ID: nht74-3.18

DATE: 11/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dana Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dano Corporation's October 22, 1978, request for a statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, does not require antilock systems on the axles of air-braked trailers subject to the standard, and, if antilock systems are provided, that the standard does not specify the number or location of the speed sensing or logic components which constitute the system.

Standard No. 121 requires that wheels not lock-up under certain conditions (S5.3.1, S5.3.2) but it does not require the use of an antilock system to prevent wheel lockup. If a manufacturer chooses to install an antilock system on his vehicle, the standard requires that an anti-lock warning signal be installed (S5.1.6), that electrical failure of the antilock system not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes (S5.5.1), and that an antilock system on a trailer be powered through the stop lamp circuit (S5.5.2).

There are no other requirements for antilock systems used on air-brake equipped vehicles subject to Standard No. 121. This means that the manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. It should be noted, however, that the "controlled lock-up" exception of S5.3.1 (a) and S5.3.2(a) would not apply to a wheel which is not equipped with a wheel sensor that contributes to the control of the reduction of air pressure.

If the number and location of these components becomes a safety problem in the future, the NHTSA would consider appropriate specifications for them.

ID: nht92-6.41

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Chun -- General Manager, Kia Motors Corporation, Los Angeles Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/92 from Charles Chun to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7169)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years.

See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.44

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: ACTION: General Motors Modified Antitheft Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Rogers (A39; Part 543)

TEXT:

On November 18, 1991, General Motors Corporation (GM) submitted a letter informing NHTSA of a change in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system that was installed on the My 1992 Pontiac Bonneville. (GM discovered, through a review, that the information of the second generation "PASS-KEY" had not been forwarded to the agency.) Since the initial petition for the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville, but before the start of production, of the MY 1992 Bonneville, a design change had been made to include GM's second generation "PASS-KEY II" theft deterrent system, as standard equipment on this car line and not the original "PASS-KEY" system as described in the petition. GM had previously been granted a partial exemption on the original "PASS-KEY" system for the MY 1992 Bonneville.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes to the system, and finds that the differences between the "PASS-KEY II" and the original "PASS-KEY," as described below, would qualify for de minimis treatment.

GM has changed the system in which the shut down period of the system would be for three minutes plus or minus 18 seconds, instead of the previous 2 to 4 minutes. GM believes that this is more precise than the prior system. The other change in the system is that the "PASS-KEY II" timer does not reset back to zero if further resistance comparisons are attempted while the decoder module is shut down. GM states that this functional difference will still provide a similar level of theft deterrent performance since the decoder module while in the shut down mode, will ignore any further attempts to start the vehicle by means of a key with an improper pellet resistance during that time, and continuous attempts will result in the module remaining inoperative until the proper key is used.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by GM and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter granting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to GM, pursuant to Part 543.9 (j).

Attachment

USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice. (Text omitted)

ID: nht80-3.7

DATE: 06/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Tierney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of June 10, 1980, with Stephen Oesch of this office concerning the Federal requirements applicable to the installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in passenger cars.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discussed the general implication of such installations under Federal law. If after reviewing this material you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Oesch.

ID: nht88-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/88

FROM: CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VICE PRESIDENT MARKETING VERNE CORP

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP, SECTION 101[3]; PART 571[A]; LETTER DATED 10/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are in the business of manufacturing the Dragoon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV) that is presently used by the U.S. Armed Forces. This vehicle is rubber tired, all terrain and amphibious. It is capable of resisting fire from most conventional ballist ic level three weapons. We are now considering the possibility of making this vehicle available to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and security vehic le. Through our market research we have found their primary uses would be as follows:

-Rescue wounded or disabled people or officers during hostile cross fire situations.

-Protection for law enforcement personnel during drug enforcement or other types of enforcement activities that require addition protection for the officers.

-Rescue during floods, tornados or other types of disasters.

-Airport or other municipal security requirements.

Because our vehicle is only 8' wide and 20' long it can travel easily on the highway to and from where it is needed. This is a big advantage to the usefulness, however it may require that the vehicle to be titled like other police vehicles.

We would like to know the procedure for getting this vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle. We have several of law enforcement agencies as well as the Border Patrol interested in our vehicle and have been ask if we can supply a certificate of origin with the proper VIN number so the vehicle can be titled. Our average annual production of this type of vehicle is has been 60 units and we never sell this equipment to private citizens. We estimate that approximately 10% of our production would b e sold to law enforcement agencies.

Enclosed you will find a booklet outlining the specification of the Dragoon that we are interested in being able to register in different states. As you will notice, we market the Dragoon through an affiliate Arrowpointe Corporation, however Verne Corpo ration is the manufacturer. Thanking you in advance, and if you have any question please do not hesitate in contacting me

(Booklet omitted.)

Sincerely,

ID: 8133

Mr. Dale E. Dawkins
Director
Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs
Chrysler Corporation
CIMS 415-03-17
1200 Chrysler Drive
Highland Park MI 48288-0857

Dear Mr. Dawkins:

This responds to your letter of December 16, 1992, to the Administrator informing the agency about the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1.

