ID: nht91-3.49

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TO: Jack Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rosemary Dunlap (A38; VSA 103D)

TEXT:

As you know, some states are considering disclosure bills concerning safety features in LTVs and bumper strength.

There is considerable debate over the question of states' rights to require disclosure. Opponents of the bills argue there is a federal preemption. Proponents disagree, and cite various legal opinions.

To counter those opinions, opponents have represented that a NHTSA spokesperson indicated that states are federally preempted in this area. However, we have been unable to ascertain the identify of this spokes- person, or the exact nature of what may have been said.

To clarify matters solely with regard to NHTSA, would your office please state for the record whether or not NHTSA has an official opinion regarding federal preemption and disclosure, and if it does, what that opinion is?

I certainly appreciate your kind assistance with this matter.

ID: nht91-3.5

DATE: April 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark A. Pacheco -- Vice President, Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Mark A. Pacheco to Department Of Transportation, NHDSA (OCC 5800)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a "Walk Machine," looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Your letter did not indicate whether the "Walk Machine" would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a "motor vehicle" even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily

distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the "Walk Machine" indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

Because this vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

ID: nht91-3.50

DATE: May 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen Mamakas -- AIR Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 01/01/91 (EST) letter from Stephen Mamakas to Whom it May Concern (OCC 5875)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking what Federal standards apply to the "repair" of deployed air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. The compliance testing of vehicles to the requirement of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria (as measured on a test dummy) when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Automatic crash protection will save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of serious injuries each year.

Note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which repaired air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect your planned operation would be the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 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 ..." In this case, air bags are a "device or element of design" installed in passenger cars in

compliance with Standard No. 208. Hence, your repair business would violate Federal law if it were to remove, deploy, disable, or otherwise "render inoperative" air bags installed in passenger cars.

However, your letter gives no indication that your company intends to perform repairs or other operations on air bags that have not yet deployed. Instead, your letter asks only about performing repairs on air bags that have already deployed. Deployed air bags have been "rendered inoperative" by the forces that caused deployment, not by anything a repair business does after that deployment. Thus, it seems unlikely that any repairs your company performs on deployed air bags would violate the "render inoperative" section of Federal law.

Although there is no Federal law prohibiting the sort of repairs you asked about, your planned "repair" of deployed air bags gives rise to a host of safety concerns. You will need to contact the manufacturer of each vehicle on which you repair an air bag to learn the exact formula and amount of gas generant in the inflator canister for each air bag. This would be necessary to ensure that the "repaired" air bag will inflate at the time and in the manner intended by the original manufacturer. Additionally, you will need to replace the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Again, you will need to contact the vehicle manufacturer to obtain specifications for the performance of these electronic components. You will also need to refold and lubricate the fabric of the air bag in the same manner as the original air bag. If you fail to exactly duplicate the equipment and procedures used in the original air bag, your company could significantly reduce or even eliminate the protection that would have been provided by the original air bag. This, in turn, could expose your company to substantial liability under State laws for such repairs. You may wish to consult a private attorney for more information in this regard.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-3.51

DATE: May 14, 1991

FROM: Norman H. Dankert

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Norman H. Dankert (A37; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of law. We have a newly issued patent # 4,922,225 that relates to the high-mounted stoplamp. The device covered by this patent offers several different operations for this light. In question here is the one dealing with the input from the service brakes to the high-mounted stoplamp.

Our device never activates the stoplamp directly. A sensor that responds to the movement of the accelerator pedal serves to maintain the activation initiated by the brake pedal until the accelerator pedal is depressed, regardless of any speed. This effect removes the error in the present method of signaling.

The present stoplamp sends three messages: (1) when the lamp is activated during normal driving conditions, the vehicle is impeding the flow of traffic. (2) when the lamp is activated on a steep decline, the driver is braking to controll his speed. This control could impede traffic flow. (3) when the lamp is off, the vehicle has joined the flow of traffic.

