ID: nht94-4.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

FROM: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TO: Phil Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation Regarding Tire Loads for Electric Vehicles

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHIL RECHT TO SCOTT E. PETERS (STD. 110)

TEXT: U.S. Electricar is a California corporation which manufactures electric vehicles, including the Electricar Pickup (converted Chevrolet S-10) and the Electricar Sedan (converted GEO Prizm). The Electricar Pickup is fully FMVSS certified while the Electri car Sedan is currently built under NHTSA temporary FMVSS exemption 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. We are aggressively pursuing development of the Sedan and expect to achieve full FMVSS certification within several months.

As you are aware, production electric vehicle development is fairly recent and most of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were not written with electric vehicles in mind. We occassionally come across a Safety Standard provision which does not se em applicable to electric vehicles because of their special operating characteristics and limitations compared to traditional internal combustion powered vehicles. Section 4.4.2 of Standard No. 110 is such an example, and we believe this section is not relevant to our particular electric passenger car (the Electricar Sedan), with a speed and speed/endurance limitation substantially below almost any internal combustion powered passenger car.

The purpose of Standard No. 110 is to ensure proper tire selection in order to prevent tire overloading, and thus prevent tire failure. Section 4.2.1 requires that vehicle maximum load on each tire shall not be greater than the maximum tire load rating as specified in one of the tire industry publications listed in Standard No. 109. This section alone prevents tire overloading as long as high speed operation is not a factor.

Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 110 states that the normal load on the tire shall not exceed the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109. The test load is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating. As sp ecified in S5.5.4 of Standard No. 109, tires at this test load must operate at speeds of 75 mph for 30 minutes, 80 mph for 30 minutes and 85 mph for 30 minutes. It is our understanding that the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is to ensure against ti re failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.

It is our interpretation that Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is not intended to apply to the Electricar Sedan and other electric passenger cars in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration. The Electricar Sedan is ba rely capable of reaching a speed of 75 mph, and could not maintain this speed for more than a few minutes due to the extremely high power requirements and limited energy stored on-board in the vehicle's batteries.

Electric vehicles are intended for use in urban areas with air quality problems and are not suitable for operation at prolonged freeway speeds because of their range limitations. To maximize range and reliability in the Electricar Sedan, the top speed i s limited by software in the vehicle's electronic power control unit. The drag limited speed (non-software governed) is also below most of the "high speed" figures cited in Standard 109, S5.5.4.

Optimizing tire size is an ongoing challenge in electric vehicle development. Because of the weight added in the electric conversion process, original tires must generally be replaced with larger tires which have a higher load capacity. Larger tires on c onverted electric vehicles have the disadvantages of increased rolling resistance and reduced tire clearance and turning radius compared to the original vehicle. Increased rolling resistance lowers the vehicle operating range, a factor which is critical in the acceptance of electric vehicles by both fleet users and the general public. Section 4.2.2 of Standard 110 is based on the load-carrying capacity of tires at high speeds and would require the use of tires which are larger than those needed for co mpliance with S4.2.1 and larger than we believe are required for the safe operation of an electric passenger car with limited speed and speed/endurance capability.

Would you please review Standard 110, S4.2.2 in light of the performance limitations of our electric passenger car and provide us with your interpretation as to the applicability of this section to the Electricar Sedan described above.

Please contact me if I can provide additional information for your consideration of our request.

ID: nht94-4.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1994

FROM: Bryan J Williams -- Director, International Operations, Red Spot Paint And Varnish Co., Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: REF: Request For Written Interpretation / FMVSS108 and AAMVA Listing

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRYAN J. WILLIAMS (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty coatings for plastics. Our major market is for automotive applications; one of which is UV Curable SRC coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These products (specifically UVT200) pro vide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure.

UVT200 has approvals from Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Chrysler Corporation for application on polycarbonate headlamp lenses to Specifications ESB-M80J-3A, MG5060 and MS-PP5-5 respectively. The coating was approved following the completion of 3 year Florida and Arizona weathering; measurements indicating the coating's conformity to the standards of SAEJ576(c) [1970] ref: chromaticity, haze, luminous transmittance and appearance were performed by the Red Spot Test Laboratory (which has "Self C ertifying" status from these US automakers.) The coating is currently being used in production at finishers for all three of these OEMs; there have been no questions about the "acceptability" of this coating on polycarbonate from any US State or Territor y.

I have received several requests from overseas headlamp manufacturers (potential users of UVT200) with respect to the fact that UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) "Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles."

The question for which written interpretation is requested is as follows:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS108?

The perception exists among overseas headlamp manufacturers that AAMVA Listing of a coating is required by Federal Law . . . that appearance on this list is a prerequisite for the certification to FMVSS108 standards.

Your written comments clarifying the status of AAMVA (and their "Listing . . ." publication) and its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are requested.

Please respond via facsimile to (812) 467-2388 to my attention.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I shall await your response. If you have questions or find issues which require further clarification, please contact me directly: Bryan J Williams

Director, International Operations

Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co. Inc.

