ID: nht95-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

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

TO: Ken Liebscher -- President/Director, Electric Car Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/16/95 LETTER FROM KEN LIEBSCHER TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: We have reviewed your application of January 16, 1995, for temporary exemption of the M1-6 electric passenger car from six Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on the basis that compliance would cause Electric Car Company ("Electric Car") substantial economic hardship. We need some additional information before we are able to consider the application further.

A hardship applicant must provide corporate balance sheets and income statements for the three fiscal years preceding the filing of the application. You have filed statements for E.T.C. Industries and only for two years, those ending December 31, 1992, and December 31, 1993. This is acceptable since your submission indicates that E.T.C. Industries (apparently a Canadian corporation) is the parent of Electric Car (a Nevada corporation incorporated on November 24, 1993), and that "the consolidated finan cial statements [that you have provided us] include the accounts of Electric Car . . . ." We would like to have balance sheets and income statements for Electric Car for the year ending December 31, 1994, but if these are not yet available, we would be w illing to accept statements for E.T.C. Industries (or its predecessor Bradsue Resources, Ltd.) for the year ending December 31, 1991. If the information reflected in the financial statements is given in Canadian dollars, please provide a key indicating the value in American dollars on December 31 of each year for which the information is provided.

In order to grant a hardship application, the Administrator must find that an applicant has tried to comply in good faith with each standard for which exemption is requested. Your application contains no information upon which the Administrator could ma ke such a finding with respect to any of the six standards for which you seek exemption. In spite of your confidence about the MI-6's performance in a 30 mph barrier impact, the fact that the MI-6 uses equipment installed in motor vehicles that are cert ified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not mean that the MI-6 will meet any of the six standards with the equipment installed. We therefore suggest that you supplement the application with information demonstrating that you hav e examined each of the six standards in some detail, and have made a study of possible compliance problems and possible solutions to them. It is permissible to ask to be excused from only a portion of a standard, and you may find, after studying your pr oblems, that you will be able to narrow your requests for exemption from Standards No. 201 and 208. We assume with respect to the latter that you are concerned with the airbag requirements. Although your letter speaks of "restraint systems", we would l ike your further identification of them as two-point (lap belt) or three-point (lap and shoulder belt) systems.

Although you appear to be a manufacturer in the start-up stage and one whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding the filing of the application was far less than 10,000, you have omitted to provide the number of motor vehicles that you pr oduced in 1994 which is information that we require. Please do so in your response to this letter.

When we have received this information, we shall prepare a notice requesting public comment which will appear in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has made a decision. We expect this to be three to four months after we ha ve received your further submission. If you have any questions on our requirements, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: 8228a

Mr. Ken Liebscher
President/Director
Electric Car Company
P.O. Box 618
Everson, WA 98247

Dear Mr. Liebscher:

We have reviewed your application of January 16, 1995, for temporary exemption of the M1-6 electric passenger car from six Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on the basis that compliance would cause Electric Car Company ("Electric Car") substantial economic hardship. We need some additional information before we are able to consider the application further.

A hardship applicant must provide corporate balance sheets and income statements for the three fiscal years preceding the filing of the application. You have filed statements for E.T.C. Industries and only for two years, those ending December 31, 1992, and December 31, 1993. This is acceptable since your submission indicates that E.T.C. Industries (apparently a Canadian corporation) is the parent of Electric Car (a Nevada corporation incorporated on November 24, 1993), and that "the consolidated financial statements [that you have provided us] include the accounts of Electric Car . . . ." We would like to have balance sheets and income statements for Electric Car for the year ending December 31, 1994, but if these are not yet available, we would be willing to accept statements for E.T.C. Industries (or its predecessor Bradsue Resources, Ltd.) for the year ending December 31, 1991. If the information reflected in the financial statements is given in Canadian dollars, please provide a key indicating the value in American dollars on December 31 of each year for which the information is provided.

