ID: nht95-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 13, 1995

FROM: K. Howard Sharp -- Attorney at Law, Arnason Law Office

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO K. HOWARD SHARPE (A43; STD. 108; VSA 30102)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Safety Bright (R) product manufactured by NYTAF Industries, Inc. Your remarks provided a great deal of insight and assistance to NYTAF in the development of their product.

We are a bit confused on whether NYTAF qualifies as a manufacturer and whether standard 108 would apply in this instance. NYTAF manufactures Safety Bright (R) for use as an accessory to be installed on vehicles which are already in use on the roadway s. Presently NYTAF has no plans for the installation of Safety Bright (R) equipment on new vehicles. We understand that if that were the case the new vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for certification of compliance with the motor vehicle safet y standards. We are not certain, however, whether NYTAF must certify compliance with those standards since it is simply a manufacturer of an accessory. We would appreciate your clarification on this issue.

Again, thank you for your prompt response and helpful guidance.

ID: nht95-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS T. SNYDER TO DAVID COLEMAN (OCC 10926)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and v ehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of moto r vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage con sisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and r oad tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on t he date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requir ements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehi cle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or i n a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure t hat the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. P. Corrado -- Director, Market Development, GenCorp Aerojet Electronic Systems Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM A. P. CORRADO TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Corrado:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with respect to automatic cut-off devices for air bags. You requested confirmation that the standard "does not preclude the use of inflatable restraint systems that by design inhibit deployment of a passenger air bag in those identifiable cases where the likelihood and severity of passenger injury would be greater with air bag deployment than without." You specifically cited the cas e of out-of-position passengers. As discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash con ditions specified in the standard.

NHTSA addressed the legality of both automatic and manual air bag cutoff devices in the context of a recent rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices under special circumstances. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in October 1994, the agency explained that automatic cutoff devices for passenger side air bags are already permitted by Standard No. 208. However, the devices must be designed to automatically ensure that the air bag is activated under the dynamic crash test conditions spe cified in the standard, i.e., in a 30 mph barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat. See discussion at 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994. I have enclosed a copy of that notice for your information, as well as a co py of the recently issued final rule.

I would like to note a safety issue that is relevant to the design of automatic cutoff devices for air bags. Standard No. 208's requirements for air bags are intended to provide safety benefits for a much broader set of real world conditions than the na rrow conditions specified in the standard's dynamic crash test, i.e., at a greater number of speeds and frontal impact angles, for many different sizes of occupants, etc. The agency recognizes the safety benefits that can be provided by well-designed au tomatic cutoff devices that can sense rear facing infant restraints and other possible special situations where deactivation is appropriate. At the same time, NHTSA believes it is important for manufacturers developing automatic cutoff devices to ensure that the devices do not deactivate air bags under circumstances where the air bags would provide important safety benefits.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Olsen

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. OLSEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Olsen:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 pro vides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Genera lly speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability.

I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. I n that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers.

This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manuf acturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081.

ID: nht95-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: M. Judson Brown, PE -- Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, CNG Bus Project Manager

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transport, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN RENOCK (REDBOOK 2; PART 304)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

The Central New York Regional Transport Authority (CNYRTA) of Syracuse, New York has eight natural gas buses which have Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) cylinders which are used for fueling the buses. It was our original understanding that the tanks, which are certified by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) with an exemption (Exemption Number 8814) are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. I am enclosing a copy of the USDOT Exemption which the tank manufacturer, Stuctural Composite Industries, received from USDOT Hazardous Materials Branch. Please note page 5, item g of the Exemption. I am also enclosing a copy of the regulations, DOT FRP-1, governing manufacturing and test requirements for the tanks.

I recently received a copy of a letter which was sent to Spencer Testing Services by yourself as Acting Chief Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation (copy of letter enclosed). The letter states that the Research and Special Programs Administr ation, (RSPA) is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers including the CNG containers used to transport hazardous materials. However, RSPA does not have statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicl e. In other words, as I read the letter, RSPA is not authorized to require reinspection and hydraulic retesting of CNG containers which are used to fuel a motor bus.

Would you please confirm by letter to Central New York Regional Transport Authority that fueling containers on their 8 buses are not required to be re-inspected and hydraulically re-tested every three years under USDOT requirements. Please address the l etter to:

Mr. John Renock Director of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse, NY 13205-0820

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co. Ltd.

TO: Minister, DOT.

TITLE: Re our product: Brake Condition Warning Sensor

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/10/95 LETTER FROM RICARDO MARTINEZ TO SHIH - CHIANG CHEN (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Dear Sirs,

I invented the "Brake Condition Warning Sensor" and applied for the patent right of 17 countries, including my country and your country. (For instance, the patent registration number in your country is 5059947)

The special properties of this patented product distinguishes itself from the similar products available on the market. It helps the third brake lamp to generate flashes of various levels due to the different speeds of stepping the brake when drivers me et various situations happened during the automobile travel in order to warn the drivers behind. Thus the drivers behind could make proper preparations and responses to prevent accident.

It has to been emphasized that the period of flashing from the third brake lamp by using this product is very short. Besides, it will act only when the driver must step down the brake. When the automobile completely stops, the light will automatically stops flashing, but still remain lit. This feature provides drivers with great convenience and safety. Therefore, this product is very popular with automobile industries since it became available on the market.

Although many people from your country take great interests in this product, they question about the "Flashing from the Third brake lamp". They think this product is not applicable and is arguable to the relevant communication codes in your countries.

The questions presented by people in your country are not unreasonable when they are first heard. However, after strict analysis, it is a total misunderstanding to the application range of flashing action. This product only generates the flashing actio n only on the third brake lamp, not relevant to the two tail lamps.