1111 East Louisiana Street

Evansville IN 47711

P: (812) 428-9192

F: (812) 467-2388

ID: nht94-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO KEN DAINING (REDBOOK (2)); STD. 105

TEXT: I received your name through a recent phone conversation with Mr. George Soodoo. I work for ITT Automotive as the supervisor of the Chrysler vehicle ABS/TCS test and development department. I am interested in obtaining information relating to any existi ng (or future) legislation on the legalities of an ABS on/off switch. Currently, Chrysler Jeep owners which enjoy serious off-road driving, disengage their ABS because of the perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations. One proposal being kicked around is the possibility of automatically disengaging ABS function through the shifting of the vehicle into the 4WD-LO configuration (as most serious off-roaders do today). Any information you can provide will be very helpful. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

ID: nht94-4.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1994

FROM: Mariano Garcia -- Ricca & Whitmire

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Whether or not the D.O.T. regulates the manufacturing or certification of Kawasaki "Mule" KAF 450-B1

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Mariano Garcia (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern:

This is to request a brief statement regarding whether or not the above referenced vehicle is covered by D.O.T. Regulations. I attach a brochure for your reference. This vehicle is primarily used as an "off-road" light utility vehicle.

Therefore, please state if any regulations apply. I sincerely appreciate your help and response.

Sincerely

Enclosure:

Mule 1000/2510 brochure.

(Text omitted. See original document.)

ID: nht94-4.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1994

FROM: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Petition for Exemption of FMVSS 108 (Section only with reference to the addition of trailer conspicuity)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MATT DECKER (A42; STD. 108; PART 555)

TEXT: The Wenger Corporation of Owatonna, Minnesota, U.S.A. is petitioning for exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it relates to the conspicuity treatment in S5.7 (effective date December 1, 1993).

The Wenger Corporation manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment. Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form, are offered and sold primarily to city municipalities such as Park and Recreation Departments throughout the United States. As you can see from the enclosed advertising literature, aesthetics is of major concern to our customers. The addition of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product.

The annual sales volume for this particular product is approximately 20 (twenty). The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is 13500 lbs. Average annual mileage after delivery of this product ranges from a low of 25 miles to a high of 500 miles. Our cust omers generally store this product within their city yards. This product is typically towed by a 1-1/2 ton pick-up truck or city truck to the performance site which is normally within the city limits. The performance sites can vary from a closed off st reet to the middle of a city park.

In summary the Wenger Showmobile product is a low mileage vehicle that is generally parked off-road at night, either on private city property or city parks. Exterior appearance (graphics) is very important to owners of this product. With utmost importa nce it is Wenger Corporation's opinion that exemption from the conspicuity requirement would not have an adverse effect upon safety with regards to the Showmobile product.

Please review the information included with this petition and offer your ruling as soon as possible. If there are any questions relating to this petition please direct them by telephone or in writing to:

The Wenger Corporation

Attention: Matt Decker

555 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Telephone: (507) 455-4100 Ext. 174

ID: nht94-4.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Platt, Debra, (Florida)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Debra Platt To NHTSA Office Of Chief Council (OCC 10334)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approx imately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses , those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly-spaced seats for school b us occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should f ace forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, a s you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

605 Suwanne St., MS-57

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

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

ID: nht90-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLES M.A. SAEDT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-8-90 FROM CHARLES M.A. SAEDT ATTACHED; (OCC-4641)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1990, with respect to your intended exportation of a Volkswagen manufactured to conform to European specifications. You are a member of the Dutch armed forces, and you will be in the United States until June 1 991. You understand that you will need to get an exemption when you import the car into the United States.

As Taylor Vinson of this OffiCe explained to you on April 10, at the port of entry you will be required to execute a Form HS-7, a declaration form covering the importation of your car into the United States. It appears that you are eligible to mark Box 12, and to import the vehicle under the declaration that you are a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States. You must attach a copy of your official orders to this form. When this is done, there should be no pr oblem in importing your car.

You also represent by marking Box 12 that you are importing the vehicle for your own personal use and on a temporary basis, that you will not sell the vehicle to any person in the United States, and that you will export the vehicle upon departing the Uni ted States at the conclusion of your tour of duty.

ID: nht90-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-19-90 TO U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FROM ANTHONY P. GREENISH; (OCC 4482) TEXT:

Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Department has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Acco rd 1.6 LX, and ask for information "as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards.

BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safet y, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know , many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100 percent of Federal requirements.

If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulati ons which were mandated by congress and became effective January 31, 1990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to mee t the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to 150 percent of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs service must be given to ensure performance of the conversi on work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States.

ID: nht90-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARGARET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TELEFAX DATED 6-3-90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM MARGRET SCHMOCK ATTACHED; (OCC 4508) TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, 1990, with respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and "CAC Title 13, Article 9".

You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. 108 has been changed.

We understand that "CAC" refers to "California Administrative Code". The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustm ent range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement.

We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pi erce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854).

ID: nht90-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. DOUGLAS SMITH -- ENGINEERING MGR., DURALITE TRUCK BODY AND CONTAINER CORP. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-10-89 TO TAYLOR VINSON, NHTSA, FROM J. DOUGLAS SMITH ATTACHED; (OCC-4119) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of clearance lamps. You stated your understanding that "if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body." This is not correct. A chassis cab is an incomplete motor vehicle, and not required to comply with Standard No. 108. However, when the chassis cab is completed, the completed vehicle must comply, and be certified by its final-stage manufacturer as complying, with Standard No. 108 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards). Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires front clearance lam ps to be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable.

This means that if clearance lamps have been mounted on the chassis cab, and if in that location they do not indicate the overall width of the completed motor vehicle and are not as near the top of the completed motor vehicle as practicable, the final st age manufacturer must add a set of clearance lamps to the front of the truck body to meet that requirement. In this event, the cab-mounted clearance lamps may be disconnected or removed.

However, this is not true with respect to the mounting of identification lamps on chassis cabs. Standard No. 108 allows them to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the cab as an alternative to the top of the vehicle. Further, on truck trac tors, clearance lamps mounted on the cab may be located to indicate the width of the cab rather than the overall width of the vehicle.

I hope this has answered your question.