ID: aiam4489

"Dear Mr. Bernard: This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR 571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufactures. It does not. Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirements, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 nor Part 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2590

Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking what standards appl to vehicles designed to transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school.; Vehicles that transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school ar not considered buses according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of 'bus' found in 49 CFR Part 571.3. Accordingly, these vehicles transporting fewer than 10 passengers would not need to comply standards (sic) applicable to either school buses or buses in general. The vehicles to which you refer would be required to comply with standards applicable to passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles depending upon the type of vehicle being used to transport children. You should consult Part 571.3 (enclosed) of our regulations to determine the classification of the vehicle you intend to construct since the vehicle classification establishes the applicability of the standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1365

Dear Mr. Jacobs: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to 'U.S. Bureau o Safety' expressing your view that 'the automobile industry should ... have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance.'; I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 11 *Power-operated Window Systems* which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition 'off' position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.26

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. S. Horton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 26 1982

Mr. Bernard S. Horton 100 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02142

Dear Mr. Horton:

This responds to your recent letter regarding the roof crush requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216. You ask why convertibles are excluded from the requirements of the standard, yet the BMW 318 which has a "targa" roof is not excluded.

Convertibles were excepted from Safety Standard No. 216 when the standard was first issued in 1971 because it was impossible for most convertibles to comply with the requirements. The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), which authorizes the issuance of our safety standards, clarifies that Congress did not intend for the safety standards that would be issued to effectively preclude any type of existing motor vehicle. If no exception had been provided, the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216 would have caused the production of convertibles to cease. For this reason alone, they were excepted from the requirements.

The agency has limited the convertible exception to vehicles for which it is truly impractical to comply. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible", the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof", "hurst hatch roof" or "targa roof" do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location. This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the "A" and "B" pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.

I am sorry that you are unable to obtain the BMW 318, but this is primarily due to the fact that the manufacturer has chosen not to bring this model into compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. As you probably know, there are other models with "targa roofs" and "hurst roofs" that are in compliance with the standard and currently in use.

You also mention the fact that many vehicle custom shops cut one or more panels from vehicles to make them into convertibles or "targas". You state that there seems to be no prohibition to this. There are certain prohibitions, however. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. This means that custom shops cannot cut panels from a used vehicle's roof if such operation would impair the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. Failure to observe this prohibition could result in civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note, however, that the custom shops are not precluded by this section from totally removing a vehicle roof, thereby converting the vehicle into a convertible. The prohibition does not apply to such a conversion since the vehicle would not have had to comply with Standard No. 216 if it had originally been manufactured as a convertible.

I realize that these various distinctions may be confusing. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

100 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02142 July 13, 1982

Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am trying to determine why one automobile or another might or might not meet Standard 216 or some other standard for roof crush resistance.

Specifically, I have been interested in buying an Americanized version of a BMW 318 cabriolet. I am told that it can't be imported here because it doesn't meet roll-over or roof crush requirements. Yet, as indicated by the enclosed article, convertibles are becoming popular again. They, at least the soft top ones I've seen, have no roof crush resistance.

By my way of thinking, a cabriolet, which is often called a "targa" because it has a section of roof which can be removed, and perhaps a drop down back window behind a bar, should be safer than a soft top convertible. In fact, customizing shops offer the cutting of one or more panels from the many makes of cars to make them into convertibles or "targas". There seems to be no prohibition to this.

Can you clarify why the BMW Cabriolet, in the light of what is on our roads, seems to be singled out as unacceptable?

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

Bernard S. Horton

BSH/lp

ID: nht88-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- GENERAL COUNSEL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP SECTION 101 [3]; PART 571 [A]; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529; BROCH URE FROM ARROWPOINTE; DRAGOON PATROLLER ARMORED RESCUE AND SECURITY VEHICLE; 5/19/88 letter from Raymond M. Momboisse to Bwayne Vance

TEXT: Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchase d directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured f or, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for you r request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, t he Border Patrol will save $ 5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicab ility of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 571(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

2

Under 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibi kes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public ro ads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to c onsider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operati ons and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original mil itary specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that on e of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has becom e of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-14 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United Sta tes, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a componen t of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the

3

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufacturers and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: 8371-2

Mr. Peter Drymalski
Investigator
Montgomery County Government
Office of Consumer Affairs
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Drymalski:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's") applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under 114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable components" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re-certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "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." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under 567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in 567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label to remain on the vehicle and affixing an additional label of the type and form specified in 567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:567#VSA d:5/3/94

ID: nht87-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Fred E. Maynard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Fred E. Maynard 13208 Creek Park Lane Poway, CA 92064

Dear Mr. Maynard:

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to an automotive lighting product that you have developed.

