5 to 6 hours, 208 Volts AC 7 to 10 hours, 110 Volts AC

SPECIFICATIONS 58 Vehicles 1996 Vehicle: 1996 PIVCO, City Bee, Pre-series Color: To be determined Body/frame Same Dimensions: Same Decals: Same Safety Certificat.: FMVSS 1996 Weight, Same approximate: Capacities: Same Turning diam.: Same Brakes: Same Steering: Same Propulsion Sys: Motor: Advanced D.C. Motors, Inc. and Solectria to be considered.

Controller: Curtis or Solectria DC/DC Conv.: Curtis 12V 35A Charger: To be determined Battery Pack: Same Batteries: Same plus others to be considered Charging Port: Same Transmission: Same Wheels/Tires: Same HVAC: Same plus Air conditioner to be determined Radio: Same Comment: Same PERFORMANCE Top speed: 65 MPH Range: Constant 40 MPH 55 miles.

Adverse driving conditions (Stop and go) 40 miles Acceleration: 0 - 30 MPH 9 seconds 0 - 50 MPH 18 seconds Charging: 5 to 6 hours, 208 Volts AC 7 to 10 hours, 110 Volts AC

Enclosure 5

August 1, 1995

Mr. Jan Otto Ringdal Managing Director PIVCO A/S Stanseveien 4 0975 Oslo, Norway

Dear Jan:

This letter expresses our mutual intention with respect to the proposed collaboration between CALSTART, Inc., a California non-profit corporation, and PIVCO A/S, a Norwegian company ("PIVCO"). The goals of our collaboration are two-fold: (1) to enable PIVCO to successfully penetrate the United States market with a "purpose-built" electric vehicle such as the "City Bee" that is both popular and desirable, is specifically adapted to the United States market, fully complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") and other regulatory requirements (each such vehicle being referred to herein as a "U.S. Adapted Vehicle"); and (2) to create jobs and improve air quality in the United States generally, and the State of California in particular.

This letter will set forth the general form and terms of the proposed collaboration and assist us in negotiating and completing an enforceable definitive agreement or agreements as follows:

1. The Definitive Agreement would acknowledge that CALSTART has and will continue to provide PIVCO with valuable technical and marketing assistance in developing a U.S. Adapted Vehicle and to manufacture or assemble the same at a facility to be located in the State of California, including the following:

* assisting PIVCO in securing orders for initial purchases of pre-production and production prototypes of U.S. Adapted Vehicles;

* assisting PIVCO in securing sources of financing and obtaining information towards the goal of achieving compliance of the U.S. Adapted Vehicles with FMVSS;

* assisting PIVCO in identifying U.S. component suppliers for U.S. Adapted Vehicles;

* assisting PIVCO in obtaining information for the business plan for its United States operations, possibly through a wholly-owned or partially-owned U.S.-based subsidiary ("PIVCO U.S./PIVCAL").

2. The Definitive Agreement would provide that in consideration of the past and continuing services provided by CALSTART, then if PIVCO, PIVCO U.S./PIVCAL, or any entity under their direct or indirect control using any patents, know-how or other proprietary information relating to U.S. Adapted Vehicles provided to it by PIVCO or any of its affiliates (a "PIVCO Controlled Licensee"), elects to manufacture, assemble, market, distribute or sell U.S. Adapted Vehicles in the United States, then:

a. PIVCO will agree, or will cause each PIVCO Controlled Licensee to agree, to use its best commercial efforts to build, or have built, and operate an assembly or manufacturing facility for U.S. Adapted Vehicles in the State of California at a site which is mutually agreed upon with CALSTART. [PIVCO or such PIVCO Controlled Licensee will give favorable consideration to the Alameda Naval Air Station as one such site.]

