ID: nht92-5.5

DATE: July 31, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carrie Minna

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/13/92 from Carrie Minna to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7548)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1992, with respect to your wish to import certain motor vehicles for use off main highways, in "small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities, and possible elderly communities." The vehicles appear to be of Asian origin, are three-wheeled and carry from three to eight passengers. The top speed of the vehicles is 80 kph.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (the "standards") are promulgated. The Act defines a motor vehicle as one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." You will see from this that the primary determinant of whether the vehicle you wish to import is a "motor vehicle" is the manufacturer's intent, rather than your intent as the purchaser. It is clear to us from the speed capability of the vehicle (not to mention that one of them carries a "taxi" sign) that these vehicles are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act and are therefore required to meet all applicable standards in order to be imported into the United States, notwithstanding your intent to use them in traffic off the public roads.

The standards that the vehicles are required to meet are those that apply to motorcycles, specifically to brake hoses, brakes, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, rearview mirrors, vehicle identification number, controls and displays, and glazing. If the motorcycles are originally manufactured to conform with the standards, and bear a certification to that effect affixed by their manufacturer, they may enter the United States as manufactured in compliance with the U.S. standards of this agency.

It is probable, however, that the vehicles have not been manufactured to conform with the standards. In order for a nonconforming vehicle to be imported, the Administrator of this agency must have determined that they are capable of being modified to comply with the standards. Such determinations are most frequently made on the petition of the manufacturer or an entity known as a "Registered Importer." A Registered Importer is one that has been recognized by the agency as capable of performing conformance work. Once the Administrator has determined that a vehicle is eligible for importation, it may be imported only by Registered Importers, or those who have contracted with a Registered Importer to perform the work necessary to bring the vehicle into compliance with the standards. No eligibility determinations have been made that cover the vehicles you wish to import.

If you are interested in pursuing this matter further, you may write Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Hellmuth can provide guidance on the

motorcycle standards and other obligations, as well as a list of Registered Importers and information on the eligibility determination procedures.

ID: nht92-5.50

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John W. Arnold, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from John W. Arnold, Jr. to NHTSA (OCC 7296)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 5, 1992, concerning requirements for after-market seats. Your letter states that you had a vehicle accessories dealer, Orig. Equip. of San Angelo, install bucket seats in your 1992 Dodge Diesel Ram pickup. You state that, because the bucket seats seemed unsafe, you removed the bucket seats and reinstalled the original seats. You asked if the dealer was required to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards when installing the bucket seats.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment to a consumer unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, 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 that:

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.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Based on the allegations in your letter, it is possible that the accessories dealer that installed the aftermarket seats in your truck violated this provision of Federal law.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action. You may also wish to follow up by contacting NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393.

ID: nht92-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1992

FROM: Kevin R. Boyne -- Chief Engineer, Dynamics and Durability Engineering, Transportation Research Center Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kevin R. Boyne (A40; Std. 114)

TEXT:

This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.114, Section 4.2.1 (FMVSS 114, "Theft Protection"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) is conducting FMVSS certification tests on a passenger car for compliance, beginning September 1, 1992. The test vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission and a console-mounted shift lever. There is no provision for an override device for the removal of the ignition key.

Section 4.2.1 requires each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position to prevent removal of the key, unless the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. The vehicle we are testing operates in the following manner:

Initial Condition - Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action - The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern - As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

Is this condition within the requirements of the standard?

The solenoid which prevents the moving of the key from the accessory to lock position, and subsequent key removal, is deactivated by the position of the shift lever. Additionally, the shift lever will only lock in "park" if the thumb button is released.

TRC has inspected other vehicles of similar layout for this condition and found it to exist in all three foreign-designed vehicles we tested. The one domestic-designed vehicle we inspected required release of the thumb button to permit rotation of the key to the lock position and subsequent removal.

Please provide TRC in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: nht92-5.7

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Berg -- President, Ascend Productions

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/15/92 from Douglas Berg to NHTSA Legal Council (OCC 7322)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide "recognition and support" for your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." You explained that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). Your sales literature indicates that the help needed symbol is intended to be displayed in the event of medical emergencies, mechanical breakdown, having a flat tire, or being stuck in snow or being out of fuel. The hazard alert symbol is intended to be displayed for going for gasoline, doing roadside repairs, resting, or awaiting known assistance.

As discussed below, this agency does not recognize, support or otherwise endorse particular products. Moreover, based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Section S3 of Standard No. 125 specifies that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and USED TO WARN APPROACHING TRAFFIC OF THE PRESENCE OF A STOPPED VEHICLE, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) Your device has no self-contained energy source, is designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and is not permanently affixed to the vehicle.