According to your letter the VISICOM is an electronic message sending unit which incorporates a center high-mounted stoplamp "which will meet all of the standards required by Regulation 108 as to size, light intensity, angle of visibility, etc.." You hav e asked for an opinion "on any potential current or future legal problems that might arise when this product is marketed."

I will be pleased to discuss the relationship of your device to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, but we cannot advise you of problems you might encounter under State or common law. Stand ard No. 108 covers original vehicle equipment and items manufactured to replace original equipment. Paragraph 54.4 of Standard No. 108 states, in pertinent part, that "...no high-mounted stoplamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device ." In our view, this precludes you from offering the VISICOM as either an original center high-mounted stoplamp, or as one intended to replace such a stoplamp on any passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

However, you are not precluded by Standard No. 108 or the Act from offering this device as aftermarket equipment on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. Whether VISICOM is acceptable on these vehicles must be determined by the laws of ea ch State in which the device will be sold or used.

Thank you for your interest in safety. If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 14, 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson, Legal Council NHTSA, Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street SW

Dear Sir:

I was referred to your office by the people at the D.O.T. 1-800 number as the source for an NHTSA legal opinion concerning an automotive accessory product I have developed. Since one of its functions is somewhat related to the third brakelight now requir ed in 1986 or newer automobiles, but no reference to its total concept is made in Regulation 108, I feel its necessary we have an official opinion on any potential current or future legal problems that might arise when this product is marketed.

I have included a complete functional description of the product as we now intend to manufacture It and I Hill certainly appreciate any suggestions or comments you might have and any reference to other NHTSA regulations that define a product concept like VISICOM if any exist at all.

Thanking you in advance I remain:

Sincerely

Fred E. Maynard 13208 Creek Park Lane Poway, Ca. 92064 (619) 748 5883

VISICOM-Product Description

The VISICOM concept can best be described as an electronic sign or message sending unit. It has a number of potential applications with the most attractive market being that of an automotive accessory. In this configuration It will be sold with a number of preprogrammed words and messages the primary purpose of which will be to enhance the safety aspects of automobile operation and promote a higher degree of courtesy on the road.

Physically the unit comes in two sections. the control panel which mounts on the dashboard of the vehicle, and the display section which is to be positioned in the center of the rear window. According to NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administrat ion) guidelines, a third brakelight would be located in this area of the vehicle in 1986 or newer cars so in order to avoid any conflict with these regulations, the VISICOM automotive model will be supplied with an integrated third brake light which will meet all of the standards required by NHTSA regulation 108 as to size, light intensity, angle of visibility, etc.. This third brakelight will also serve as the base for the display section of the VISICOM which measures approximately 4"H x 17"L x 3"D. Th is enclosure contains virtually all of the electronic control and programming circuits as well as the display itself which consists of six 14 segment alpha-numeric characters 2.5"W x 3.9 "H. Each segment contains a 1.2 watt incandescent bulb which is ene rgized when that segment is required to form a specific number or letter. The words formed by the segmented characters are displayed one at a time for a duration of the seconds with a half second pause in between until the message is complete. Some of th e messages are automatically activated and some of the others continue repeating until the operator ceases the transmission. The messages contained in the system are as follows:

Automatic Messages One Time Display Messages

1. STOP 1. HELLO 2. TURN ------ 2. THANK YOU 3. TURN ------ 3. HAVE A NICE DAY 4. BACKUP 4. SORRY 5. BYEBYE Driver Activated Repeating 6. OK TO PASS Messages 7. NOT OK TO PASS 8. PLEASE DIM YOUR LIGHTS 1. PLEASE CALL POLICE 9. YOU ARE TOO CLOSE 2. NEED HELP 10. CHILD IN CAR 3. HAZARD AHEAD 11. CHECK YOUR DOORS 4. OUT OF GAS 12. CHECK YOUR TIRES

ID: nht73-4.44

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hank Thorp Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1973, which asks if the Manufacturer Code proposal (38 FR 14968, June 7, 1973) as it applies to wheel nuts (1) requires all manufacturers, including vehicle manufacturers, to label their products, (2) permits labeling with self-adhesive stickers, and (3) has authorized the issuance of codes at this time. In addition, you requested a clarification of an interpretation of Standard 211, Wheel nuts.