In other words, only the third brake lamp will flash by this device when drivers step the brake to respond to the road situation. The two tail lamps remain their normal function, lit but not flashing. It will not cause confusion to drivers' judgment. Instead, it warn the drivers behind to take proper approaches.

With regard to this point, the automobile industries in my country also questioned about the legal applicability at the very beginning. I requested the ministry of Communications for a proper explanation. The result showed that it is not in contraventi on of the regulation that "The Brake Lamp is Forbidden to Flash After Automobile Stops Completely." (See the attachment for a copy of letter from the Ministry of Communications.) The argument is ceased accordingly. Therefore, this product is legally appr oved and has gained a lot of good reputations.

Because I do not completely understand the relevant communication codes in your country, I will need your assistance to have a better understanding. Your reply will be highly appreciated.

Best regards!

P.S. An instruction is enclosed.

THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

LETTER

[Illegible Words] Received By: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG [Illegible Word] To: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG

Insurance Date: November 10, 1993 File No.: Lu-Tai-(1983)-Chien-Tzu No. 10182

1. Thanks for your letter dated November 14, 1993.

2. Regarding you pointed out our improper regulation: "The third brake light cannot shine when the car stays still." We have checked the regulation of inspecting the third brake light. The regulation requests new small cars should have the third light device and other items necessary for inspecting when the current highway registration & inspection offices proceed all light inspection.

3. Please bring your attention.

Department of Land Administration Ministry of Communication

(Affixed with the official seal)

(Brochure and patent information omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Bryan G. Nelson -- Director, Health And Transporation Services, (Parents In Community Action Inc.)

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BRYAN G. NELSON (RED BOOK 2; A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

We spoke briefly about standards for School Buses and I wanted to get your written response.

You stated that the school bus color was only a recommendation and not a federal requirement. That color requirements for school buses was up to individual states.

I'd appreciate your written response.

Thank-you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1995

FROM: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Dept., Ride Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Disposition Of Vehicles Following Demonstration, Training And Studies Period; Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD); Reference: (1) NHTSA File 9207-1, (2) Letter dated 11/18/92, Robert F. Hellmuth of NHTSA to Niels Skjodt of CityCo m A/S (copy attached).

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MICHAEL J. WIRSCH (PART 591)

TEXT: As indicated in the referenced November 18, 1992 letter from NHTSA, we obtained permission to demonstrate, test and evaluate for the allowed three year period, sixteen CityCom vehicles produced in Denmark. The subject vehicles are limited performance th ree wheel electric vehicles (EVs) known as the "City-El."

At the time they were imported, there was a possibility of producing the same or similar vehicle in the United States. The test and evaluation was directed toward determining whether this was possible, on a cost competitive and cost effective basis. Th e possibility still exists for development of a design based on similar materials and production techniques, but of an entirely different configuration.

The evaluation period is coming to an end in November, 1995. The approval by NHTSA for evaluation of the vehicles stated that at the end of the evaluation period the vehicles would be modified to comply with the applicable standards or returned to Denma rk. A third alternative is now preferrable to both SMUD and Sacramento's McClellan Air Force Base (McClellan).

The most attractive option for disposing of the sixteen vehicles is transferring ownership directly to McClellan for their use on base, with your permission to do so. The vehicles would be controlled to restrict their use to base property, and therefore not on public streets. Since McClellan can place these vehicles into service that does not need public road access, they would not be registered for use on public streets, not require compliance and need only be controlled as other similar off road veh icles McClellan now has on base.

For the last three years, SMUD has been actively involved with joint Electric Transportation Program activities with McClellan. Nearly identical to the City-El vehicles imported in 1992 are another group of twenty-five vehicles McClellan has been testin g and demonstrating since late 1993, with which they have gained the necessary maintenance and operation experience.

McClellan has indicated an interest in taking over the subject vehicles, and we therefore are pursuing this issue with your agency. Thus, we hereby request authorization to retain the sixteen City-El vehicles in the United States, for the express purpos e of transferring ownership and operation to McClellan Air Force Base. Any action we must take to gain your approval may be communicated directly to me at the following address:

Michael J. Wirsch, Manager Electric Transportation Department P.O. Box 15830 - MS 30A Sacramento, CA 95852-1830

Please provide me with your opinion regarding this approach at your earliest convenience, so that we can take other actions on alternate methods of disposition should your opinion not be favorable. You may contact me by telephone at (916) 732-6754, or b y FAX at (916) 732-6839.

Thank you in advance for any consideration you can give to this request.

Attachment Letter dated 11/18/92 FROM ROBERT HELLMUTH TO NIELS SKJODT (OMITTED)

ID: nht95-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 17, 1995

FROM: Colleen Grant

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO COLLEEN GRANT (A43; RED BOOK 2; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Ms:

An official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether my vehicle is street-legal based on the fact it does not have a shoulder-harness safety restraint system.

The vehicle is: 1974 Chevrolet Blazer with: fiberglass removable roof original lap-belts restraint system (still functional)

Inquiries at local GM dealers about retro-fitting the vehicle have been non-productive. GM does not make a shoulder harness system for this model because there is no place to safely mount it. In the event of a roll-over, we were told the roof could come apart and thereby lose any restraint system mounted to the roof.

My request: Your written opinion as to whether or not this vehicle is street-legal.

ID: nht95-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Helbig -- Vice President, Spencer Testing Services

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS C. HELBIG TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Helbig:

This responds to your letter asking me to confirm your belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on altern ative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container inte grity (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 a nd be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous mater ials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor veh icle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.