b. For each U.S. Adapted Vehicle which is sold at wholesale or retail in the United States and which is manufactured or assembled by PIVCO or any PIVCO Controlled Licensee at a facility located at a site other than a site that is acceptable to CALSTART, PIVCO or such PIVCO Controlled Licensee will pay CALSTART a royalty in the amount of $ 500, or five per cent (5%) of the suggested retail price of the vehicle, whichever amount is greater. Payments of such royalties will be quarterly, with such payments and a royalty statement to be delivered to CALSTART within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, beginning with the first calendar quarter during which any U.S. Adapted Vehicle is marketed, distributed or sold in the United States. The maximum aggregate payment of such royalties to CALSTART will be $ 4,000,000, provided that over the term of the Agreement, each of the foregoing dollar figures (i.e., per vehicle royalty and maximum aggregate royalties) will be adjusted for inflation annually based on increases (but not decreases) in the U.S. All-Urban Consumer Price Index.

CALSTART

ID: aiam4885

"Dear Mr. Odaira: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation on whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to the rear seat requirements set forth in the final rule on Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). As noted by your letter, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your letter describes the positioning of the SID as follows: In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point. You noted, however, that '(t)his condition . . . obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.l.3(a) and (b), which provides, 'The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back.'' You stated that it is therefore your interpretation that the vehicle cannot accommodate the SID dummy and that the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it. You requested our views regarding your understanding. In the preamble to the October 1990 final rule, NHTSA noted that, for some vehicles where the roof has a steep rear slope, the SID head can be tilted so as to accommodate the test dummy without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane or affecting the H-point (two of the specifications in the S7 positioning procedure). The agency also noted that there are some cars with rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures, even if the head is adjusted fore-aft. Section S3 of Standard No. 214 provides that the rear seat requirements do not apply to 'passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7.' Thus, if any aspect of the positioning procedure, including the specification that the upper torso rests against the seat back, cannot be met, the vehicle is not required to meet the rear seat requirements of Standard No. 214. With regard to whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to Standard No. 214's rear seat requirements, NHTSA cannot make a determination that the rear seat requirements do not apply to a vehicle based solely on a description and photographs of that test procedure. If the agency should conduct a compliance test for the vehicle, it would attempt to position the SID dummies in the rear seat according to the specified seating procedure. If NHTSA were unable to position SID dummies in the rear of the vehicle according to the specified procedure, it would conclude that the rear seat requirements do not apply to that particular vehicle. 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. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4397

Dear Mr. McIntosh: This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Taylor Vinson of thi office, requesting 'approval' of your Rear Ender stop lamp. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) does not permit this agency to assure a manufacturer that its lighting equipment complies with all applicable requirements or to 'approve' any lighting equipment. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its lighting equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory requirement, NHTSA cannot 'approve' your stop lamp or offer assurances that the stop lamp complies with all applicable safety standards. We can, however, state whether your lighting equipment appears to comply with the safety standards, based solely on the information set forth in your letter.; Your product is intended to be used as a center highmounted stop lamp One of the claims for the lamp made in the product literature that you enclosed is that 'Unlike many other rear brake lens' this one 'features a wider vision reflector....'; Paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Because your lamp appears to incorporate a reflector with the lens it would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars, or as replacement equipment for cars manufactured with a center highmounted lamp (generally those produced since September 1, 1985). You may be interested to know that we have expressed views on designs similar to concept to yours, but that did not appear to combine the lamp with another lamp or reflective device. I have enclosed an example of such an opinion letter.; There are no Federal restrictions applicable to use of your product o vehicles other than passenger cars, or on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, that were not equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp as original equipment. The acceptability of the device for these vehicles is determined by the laws of the States in which these vehicles would be registered and operated.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1288

Dear Mr. Levine: This is in reply to your inquiry of October 18, 1973, concerning th legal consequences of disconnecting the seat belt interlock systems in the new cars your department is purchasing.; The dealer or distributor from whom you buy the cars is required unde subsection 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Public Law 89-563 (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)), to deliver them to you with the interlocks operational. However, subsection 108(b)(1) of the act provides that the requirements of subsection 108(a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. As a purchaser who intends to use the cars, rather than resell them, your department is therefore not obliged to keep the interlocks operational.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 18089.ztv

Mr. Donald J. Rager
Chief Operating Officer
Shelby American, Inc.
501 S. Rancho Drive, Suite H-53
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Dear Mr. Rager:

This will acknowledge receipt of the application by Shelby American, Inc., for temporary exemption of the Shelby Series 1 from the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The application, which is dated May 29, 1998, meets our procedural requirements, and we are preparing a notice for the Federal Register asking for public comment on your request.