The discrepancy in the present signaling system occurs when the lamp if off. When the lamp is off, the driver is not always joining the flow of traffic. This discrepancy is no hazard if the following driver has good visibility and is following at the proper number of car lengths. However, on the expressways where drivers seldom follow at the proper number of car lengths, as soon as the lamp goes off the drivers may accelerate. This is why in Chicago, 56% of automobile accidents were rear-end collisions, 72% of which happened on dry pavement, and 62% on clear days.

Our system, with its sensors and circuitry, serves to enhance the existing signaling system to the degree necessary to eliminate error. It in no way inhibits or changes the meaning of the present 3rd brake light. It changes no circuitry; and if it becomes inoperative, it reverts back to the 3rd brake light system.

It appears that this manner of operation conforms to the wording of the regulation governing the high-mounted stoplamp. In # 571.108, S4.5.4, it states: "The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

ID: nht91-3.6

DATE: April 1, 1991

FROM: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A37; VSA Sec. 108(2); Part 591); Also attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

In reviewing our correspondence, we note that we apparently have not yet received a response to our December 14, 1990 request for a temporary exemption for the EVSA prototype electric minibus. Although the circumstances have changed somewhat since our letter, we would still appreciate your consideration of whether this exemption could be granted. I am attaching a copy of the letter for your convenience.

Please let us know if you need further information.

ID: nht91-3.7

DATE: April 1, 1991

FROM: Vel McCaslin -- Director, Grace After School

TO: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Vel McCaslin (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Please explain or clarify the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 9166, 49 CFR, CH. V, SUB-PART A-571 to us.

If you have any brochure or information pertaining to this law, please sent it to me.

We have three 15 Passenger Vans which pick up students from Houston Independent Schools and bring them to our church for an After School Program. They are not painted yellow and we never put more than 15 passengers including driver. We use these vans for what capacity they were built. Are we in non-compliance of any law? Please advise.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

ID: nht91-3.8

DATE: April 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Andy Tanner -- Glas-Weld of Jacksonville, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Andy Tanner to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5758)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter regarding labeling of glazing materials. You explained that your company restores marred bus windows and renders them in like-new condition in accordance with the ANSI Z26.1 standards. You asked if your "remanufactured" windows must indicate the materials manufacturer or whether a "generic designation which would (exclude) the origination information" would be acceptable. You also asked whether, if the windows are basically unchanged, you could keep the original labeling or must instead restate the "unaltered properties" in your own labeling.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing, as an "addition to the motor vehicle," is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment (Section 102(4) of the Safety Act). New glazing material for use in motor vehicles is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205).

Based on the information provided in your letter, your company would not be considered a "manufacturer" of new glazing material under agency regulations. You stated that your company restores or reconditions marred bus window glazing to a like-new condition. The agency has previously determined that reconditioners need not certify that reconditioned motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with the safety standards that apply only to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle equipment. In your case, the reconditioned glazing is considered to be the same glazing as originally manufactured.

However, your company would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "render(ing) inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to Federal safety standards. The "render inoperative" provision of the law means that you are not allowed to recondition or restore glazing if that restoration would cause the glazing to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, you should examine the glazing you "restore" to determine whether the glazing continues to comply with Standard No. 205.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety

Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. As a repair business, you must ensure that the reconditioned glazing continues to be marked in accordance with ANSI Z26.1. ANS Z26.1 requires that all glazing be marked with a a DOT code mark, a unique number assigned by the agency to identify each prime glazing material manufacturer. The DOT code mark is used in defect or noncompliance recall campaigns to identify the manufacturer. In addition, ANS Z26.1 requires that all glazing have the distinctive designation or trademark of the prime glazing material manufacturer. However, NHTSA has previously concluded that the designation or trademark on the glazing need not be that of the prime glazing material manufacturer, if the glazing is marked with the prime glazing material manufacturer's DOT code mark (Letter to Terry E. Quinn, May 31, 1988). NHTSA can easily and accurately identify the prime glazing material manufacturer from the DOT code mark, regardless of the distinctive designation or trademark that appears on the glazing. Thus, if the original prime glazing material manufacturer's DOT code mark remains on the glazing material, you may either use the prime glazing material manufacturer's or your own distinctive designation or trademark. You may not, however, use a "generic designation" that does not have a distinctive designation or trademark.