According to your letter, these vehicles are "almost identical" to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans "will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted." You have submitted this information to us so that NHTSA will have a clear understanding of the content of your electric vehicle development program and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

It appears that you would like confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. In order for the agency to provide this confirmation, it must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You state that "[b]ased on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety." While you may have used the word "significant" in an excess of caution, it implies that there are differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there is a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. We would appreciate your identification of the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion. With this information, we shall be better able to evaluate whether the two vehicles are essentially the same and whether there is any undue degradation in safety that might render it inappropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:2/18/93

ID: nht80-3.16

DATE: 07/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Niles Parts Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION JUL 10, 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Y. Koyama Chief of Technical Service Section Niles Parts Co-, Ltd. 4-9-16 Higashikojiya Ota-ku(44) Tokyo JAPAN Dear Mr. Koyama:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1980, which was forwarded to this office for reply about the identification required by Standard No. 101-80 Controls and Displays, for the rear window defogger switch. This office never received a copy of your earlier letter.

Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that "any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol". Based on the drawing submitted with your letter, Niles has used the identifying symbol specified in Table 1 for the rear window defrosting and defogging system switch. As we understand your letter, the identification will include the full outline of the required symbol colored in orange. However, due to the injection moulding procedure used for the switch, "about 1 mmm of outline of the symbol will be less colored in orange. " In other words, that area of the outline will be colored a dimmer shade of orange than that used on the rest of the outline. This is permissible since the standard does not require, uniformity in the coloring of the required identification symbol.

If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Motor Vehicle Programs, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington D. C. U. S.

Att: Mr. JOhn Carson Re: Symbol Mark on the Rear Defog Switch for Identification stipulated by FMVSS No. 101-80

Dear Sirs:

We wish to refer again to our letter dated April 10, 1980. We regret that we have not yet received your answer for this letter.

We herewith enclose once again the explanatory drawing.

Owing to Injection molding procedure of this product, in dark place, about 1 mm of outline of the symbol will be less colored in orange.

May we ask you whether the symbol mark will satisfy the require-ment of identification of FMVSS No. 101-80 or not.

Please let us have your answer by return, otherwise our engineer is too much nervous to proceed on his work further.

Thanking you for your good support and cooperation, we are.

Very truly yours,

NILES PARTS CO., LTD.,

Y. Koyama, Chief of Technical Service Section

ID: nht93-1.41

DATE: 02/18/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DALE E. DAWKINS -- DIRECTOR, VEHICLE COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY AFFAIRS, CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM P. E. DAWKINS TO MARION C. BLAKEY

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 16, 1992, to the Administrator informing the agency about the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1.

According to your letter, these vehicles are "almost identical" to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans "will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted." You have submitted this information to us so that NHTSA will have a clear understanding of the content of your electric vehicle development program and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

It appears that you would like confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. In order for the agency to provide this confirmation, it must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You state that "[based] on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety." While you may have used the work "significant" in an excess of caution, it implies that there are differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there is a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. We would appreciate your identification of the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion. With this information, we shall be better able to evaluate whether the two vehicles are essentially the same and whether there is any undue degradation in safety that might render it inappropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

ID: nht89-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/89

FROM: KENNETH E. MADDEN -- RESEARCH ASSOCIATE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH E. MADDEN, REDBOOK A33 (2), CUSTOM REGULATIONS; LETTER DATED 12/04/87 FROM PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT TO GEORGE PARKER

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Over a year ago we sent the inclosed coorespondence to DOT detailing the test plans for the importation and testing of three neat ethanol pickups under DOT Form HS 7, Item 7. We now have progressed to ordering the vehicles. Auto-Latino, Sao Paulo, Br azil routinely exports gas and diesel vehicles into Baltimore, Md. but has never exported the ethanol vehicle. Mr. Walter D'Alesandro, Export Manager Ford Brazil, specifically requests some form of official acquiescence to this procedure before producti on and shipment of the vehicles.

We have requested this assurance from DOT and have been referred to your office in phone conversations with Mr. Clive Van Orden and Mr. Taylor Vincent. I appreciate the fact that Mr. D'Alesandro is not subject to US jurisdiction, but he is concerned a bout repurcussions if things are not in order. A letter from your agency to the University of Iowa stating that there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation would be appreciated.

We would appreciate your earliest accomodation to this matter since we must hold off ordering these vehicles until some assurance can be sent to Sao Paulo, Brazil. If there is any question regarding the test plan or this request please contact me at (319) 335-1415 or 1400. Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-2.9

DATE: March 5, 1993

FROM: Margret Schmock von Ohr -- BOSCH Reutlingen, Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Tylor Vinson -- DOT, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Reflex Reflectors for Passenger Cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-93 from John Womack to Margret Schmock von Ohr (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: As I already mentioned in our telephone conversation last Friday I have a question on reflex reflectors for passenger cars.

Our major customer Mercedes wants us to change all existing front signal lamps until September 1993. Mercedes wants clear lenses (plus amber bulbs) instead of amber lenses (plus clear bulb).

Each lamp consists of three functions:

- front turn indicator - sidemarker - reflex reflector

As you know the reflex reflector must be amber so that we need a two-color lens (clear plus amber).

Therefore we need a two-color molding machine and a special tool for each of these modified two-color lenses.

The production of these special tools will at least take until the beginning of next year so that we cannot met our customers schedule.

Another alternative for producing two-color lenses is a partial painting of the lenses where we would paint the reflex reflector area of the lenses with an amber top painting.

1. Is it allowed to have amber painted reflex reflectors?

2. Under which conditions would it be allowed to have them painted? Thank you very much in advance.

If you need any information please do not hesitate to contact me.