Another condition set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance,

are not subject to Standard No. 125. An example of such a device would be a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade.

The "help needed" portion of your device appears to be designed to function in the same manner as other non-warning devices, i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. This portion of the device would therefore not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the "hazard alert" portion of your device does appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, and must therefore comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. From the enclosed copy of the standard you will see that some of the specific requirements with which your device must comply include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information you provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

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

ID: nht92-5.8

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Berkley C. Sweet -- Vice President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Berkley Sweet to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 29, 1992 asking what minimum passenger size (weight and height) was used in developing the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You noted that several school districts are now transporting newborn and under-school-age children to schools which provide day-care service, and that you have received inquiries concerning the "limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA has never specified a passenger size and/or age range applicable to the compartmentalized school bus seats required by Standard No. 222. In developing the standard, however, NHTSA considered the range of sizes and ages of children attending preprimary through secondary school.

NHTSA has developed approximate size and weight guidelines for child restraint systems. For children from birth to 9-12 months (or up to 20 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of an infant or convertible seat facing the rear. For children from 9-12 months to 4 years (or 20 pounds to 40 pounds), NHTSA recommends use of a convertible or toddler seat. If a school is transporting children in these age and weight ranges, they may want to consider using a school bus with safety belts to secure a child restraint system. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Transporting Your Children Safely" for your information.

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.

(Text of Consumer Information Sheet omitted.)

ID: nht92-5.9

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TO: Thomas E. Wilde

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/9/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas E. Wilde (A39; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT:

I am in the process of obtaining a patent for an airbag device designed to be installed in automobiles that do not already have factory-installed airbags (a.k.a. "retro-fit air bag"). The device will use current air- bag sensor/trigger technology and as such only the "bag" device and delivery method will be patented.

I would appreciate your office's advice or comments on any vehicle safety standards that may exist regarding the placement of a retro-fit device in a vehicle. My concern is that there may be some regulations that restrict the use of such devices. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

ID: nht92-6.1

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Eugene J. Welker

TO: Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, N.C.C.I., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from Kenneth N. Weinstein (for Paul J. Rice) to Eugene Welker (A39; Redbook (4); Std. 211; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Mr. Stronbotne suggested I write you relative to a mirror safety item that can be located near rear bumper on cars, trucks, vans, etc., to improve a driver backing out of either a perpendicular, 45 degree angle or other parking areas to ascertain if the way is clear for driver to proceed without endangering anyone.

The purpose of this letter is to question the legality of mirrors on rear of vehicles facing forward about 45 degrees so no following vehicles are affected by any reflection.

Mirrors on cars would be hinged on a vertical post and be a few inches above top rear window stop light. The two car mirrors are approximately 90 degrees apart or 45 degrees on each side so driver can tell from windshield if any traffic is coming from either direction prior to backing out.

Mirrors on prototype unit are 4" x 6" long, or approximately the size of mirrors on car doors. These are cut from 1/4" thick plexiglass and bolted on one end to hinge on vertical post.

Mirrors would be high enough on trucks, probably about heighth of ones outside drivers doors so driver can get a good view if all is clear before backing up.

I have made a prototype and can readily mount it on rear of my car above rear bumper in a few seconds with two small wing nuts to hold vertical shaft, approximately 35" long. I carry unit in car trunk so I can readily attach it if my vision is blocked on either side in rear.

In 1942 and 1943 I had the pleasure of working for the Small Arms Branch in the Pentagon expediting a variety of machinery and equipment.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.10

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Andrew Card, Jr. -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Bob Clement (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I have recently been contacted by my constituents throughout the State of Tennessee who are concerned about the impact of a Federal law regarding the transportation of school children.

According to my constituents, the Federal law permits school officials to use vans equipped to transport up to 10 passengers; however, they are prevented from transporting school children in vans equipped to transport 11 or more passengers. It is my understanding that the school officials would like to use these vans to transport children participating in after-school athletic events.

I have attached a sample constituent letter for your review. I would greatly appreciate knowing if the regulations provide any relief for the school districts in this situation. If not, I would like to know if the National Transportation Safety Board or the Department of Transportation have considered revising the regulations on this matter.

If you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Jay Hansen of my staff at (202)225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/29/92 from James C. Campbell, Athletic Director, Maryville High School, Maryville, Tennessee. Text of letter:

Dear Legislator:

Recently throughout our State much concern has mounted in regard to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education. These memos have directed attention to an early 1970's federal law pertaining to use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven (11) or more.