The answer to your first question is yes. The labeling requirements apply to foreign and domestic manufacturers of passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles and to manufacturers of equipment for those vehicles. The term "manufacturer" includes an importer of vehicles or regulated equipment.

The use of a self-adhesive sticker in satisfaction of the permanent and legible labeling requirements of the proposal is permissible, so long as the information printed thereon is indelible and the label is affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.

No codes have been assigned at this time. Assignment will not occur until a decision is reached as to issuance of a final rule.

The small hexagonal nuts which you import and which you describe as serving the same purpose as the small hexagonal nuts which secure factory-mounted, steel wheels to an axle, are not wheel nuts under the standard. The reference to normal coverage by a hub cap or wheel disc is simply descriptive of their location.

MINILITE

July 7, 1973

James E. Wilson Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation

I am writing to you with respect to the proposed rules (49CFR Parts 566, 567, 568, 571) as published in Volume 38, #109, of the Federal Registration of Thursday, June 7, 1973. I have a number of questions concerning these proposed rules which should also be construed, in part, as comment upon the proposed rules before adoption.

1. As exclusive U.S. Importer of light alloy road wheels, trademarked MINILITE(register) (Registration #893174), we also import wheel nuts and hub caps used with these wheels.(Illegible Word) 1 January 1968, we were required by the U. S. Bureau of Customs to clearly(Illegible Word) the containers in which these products were imported to indicate that they complied fully with Section 571.211. At that time, manufacturers of identical products for the aftermarket within the United States were not required to show similar statements of compliance on their packages. Do the proposed rules referenced above affect all manufacturers of these products, whether or not they are imported or not and whether or not they are used in the assembly of new motor vehicles?

2. Please refer to the specifics of Part 571; S211-1. This standard was revised effective 7/25/69 to add an interpretation as follows.

"INTERPRETATION"

A clarification of the term "wheel nut" as used in the requirements section S3 of Standard No. 211 has been requested. This section states that "wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." A "wheel nut" is an exposed nut that is mounted at the center or hub of a wheel, and not the ordinary small hexagonal nut, one of several which secures a wheel to an axle, and which is normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc."

The wheel nuts we import are small hexagonal nuts and 4 or 5 are used to hold each wheel to the axle. The U. S. Bureau of Customs has not considered these to be of the type affected by this standard. However, due to the nature of light alloy wheels, our wheels nuts are not "normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc". I am requesting a written interpretation as to whether the small hexagonal wheel nuts used with light alloy wheels but not normally covered by a hub cap or wheel disc are covered by Standard 211.

3. If the answer to #2 above is no, I would comment that it would seem appropriate to change the language of Standard 211 and designate that the standard covers "center lock wheel nuts" rather than "wheel nuts".

4. Regards hub caps; our cap is a smooth chemically brightened aluminum cap of either 2 5/8 or 3 1/8 diameter which is pushed through the center hole from the back of the wheel before the wheel is mounted to the axle. It is clear that this is covered by the Standard and would, therefore, require manufacturers identification if the proposed rules are passed. Does the comment that "each wheel nut, wheel disc, and hub cap to be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the manufacturers code number . . ." permit labeling to take the form of a self-adhesive label affixed to the inside of our hub cap so as not to be visible when the cap is fitted to an automobile?

5. If your answer to question #1 indicates that stateside manufacturers of after-market hub caps are not affected by the standard and/or the proposed manufacturers certification requirements, I would comment that the standard is missing the main(Illegible Word) of its purpose; that is, to eliminate winged extensions from center lock wheel nuts and hub caps on vehicles used on the public highways of the United States. The prime source of hub caps produced with eared extensions is from automotive aftermarket manufacturers located in this country.