In order to grant a hardship application, the Administrator must find that an applicant has tried to comply in good faith with each standard for which exemption is requested. Your application contains no information upon which the Administrator could make such a finding with respect to any of the six standards for which you seek exemption. In spite of your confidence about the MI-6's performance in a 30 mph barrier impact, the fact that the MI-6 uses equipment installed in motor vehicles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not mean that the MI-6 will meet any of the six standards with the equipment installed. We therefore suggest that you supplement the application with information demonstrating that you have examined each of the six standards in some detail, and have made a study of possible compliance problems and possible solutions to them. It is permissible to ask to be excused from only a portion of a standard, and you may find, after studying your problems, that you will be able to narrow your requests for exemption from Standards No. 201 and 208. We assume with respect to the latter that you are concerned with the airbag requirements. Although your letter speaks of "restraint systems", we would like your further identification of them as two-point (lap belt) or three-point (lap and shoulder belt) systems.

Although you appear to be a manufacturer in the start- up stage and one whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding the filing of the application was far less than 10,000, you have omitted to provide the number of motor vehicles that you produced in 1994 which is information that we require. Please do so in your response to this letter.

When we have received this information, we shall prepare a notice requesting public comment which will appear in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has made a decision. We expect this to be three to four months after we have received your further submission. If you have any questions on our requirements, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:555 d:2/13/95

ID: aiam4020

Dear Mr. Bynum: Thank you for your July 31, 1985 letter to Administrator Stee concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength,* to your school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.; In a telephone call with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained tha Virginia wants to purchase new school buses for deaf and blind school children and plans to equip those buses with bathrooms. The bathrooms will be installed by a commercial shop after the State receives the vehicles from a dealer. You explained that the joints of the body panels enclosing the passenger compartment would comply with FMVSS No. 221. However, you asked us whether the panels covering the inside of the bathroom, comprising a 'Formica-type' material, must comply with the standard. As explained below, the answer is no.; Our safety standards and regulations are not applicable t modifications of motor vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles for purposes other than resale, with one exception. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative...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...<<<; In your situation, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires the commercia business adding the bathroom to ensure that any device or element of design which was installed in compliance with Federal safety standards continues to comply with those standards after the work has been completed. For example, the installation of the bathroom compartment must not render inoperative the compliance of the school bus seats with FMVSS No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* or the emergency exits with FMVSS No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release.* However, the joints of the panels would not have to comply with Standard No. 221 since the panels are being placed in a used vehicle. The agency does, however, urge persons making modifications to follow voluntarily our safety standards.; We would note that this agency has a set of different requirements tha would apply if the bathroom were added to a new school bus before its sale to you. In that situation, the person who installs the bathroom would be an alterer under our regulations, and required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards, including FMVSS No. 221. (49 CFR Part 567.7); Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1840

Dear Mr. Eddy: This is to respond to your letter of February 11, 1975, to Mr. Wolfgan Reinhart, concerning your defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign No. 74-0203.; You believe that the second sentence in your notification lette properly determined that the defect existed in Matlock Model trailers. That sentence read, 'Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the brake shoes of Standard Forge axles with 12 1/4 and 7 1/2 brake shoes on Matlock Model MTE (electronic trailers).' The NHTSA has consistently viewed a determination stated in this manner as relating to equipment (brake shoes) and not specifically to the vehicle. Matlock's determination should have been that the defect had been determined to exist in the described vehicles. We are aware that the existing requirements (49 CFR S 577.4(b)(1)) are not worded as explicitly as they might be. However, a proposed amendment to Part 577 published November 25, 1974 (39 FR 41182), did attempt to clarify the intent of this section. Should you have need to issue defect notification in the future we would expect the statement of determination to be directed specifically at the vehicles you manufacture.; With respect to your second point, section 577.4(d) calls for th evaluation to mention the possibility of vehicle crash where that is a potential result of the defect. In that regard your notification was clearly deficient.; We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter to you. Please feel fre to write again if you have questions regarding the interpretation or application of any NHTSA requirements.; Yours truly, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0466