Over the years, many schools throughout the State have made use of 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport athletic teams and other school groups to and from school-related events. These vans are NOT used for "pick-up" and "drops" on public roadways. Now, many systems have either had to park their vans or they are under a deadline to do so. This action already has or will create a tremendous financial burden on schools already strapped with financial hardships due to budget cuts. We fear the ultimate result will be the elimination of certain athletic teams and other school functions simply due to the enormous expense involved in renting buses on a daily basis. Also, another problem is that of finding buses available at the time of day needed.

At Maryville High School we have suspended use of two vans that were used for a variety of student activities. Replacing these resources means hiring school buses which we know will increase costs. Due to this change we are considering eliminating some valuable parts of our student activity programs.

We desperately need your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. To ensure that vans are maintained in a safe condition, they can be required to have the same inspection as that imposed on regular school buses.

We have real problems with, and do not understand the rationale, of a law that states we can legally use a van equipped to transport 10 passengers but we cannot use a van equipped to transport 11, 12, or 15 passengers. We appreciate your concern in this matter and desperately need your support.

ID: nht92-6.11

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Matthew G. Martinez -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Phillip M. Ramos, Jr. -- Philatron International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/92 from Andrew H. Card, Jr. to Matthew G. Martinez (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Philatron International to strongly question the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy procedures.

In a letter to Philatron from NHTSA, dated April 10, 1992, NHTSA granted Philatron regulatory relief from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 by deleting the oil resistance test standard for air brake tubing. Clearly, this action by NHTSA demonstrated that Philatron's brake hose products posed no safety threat whatsoever. This outdated regulation is still on the books and continues to be administered by NHTSA today even though current truck and brake technology has eliminated air brake exposure to oil. This is the kind of scenario that the Vice President's Council on Competitiveness is working to eliminate.

Although NHTSA has agreed to initiate rulemaking procedures to change the regulation in the future, in the interim, Philatron is unable to continue to market their superior product and endures severe economic distress -- resulting in the firing of a large percentage of its employees. Before this regulatory nightmare, they sold 45,411 assemblies with no reported failures or complaints from any of its customers. The only objections came from Philatron's larger competitors.

I criticize NHTSA's decision not to allow Philatron to sell its brake hoses while their extremely time-consuming rulemaking process in ongoing. This misapplied regulation is unfair and economically crippling to this small business. Further, the longer this matter is left unresolved, the longer Philatron continues to experience serious economic hardship.

I request that you allow production of this product to continue and put those who were unfairly laid off, back to work. Thank you for your courtesy and any consideration that you could give this matter. I look forward to your response.

ID: nht92-6.12

DATE: June 10, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 3, 1992, I wrote to you requesting an interpretation of FMVSS 108 regarding center high mounted stop lamps. Your interpretation of the regulations with regard to our proposed design was not consistent with our interpretation. Therefore, we have come up with an alternate design which we believe will be consistent with your interpretation. Since this new design raises several questions, we are requesting another interpretation. The attached document contains that request.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

Attachment

PORSCHE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

Porsche is considering a new design of center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) for its 911 Carrera model. In order to accommodate a moveable rear spoiler, the CHMSL would consist of two separate lamps: Lamp A would be mounted on the front edge of the moveable spoiler; Lamp B would be mounted on the rear edge of the moveable spoiler. Both lamps are on the center line of the car. This dual light system would function as follows:

From 0 to 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the down position. The CHMSL Lamp A would function (when the brakes were engaged). CHMSL Lamp B would not function.

At 5O+/-5mph when the spoiler is rising, Lamp A would function until the spoiler is approximately 35% up. At this point Lamp B would begin functioning and Lamp A would be disabled.

Above 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the up position and Lamp B would function (when the brakes were engaged).

As the speed drops below 5O+/-5mph the Spoiler would remain in the up position until approximately 9+/-3mph and Lamp B would function.

At 9+/-3mph when the spoiler is lowering, Lamp B would function until the spoiler reached the 35% up position. At this point Lamp A would begin functioning and Lamp B would be disabled.

With this design we expect that all photometric and height requirements of FMVSS 108 will be met with switching from Lamp A to Lamp B while the spoiler is moving. It is possible that it will be necessary to have both Lamp A and Lamp B functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

We have identified the following issues and request NHTSA's views on them:

The switching from Lamp A to Lamp B does not violate the "steady burning" requirement of FMVSS 108.

There is no problem with having two separate CHMSLs as long as they fulfill the requirements of FMVSS 108 while they are capable of functioning, either separately or together.

Having Lamp B drop below the height requirement of FMVSS 108 is not a problem if it is not capable of functioning while below that level (i.e.: If it is no longer capable of functioning (lighting), then it is no longer a lamp by definition).