We note that you planned to begin production of the Series 1 on July 1, 1998. Because of the statutory requirement that the public be offered an opportunity to comment on exemption applications, we generally afford a 30-day comment period. and a decision is reached 30 to 60 days after that. This means that Shelby must not sell any Series 1 vehicles unless and until the Administrator has responded affirmatively to Shelby's petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 208. We shall, of course, inform you when a decision has been made.

We also note (p. 2 of the application) that Shelby requests exemption from S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208, quoting S4.1.5. to the effect that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must comply with S4.1.2.1. You are using an outdated version of the Standard. Passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1997, must comply with S4.1.5.3, which, in turn, references S4.1..5.1(a)(1).

In the meantime, we have comments on certain information contained in the application regarding the Shelby Cobra CSX3000 Series Continuation Cars ("Continuation Cars"). You have informed us that the Continuation Cars are assembled "from certain new old stock parts surviving from . . . 1965 . . . supplemented by new parts manufactured from original tooling or build new to original specifications." We understand that "These vehicles are registered when sold as 1965 vehicles." We further understand that only two Continuation Cars have been built to date, and that the market for these cars is estimated at one to two units a year.

In our opinion, a vehicle assembled in 1997 or 1998 from parts manufactured in 1965 as well as from parts recently manufactured from original 1965 tooling is a motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect and applicable to it at the time of its assembly, unless it has been exempted by the Administrator. Because Shelby did not include the Continuation Cars in its petition for exemption from Standard No. 208, we surmise that the company may be proceeding under the assumption that the Continuation Cars are not required to comply with any Federal requirements because they are registered as 1965 models. This is incorrect. We believe that Shelby should review the Continuation Car program in light of its Federal obligations before manufacturing more of them. With respect to the two Continuation Cars that have already been sold, if Shelby determines that they do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied at the time of their assembly, it is required to notify their owners of that fact and offer to repair, repurchase, or replace them. Alternatively, Shelby, after its determination, may apply to the Administrator for a decision that the noncompliances are inconsequential to safety and that it should be excused from notification and remedy.

Shelby's application explains that parts for the Continuation Cars survive from the original planned production run of 100 cars, approximately half of which were completed in 1965. This was "the basis for homologation of the racing program." We understand that Shelby would like to continue the manufacture of the Continuation Cars indefinitely, until the supply of parts is exhausted. Under our interpretations, the Continuation Car would not be a motor vehicle subject to our regulations if it is manufactured for competition on closed courses, trailered from event to event, and not licensed for use on the public roads. You may wish to consider this approach with respect to future production of the Continuation Cars. Any statement of origin issued for these vehicles under this approach should state that they are not to be titled for highway use.

We have comments as well on the Shelby Cobra CSX4000 Series Component Vehicles ("Component Vehicles"), and the Daytona Coupe and 289 Cobra, which you also inform us are component vehicles. The term "component vehicles" refers to vehicles that are sold without engine and transmission; these components will be installed by the owner or at his or her direction, "and privately register the resulting vehicle." Under our interpretations, the installer is regarded as the manufacturer of the motor vehicle and responsible for its compliance with all applicable Federal regulations. However, Shelby is responsible for the compliance (and certification of compliance) of any part that it has manufactured recently from original tooling if that equipment item is directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The principal components we refer to are the vehicle's glazing and lighting equipment (we assume that brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, and seat belt assemblies are purchased new from suppliers who have certified their compliance with the Federal safety standards). In light of this paragraph, Shelby may wish to consider converting its Continuation Cars into Component Vehicles.