Because, as stated above, reconditioned glazing is considered to be the same glazing as originally manufactured, you may keep the original ANS Z26.1 marking and need not restate the unaltered properties in your own labeling. However, if the existing DOT code mark is removed during reconditioning, you must re-mark the glazing in accordance with the original mark. The agency has previously determined that removal of a DOT identification number from a tire is considered rendering inoperative an element of design of the tire (Letter to Jeffrey Libman, January 21, 1980). Like the DOT code mark for glazing, the DOT identification number is used in defect or noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, the agency considers the removal of a DOT code mark from a piece of glazing to be the rendering inoperative an element of design of the glazing.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. John Rigby of this office at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-3.9

DATE: April 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David E. McAllister -- Manufacturers Representative

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from David E. McAllister to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5833)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 14, 1991, "as a supplier to the U.S. Postal Service for lights", asking whether it is "legal" for the center high mounted stop lamp to flash.

We understand that the new postal service vehicles are trucks. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the center highmounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. When installed as original equipment on a passenger car, it is required to be steady-burning when the brake pedal is applied. However, since Standard No. 108 does not require center highmounted stop lamps on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, any such lamps would not be required to be steady-burning. Thus, the current requirements of Standard No. 108 would permit a center lamp on a postal truck to flash.

Supplementary lighting equipment, i.e., lighting equipment that is not required by Standard No. 108, is subject to Standard No. 108's general prohibition that such not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer of the vehicle before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If it appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review the determination. With respect to the present case, it is theoretically possible that a flashing center stop lamp could "impair the effectiveness" of the truck's two steady-burning primary stop lamps by sending a confusing signal. However, given the lamp's location on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, and the public recognition of the function of the center lamp on passenger cars, we do not believe it is likely that the public would be confused.

We would like to advise you that the agency has proposed that trucks be equipped with steady-burning center lamps, and that it has announced that a final rule will be issued during the first half of 1991. If the final rule applies to postal trucks, then a flashing center lamp could not be installed on postal trucks manufactured on and after the rule's effective date.

ID: nht91-4.1

DATE: May 16, 1991

FROM: Petersen Engineering GmbH

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gabriela Petersen and Hans Petersen (A38; Part 541)

TEXT:

To our knowledge, there is a law in the U S, which states, that vehicles from a certain categorya, must be coded eyually on 10 different structural parts.

Please be so kind, and sent us a written copy of this law.

Thanking you in advance for the inconvenience we may have caused you we remain yours faithfully.

ID: nht91-4.10

DATE: May 31, 1991

FROM: Elizabeth Anania

TO: Steve Kratzke

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-24-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Elizabeth Anania (A38; Std. 207; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Tarantino of your agency, in reference to my husband, Vincent Anania. He suffered a stroke a year ago and now, after intensive therapy, is able to walk unassisted and care for himself. The only impairment he has which could be considered a handicap is some paralysis in his right arm and hand. He is anxious to complete his independence by being able to drive. Toward that end, he was evaluated by Mr. Michael Suggs of Bryant Driving School here in Raleigh, who specializes in handicapped drivers, and was judged to be qualified to drive without restrictions.

The problem is getting behind the wheel -- that is, entering the car. The seat does not go back quite far enough for his knee to clear under the steering wheel. One or two inches farther back would allow easy entry (strangely, exiting is not a problem).

Our car is a '91 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser Station Wagon and could be slightly modified to slide back a little more, but the agency told me it was against federal law. I am hoping we can secure permission to make the change, as driving is important to him. I should add that, of course, once behind the wheel, he would return the seat to its normal position for driving.

We will appreciate your advice on this matter very much.