6. Are assignment of manufacturers identification numbers being made now, or will this assignment be made after the proposed rules are adopted?

I look forward to a reply from you on the above points.

Hank Thorp

ID: nht88-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TO: TAYLOR VINSON--ATTORNEY ADVISOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/15/88 TO LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to help determine the desirability of adding a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" warning light to the light configuration which is normally used on automobiles. As presently envisioned, this light woul d be amber in color and would be illuminated when the driver removes pressure from the accelerator pedal sufficiently to cause the automobile speed to start to decrease, due to the effect of engine compression, and would be extinguished automatically whe never the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal.

SwRI considers that a "deceleration light" of this type has the potential to reduce the incidence of automobile rear-end collisions (see Attachment 1) and that this potential is maximized if the light is located in as conspicuou a location as possible . The "best" location is considered to be immediately adjacent (or as close as possible) to the location of the "high-mounted stoplamp" since this location appears to offer the highest degree of visibility and would also serve to attract attention to th e high-mounted stoplamp area.

This location appears to have already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, since it is mentioned as a consideration in FMVSS No. 108 on page PRE 137, and the principle is in widespread use on schoolbuses which use a manually activated flashing a mber light to warn that the red stop lights are about to be turned on and that all traffic must stop.

A review of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) has failed to locate any requirement which would preclude locating an additional light adjacent to the high-mounted stoplamp; however, this type of requirement was conside red at one time (FMVSS 108, pages PRE 132-133 and PRE 135) and SwRI would like to find out if any requirement exists now, or is contemplated for the future, which would prevent the use of this location.

If I can provide further information or answer any questions which might expedite the answer to this question, please call (512) 522-3017.

Sincerely,

DECELERATION LIGHT MAXIMUM BENEFIT SITUATIONS The following three categories of driving situations are considered to be the situations in which deceleration lights would be of maximum benefit in reducing rear-end collisions.

HEAVY TRAFFIC (High speed/high traffic density with decreased vehicle separation distances)

High traffic density, with the associated decrease in visibility and increased need for enhanced reaction time, leads to a situation where reaction times become additive and eventually reach the point where a following driver is placed in a situation where his vehicle has exceeded its physical capability of stopping in time to avoid an accident. Deceleration lights offer the potential for minimizing this progressive lengthening of reaction time and thereby permitting long strings of cars to stop saf ely. Deceleration lights would also provide valuable information about adjoining lane driver intentions, particularly in lane change situations where an apparent opening in an adjoining traffic lane may be about to vanish if the driver of the vehicle at the front of the opening has decided to slow down and has taken his foot off the accelerator preparatory to stepping on the brakes.

MERGING TRAFFIC (Converging situations between vehicles entering or leaving limited access roadways)

A particularly volatile and rapidly changing situation occurs when two streams of traffic merge and the driver of the vehicle with the right-of-way is often forced to guess whether or not a merging driver is going to yield, speed up, or slow down. Th is guess is made harder by the fact that most drivers control their merging maneuver by use of the accelerator pedal only, and thus leave only the rate-of-change of their speed as a clue to their intentions. The driver with the right-of-way is almost al ways driving the faster, overtaking, vehicle and would be able to see a deceleration light which could furnish valuable clues about the other driver's intentions. A deceleration light would also furnish valuable information to drivers following the vehi cle with the righ-of-way if that driver decides to "let up on the gas" and give a merging vehicle more room to complete the merging maneuver.

DECREASED TRACTION (Braking situations where low traction may cause skids or other loss of control situations if brakes are applied too heavily)

Many drivers fail to realize the need for increased spacing between car during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.). At the same time most drivers are taught that the proper way to slow down in slippery conditions is to let up on the accelerat or and allow the vehicle to decelerate gradually. This combination is likely to cause accidents involving following cars which do not realize that they are following a car which is slowing down until it is too late for them to make a controlled stop. A deceleration light would provide this information for following drivers and allow them to initiate their own stop, or speed reduction, in time to remain in control.

ID: 10440

Mr. Scott E. Peters
Director, Regulations & Compliance
U.S. Electricar
5355 Skylane Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Dear Mr. Peters:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

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.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:110 d:2/13/95