However, I must advise you that, under longstanding interpretations, we would still regard Shelby as the vehicle's manufacturer and responsible for compliance and its certification if it offered the Continuation Car's engine and transmission for sale to the purchaser of a Component Vehicle Continuation Car concurrently with the Component Vehicle or as part of the sales transaction.

We would appreciate your views on this issue.

If you have further questions, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mac Yousry
FAX 714-974-3816
d.7/17/98
ref:571

ID: 1886y

The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with air bags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the air bags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Sparks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does not comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all applicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them.

After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in the car in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks police department cars.

Please note that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of "authorization" from this agency to disconnect the air bag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of Sparks can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada.

I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The air bags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle occupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported instance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA#208 d:5/25/89

ID: aiam2466

Dear Mr. Mathews: #This is in reply to your November 5, 1976, lette concerning antique tires. You have asked whether it is permissible to import 6.70 x 15 tires, an original equipment size on several classic Mercedes-Benz, that are not marked in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires*. #Standard No. 109 applies to 'new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948' (S2). The 6.70 x 15 tire size designation appears in Table I-A of Appendix A of the standard. While this tire may have been original equipment on several classic cars, it is also for use on passenger cars manufactured since 1948. As such, it is subject to all the requirements of Standard No. 109. Therefore, a 6.70 x 15 tire that is not marked according to the standard may not be imported into the United States. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4262

Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1986, with respect t kit cars. Your first question concerns a 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but carries its original mechanical components, title, and identification number. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars if the passenger car to be imported into the United States was manufactured before January 1, 1968. However, certain of these standards cover vehicle components, and if the relevant components have been manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, these components would be subject to the applicable Federal safety standard. These components include brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, retreaded tire, glazing materials (most importantly, the windshield must be marked AS-1), seat belt assemblies, and wheel coves (which may not incorporate winged projections). Although the 1965 Jaguar would have a new body, by retaining its original mechanical components, title, and identification number, it would be considered a 1965 model and not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. But if any of the equipment listed above has been manufactured after January 1, 1968, those items must comply in order to be imported into this country.; You have asked how the situation would differ were the bodied Jaguar 1972 model, the other facts being identical. We would consider this car a 1972 model, and required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the date of its original manufacture. Conformity could be achieved either before or after its importation into this country.; Your second question concerns 'a kit car consisting of both new an used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G.' You have reported EPA's position that the year of the engine determines what standards are to be met, and you have asked if these are also DOT's requirements. The age of the engine is not the determining factor with us. Generally, the agency considers a kit car consisting of new body and new chassis to be a new motor vehicle, and required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars as of the date of its assembly, even if some of its mechanical components have been used previously. This means that such components must not prevent the assembled vehicle from meeting those standards.; If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5324

"Dear Mr. Metz: This responds to your letter to this agency regarding new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshields. I apologize for the delay in responding. The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, 'the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement.' You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared. The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas 'A', 'B', and 'C.' Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as 'that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels through a cycle) (emphasis added). A 'cycle' is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of 'wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme and return' (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met. As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system. Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3327

Dear Mr. Spena: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrato and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Dr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.; You have asked the following questions: '1. Does any Federal Regulation addresss (sic) the issue of intermixin motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?'; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.; Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of th intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (see paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.; In addition, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act prohibits an 'manufacturer', 'distributor', 'dealer', or 'motor vehicle repair business' from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.; '2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance o this matter?'; We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing cam to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to 'motorcycle' requirements but which, in fact are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.; '3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars''. There are no regulations or standards applicable to 'kit cars' per se nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.; The classic 'kit car' operation involves the removal of an old vehicl body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a 'manufacturer' to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.; A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered 'used and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to 'new' vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a) (2) (A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a 'manufacturer' appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.; Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items suc as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.; Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by th facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.; If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answe them (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel