ID: nht94-7.43

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: Gary Klingaman -- Engineer, Inter Pipe, Inc.

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From John Womack To Gary Klingaman (A42; Redbook (2); PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are a manufacturer of water trucks and lube/fuel service trucks. We take incomplete vehicles and add water tanks and various other apparatus, making it a complete vehicle.

By Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we are required to identify this vehicle by a sticker indicating manufacturer, incomplete vehicle manufacturer, date of manufacturer, GVWR with indicated tires, tire pressure, and vehicle identification number.

We also may use pre-owned chassis in construction of our product. Do we need this sticker for this type of vehicle?

I would appreciate any further information on this tag that is required and if it is required on used chassis belonging to either the customer or one we have purchased to sell.

Regards,

INTER PIPE, INC.

ID: nht94-7.44

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Siris -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/93 from Michael J. Siris to Mary Versailles (OCC-9469)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993, following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested "confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer." You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a "1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column."

Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(k)) states:

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.

Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action.

With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,:

the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shaft lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic transmission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.45

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry R. Lynch -- AT & D Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/93 from Larry R. Lynch to John Womack (OCC-9281)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal safety standards would apply to the "AeroCon System," a new product being developed by your firm. You state that this product is an air deflector/fairing that provides aerodynamic braking. According to your letter, "By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor." (emphasis in original)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about air deflectors or fairings. However, since the AeroCon System "utilizes the auxiliary air system," it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the AeroCon System is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). You may wish to

determine whether the AeroCon System adversely affects compliance with any of the requirements in Standard No. 121.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the AeroCon System would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.46

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-8998) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to Richard Van Iderstine

TEXT:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, as well as your letter to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency and its enclosures.

You are interested in marketing an accessory daytime running lamp (DRL) system, and have asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to this product. There appear to be two versions of this system. In both systems, the DRLs are the lower beam headlamps, automatically activated at 77% intensity when the ignition is turned on. The taillamps and side marker lamps are not activated. The systems are deactivated when the ignition is turned off. The systems differ in that one automatically activates the headlamps to full intensity (while activating the taillamps and side marker lamps as well) at a predetermined lower ambient light level.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, aftermarket lighting equipment may be installed provided that it does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The system you describe is congruent with the DRL systems permitted by Standard No. 108, which allows DRLs to be lower beam headlamps operated at less than full intensity, without activation of the taillamps and side marker lamps. Therefore, the installation of either of your DRL systems would not affect a vehicle's pre-existing compliance with Standard No. 108 or any other standard, and is permissible under our regulations.

We note that the reduced intensity is achieved by a "pulse with modulation" which cycle the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect." S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning for uses other than flashing. While a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam, as appears to be the case here.

ID: nht94-7.47

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: Norman Duncan -- President, Study-Tech, Inc.

TO: Rodney Slater -- Administrator, FHA Transportation Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Norman Duncan (A42; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); Std. 108) and letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request from your office AN INTERPRETATION OF THE EXISTING VEHICLE CODE as it may apply to a safety-warning system that our corporation has devised.

The system:

- Is designed to operate at the rear of vehicles to warn the cars following that they are slowing down.

- Can be attached to either the existing brake lights of the vehicle, or could use separately mounted "warning lights" mounted at the rear- deck level and facing toward the back of the vehicle.

- Will automatically be activated the moment the vehicle "begins to slow-down" due to deceleration.

There are many benefits to be derived from the use of this device.

For example:

- There are critical time intervals between when a driver notes an emergency ahead and when the driver reacts. Precious seconds are lost before the driver's reflex action activates the brake lights.

(Note: Using the "Early-Warning Slow-Down Safety Light", the driver following would see the warning light at the precise moment that the vehicle begins to slow.)

According to statistics gathered from several state's traffic and crash facts books, (Eg. "Illinois Crash Facts and Statistics - 1992), about 25% of all collisions involving two vehicles are rear-end type accidents. This is an alarming fact! This type of accident is in the category of "Could-be-Avoided" if drivers were more alert, or a warning signal was given at the moment of deceleration of the vehicle in front.

That degree of being "alert" in normal traffic is the foundation for our "Early-Warning Slow-Down Safety Light". We envision this device to be the latest in an emerging field of new safety devices. The newest safety devices include: the air bags, the rear-deck additional "stop light", improved head lamps and Anti-locking Brake Systems. Soon, we understand, General Motors will install running lights for their cars that will be "on" whenever the ignition is turned on. All of these

recently developed safety features are designed to bring about higher standards for safety for our nation's highways. Our device, we feel, is another important extension of this concern to make our U.S. vehicles as safe as possible.

We need your assistance and look forward to your answers to the following questions:

A. Can current vehicle codes be interpreted to allow for an automatic signal when a vehicle begins to slow-down?

B. If vehicle codes do not allow for this type of device, would you or some member of your staff be willing to assist us in an effort to develop plans to allow this type of device?

C. Would you or members of your staff be interested in attending a demonstration of the prototype of the safety device? (To be arranged.)

It is our goal to apply for a patent for this device because it represents important "new" technology in this particular field.

An early response from your office would be appreciated very much. We look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht94-7.48

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request, in a February 3, 1994, meeting, that we provide a letter clarifying certain Federal legal requirements related to a hydraulic brake lock that is sold as aftermarket equipment. You made this request on behalf of your client, MICO, Inc.

You indicated that the device is ordinarily added to used vehicles, but sometimes might be installed by a body builder prior to a vehicle's first sale to a consumer. The hydraulic brake lock at issue supplements the mechanical parking of a motor vehicle by providing supplemental holding capacity for the vehicle. The brake lock is installed in the hydraulic brake lines between the master brake cylinder and the foundation brakes. You particularly asked us to confirm your understanding that such a device is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in this letter.

Nothing in Standard No. 105 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock that provides supplemental holding capacity for a vehicle, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering hydraulic brake locks. Therefore, MICO, as manufacturer of the device, would not have any certification responsibilities. However, the requirements of Standard No. 105 are relevant to hydraulic brake locks. This standard applies to new motor vehicles and specifies a number of brake performance requirements. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires cutting into the vehicle's brake system, it is possible that such a device could be installed in a manner that affects a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue is ordinarily added to used motor vehicles. After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of

the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Thus, the named commercial entities would be prohibited from installing a hydraulic brake lock only if such installation would take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 105. The "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made to vehicles by their owners.

You indicated that the hydraulic brake lock at issue may sometimes be installed by a body builder prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. Such a body builder would presumably be installing the hydraulic brake lock on either a completed vehicle that had previously been certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or as part of the final stage manufacture of a vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer had installed a brake system that complied with Standard No. 105. In both cases, the body builder would have certification responsibilities with respect to the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, either as an alterer or as a final stage manufacturer. See 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht94-7.49

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TO: Dave Elias -- Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to J.L. Steffy (A42; Part 565)

TEXT:

I am writing to ask for an interpretation of CFR 565.4 with the possibility of gaining a waiver from NHTSA.

With respect to the VIN Label Table VI shows that a letter code is given for each MODEL YEAR. Currently our VIN labels have a letter code for the YEAR PRODUCED. Therefore, a 1994 model year vehicle could have letter code "P" for 1993 if it was produced in November 1993, for example. This assists us from a traceability standpoint. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I believe we agree with the spirit of 565.4, which is to match a time frame to a letter code within the VIN.

As we are currently preparing all items for entry into the U.S. this fall, I would like to hear from you as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance.

ID: nht94-7.5

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: Hamilton K. Pyles -- Cairncross & Associates, Inc.

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Hamilton K. Pyles (A42; VSA 102(a)(2)(A); Part 591

TEXT:

We are writing to request the assistance of your office, or your personal assistance, in obtaining Department of Transportation approval and color code designation on our, LIFE LITES system. Our firm has secured a patent, foreign trade license and completed testing with the Ohio State University, and is ready to begin producing the device.

C & L Safety Products currently has a plastics firm and lighting manufacturer within your district to begin production, as well as, several organizations who have committed to purchase the final product. We feel normal, or abnormal delays, in securing approval for the device could adversely impact the economic development of your voting area. Rapid approval would permit you to utilize our firm as an example, particularly in an election environment, of the assistance you can provide to those considering southwest Ohio as a site for future business. Additionally, we are prepared to utilize our public relations firm in contacting other organizations with the details of any assistance provided by you in this matter.

Sue Clark, of your Hamilton office, has been working with us, and has all the details of efforts made to date in securing approval, and has been greatly supportive in moving through the Department of Transportation process.

We have taken the liberty of enclosing a local and national press article explaining the purpose of the device, as well as, copies of the patent and foreign trade permit. Should there be any questions, please call us, to reduce the delays associated with mailed correspondence. Best wishes for continued success.

We would like to import into the United States a kit for a custom compact pick-up truck bed. The bed is made of varnished and sealed wooden planks and plywood with metal fastenings and reinforcements. The kit would consist of the following:

1. Plans and instructions in English for the safe and secure assembly of the bed and attachment on the frames of the specified pick-up truck makes, models and years.

2. Wooden and Plywood parts of the bed suitably labelled for identification.

3. Metal parts, fastenings, wiring and lights.

The intention is to offer this kit in advertisements in specialty

magazines and catalogs to the general public and to offer it to manufacturer's who place specialized beds (campershells, utility company boxes, etc.) on pick-up frames that they buy new without factory installed beds. The general public would strip the existing bed off their truck to install ours.

What federal laws and regulations, under your cognizance, govern the importation, sale and installation of wooden pick-up bed kits? What must I do, initially, to import a trial sample bed into the United States?

As we are on a fairly tight time schedule, your prompt reply by FAX and mail will be very much appreciated, partial answers one by one are far preferable to waiting for all the answers before replying. Thank you.

ID: nht94-7.50

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: Doug Bereuter -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from Christopher A. Hart to Doug Bereuter (A42; Part 303)

TEXT:

I am writing to convey my continuing intense interest in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking concerning compressed natural gas vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. As I have made absolutely clear to you and other Department of Transportation officials, ANY FURTHER DELAYS IN THE COMPLETION OF THE RULEMAKING SIMPLY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Every day that goes by without a final rule creates further hardship for Brunswick Corporation and its employees. CLEAR PROGRESS ON THIS MATTER IS IMPERATIVE! Let me know the status of the rulemaking.

ID: nht94-7.6

DATE: April 4, 1994

FROM: William G. Franz -- Vice President, Fabrication, Wells Aluminum

TO: Walter Myers -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to William G. Franz (Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

Subsequent to our recent phone conversation, I am formally requesting an interpretation of paragraph S.5.1.2 regarding the window opening size. Specifically, my question is as follows:

Does the 8 inch window opening size apply to the total outside frame dimension or does it apply to each pane of glass? The enclosed picture shows a typical retention test being performed on a push out window with two separately framed pieces of glass. In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test?

For your information, Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures push out windows for the school bus industry.

I look forward to your response.

WGF/cih

myers.ltr