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1971, concerning th Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You request a ruling concerning S573.7, which requires manufacturers to submit a copy 'of all notices, bulletins, and other communications, other than those required to be submitted under S573.4(c)(8), sent to more than one dealer or purchaser of his vehicles regarding any defect, whether or not safety related, in such vehicles.'; You ask whether this requirement includes letters that your compan writes that are of a personal nature concerning possible defects, when the letters deal with more than one item, but have at least one item in common. If these letters are included in the requirement, you request that we specify a time span for which you would be responsible.; The intent of S573.7 is for manufacturers to provide the NHTSA wit certain information each time a defect other than a defect under S573.4(c)(8) is found to exist in more than one vehicle. Thus, assuming the defect is not one on which information has been submitted pursuant to S573.4(c)(8), you may satisfy the requirement of S573.7 by submitting a copy of any one letter that pertains to a defect found in more than one vehicle, as long as the letter is appropriately marked so that we can determine for which defect it is being submitted.; The regulation does not limit the time span for which manufacturers ar responsible, and manufacturers must be sufficiently familiar with their repair programs so that if a defect appears at two or more points in time, the necessary information can be submitted.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3814

Dear Mr. Miyauchi: This responds to your letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong asking severa questions about Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; Your first question concerned the requirements of Weathering Test No 16 of American National Standard Institute Z-26. The version of ANSI Z-26 currently incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 is ANSI Z-26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1a, July 3, 1980, rather than ANSI Z-26.1- 1977 as cited in your letter. Your question has to do with the language of section 5.16.3 of ANSI Z-26, which states that after the weathering test, 'the decrease in regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimen shall not exceed 5 percent.' You ask whether the permissible decrease is an absolute 5 percentage points (defined as A-B, where A is the luminous transmittance before the test and B is the luminous transmittance after the test) or is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A). The permissible decrease is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B/A), or stated another way, the irradiated specimen must have 95 percent of its original transmittance after the test.; You also asked if Weathering Test No. 16 applies to AS-7 glazin materials. As required by Table 1 of ANSI Z-26, the weathering test does apply to AS-7 glazing materials.; Finally, you asked which DOT number, yours or the resin maker's, shoul be applied to a motorcycle windshield you make with an injection machine from polycarbonate resin pellets. Your DOT number must be used, since you fabricate the actual item of glazing material that will be placed in a vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1802

Dear Mr. Cords: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting a opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR SS 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.; The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on th part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.; If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will b required.; Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1801

Dear Mr. Cords: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting a opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR SS 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.; The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on th part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.; If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will b required.; Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2989

Dear Mr. Cole: In your letter of March 19, you pointed out that the tire industry ha printed tire tread labels and consumer information materials based on Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), as published in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542, July 17, 1978). That notice contained a typographical error in the text of Figure 2, which was corrected in Notice 31 (44 FR 15721, March 15, 1979) by substitution of the word 'are' in place of the word 'of' in the first line of the third section of Figure 2.; The labels and other materials printed prior to the issuance of Notic 31 may be technically in noncompliance with the UTQG regulation. To avoid the waste which would result if use of these materials were prohibited, however, NHTSA will permit use of tread labels and information materials containing the Figure 2 text as stated in Notice 24, where orders for printing of these materials were submitted prior to March 15, 1979, the date of publication of Notice 31.; Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking;

ID: aiam2990

Dear Mr. Cole: In your letter of March 19, you pointed out that the tire industry ha printed tire tread labels and consumer information materials based on Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), as published in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542, July 17, 1978). That notice contained a typographical error in the text of Figure 2, which was corrected in Notice 31 (44 FR 15721, March 15, 1979) by substitution of the word 'are' in place of the word 'of' in the first line of the third section of Figure 2.; The labels and other materials printed prior to the issuance of Notic 31 may be technically in noncompliance with the UTQG regulation. To avoid the waste which would result if use of these materials were prohibited, however, NHTSA will permit use of tread labels and information materials containing the Figure 2 text as stated in Notice 24, where orders for printing of these materials were submitted prior to March 15, 1979, the date of publication of Notice 31.; Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking;