ID: nht88-3.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/23/88

FROM: HARRY B. SKINNER -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: RUSSELL A. STORMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/17/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RUSSELL STORMS; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; VSA 108[B]; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM RUSSELL A STORMS TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Storms:

The Office of Traffic Operations received your September 12 letter requesting approval of a vehicular device you designed to be used by motorists prior to the use of flares or other similar emergency devices.

Our office is responsible for establishing national standards for the design, placement, and application of traffic control devices used on roadways open to public travel. These standards apply to highway signs, signals, and pavement markings, not to ve hicular devices. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Since vehicle safety is one of its program areas, we feel NHTSA is in a better position to advise you concerning your device.

Thank you for your interest in motorist safety and much success in your endeavor.

Sincerely yours,

Please reply further to Mr. Storms advising him of his device. Also, please[Illegible Word] a copy of your response to HTO-22. Thank you.

ID: nht88-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/88

TO: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice;

On Dec. 9, 1980 my husband was involved in a fatal accident while driving a 3-wheel Cushman Vehicle, as a security guard, at the Lawrence General Hospital.

I have been informed by Ma. Secr. of Public Safety, Charles V. Barry that there are two basic designs for the Cushman Vehicle, one specifically for on-road use, categorized as a Police Vehicle and under the jurisdiction of the NHTSA as a motorcycle. The other an off-road unit which is not under the jurisdiction of the Registry of Motor Vehicles since the Registry is authorized to regulate only on-road Vehicles. According to Secr. Barry, the unit my husband was killed on is an off-road vehicle, ther efore, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Enclosed you will please find an Oct. 16, 1979 copy of the Common-weath of Massachusetts, Registry of Motor Vehicles classification and Registration of the vehicle on which my husband was killed. As you can see it contradicts Secr. Barry's informatio n to me since it had been registered and passed inspection for on-road use as a Police Vehicle, on the Public Roadways.

On July 22, 1988 you sent Congressman Florio the following statement in regards to the Cushman Vehicle; "This vehicle is classified as a motorcycle under current definitions found in Code of Federal Regulations Vol. 49, Part 571.3." You further stated "Ma. is currently one of the States that has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders."

After a Congressional Inquiry, Mr. Edward Harril, Director of Congressional Relations, sent Congressman the following information; "Our inquiry of the Vehicle's manufacturer indicates that the particular vehicle involved in this accident was indeed ce rtified for road use and would thus be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of NHTSA, and not the Commission, under 15 U.S.C. 2052 (A) (1) (C)."

Please be informed that none of the above regulations were made known to my husband, he was issued the vehicle by the Lawrence General Hospital as a motor vehicle requiring only his car license to operate and was not warned of the potential hazards in herent in the unit. I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on Public Highways and the person required to operate it should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit.

ID: nht88-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1988

FROM: CLARK, TRACY L. JR. -- COTTLE INDUSTRIES VICE PRESIDENT

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO CLARK

TEXT: We are finalizing arrangements to produce a three-wheeled gasoline-powered vehicle. The vehicle will be classified as either a moped or a motorcycle depending on choice of engine size.

In reviewing sections 566-568 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, it appeared that we should be classified as an alterer. I wanted to confirm this, so I contacted your organization directly. I discussed our classification by phone with Ms. Dorothy Nakoma of your offices. She believes that we should indeed be registered as an 'alterer of a certified vehicle'. She also suggested that we write to you and get a written opinion confirming the correct classification.

I have enclosed a brochure which highlights the basic description of the vehicle. The production process goes as follows:

1) We purchase a completed, certified Honda moped.

2) We then remove the plastic body shell and seating components.

3) Next, the frame is cut behind the steering column, separating the Honda vehicle into two sections.

4) The front section is welded to the tubular steel frame.

5) The rear section is welded to the tubular steel frame.

6) A third wheel assembly added to the frame.

7) Wiring is completed and the fiberglass body shell is installed.

The Honda front end and drive train components continue to retain their integrity.

We intend to issue a new Certificate of origin for each vehicle, but would continue to use Honda's VIN number as identification. Please confirm this procedure.

Several states make no provision for classifying alterers. Their categories are limited to manufacturers and franchised dealers or distributors. We will register as a manufacturer in these states.

If you have any questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. We look forward to your response.

Now There Is Alternative Transportation For Disabled Individuals -- For Use On Public Roads

Introducing the Chariot

The CHARIOT is a three-wheeled vehicle unlike any other type of mobility vehicle available today. Designed for use on public roads, the CHARIOT provides safe, reliable, and self-sufficient transportation for disabled individuals -- at an affordable pric e.

Now You Can Easily Go Shopping, Visiting, or Sight-Seeing

Whether your trip is for business, pleasure, or adventure, the CHARIOT is the most enjoyable way to travel. With its reliable Honda engine, you can attain speeds of as much as 25 miles per hour. A three-mile trip in a power wheelchair can take up to an hour. In the CHARIOT, you can cover the same distance in just eight minutes.

Ease Of Use For Increased Self-Sufficiency

The CHARIOT's hand-operated controls, automatic transmission, lighted speedometer, electric fuel gauge, oil warning light, direction signals, and convenient gas tank make it a snap to use and maintain.

Individuals with normal upper-body abilities can use the CHARIOT. All you do is drive your wheelchair in from the back, fasten it in place, close the tailgate, turn the ignition key, and you're on your way.

For Business Or Pleasure -- A Safe Way To Travel

The CHARIOT has built-in safety features to ensure your ride is comfortable and safe:

* a low center of gravity and three wheels provide stability and balance

* a welded steel chassis and safety frame absorb shock and provide superior protection

* a patented safety lock holds your wheelchair in place

* a powerful headlight increases your visibility

* anti-vibration rear suspension gives a quieter ride

* front and rear independent brakes create smoother stopping

No Special Permits Needed

The CHARIOT is designed for use on public roads and is subject to the rules and regulations governing motor vehicles. It is licensed like a moped. All you need is a regular driver's license -- no special application forms or permits are needed.

A Full One-Year Warranty.

Your CHARIOT is covered by a full one-year or 2,500 mile warranty on all parts and labor. If anything should go wrong with your CHARIOT while it is under warranty, we'll fix it for free. Ask your dealer or refer to the vehicle warranty for specific cov erage.

Factory-Trained Dealers

The CHARIOT is distributed through a network of dealers trained by Cottle Industries.

Our dealers help you learn how to operate your CHARIOT and provide you with the courteous after-sales and repair service you deserve.

If you ever need any help with your vehicle, just call. We'll be there to help. If it's necessary, we'll even send a representative to see you in person to make sure your problem is solved quickly and to your satisfaction.

Independence At An Affordable Price

The CHARIOT gives you the independence to do what you want to do, when you want to do it, at a price you can afford. There's no other vehicle like it available today.

The basic price is just $ 4,800. Compare this to price tags on specially equipped vans, which often require assistance to use and a lot of money to maintain. And when you compare the CHARIOT's speed and freedom of mobility with traditional motorized wh eel-chairs, you'll find there's really no comparison.

Get Around In Style

Classy and attractive, the CHARIOT gives you the thrill and exhilaration of motorcyling -- but with much greater stability and safety. You go places where a regular wheelchair can't. And you go in style.

"There are quite a number of handicapped people that would love to know and own a vehicle such as the CHARIOT; so we can feel the sun on our shoulders and the wind at our backs, rather than being stuck in a stuffy, hot car or being pushed around in our w heelchairs." -- Martin Speller, Bridgeport, Connecticut

Now Available In The United States

The CHARIOT was originally developed under the name Nippi by Special Vehicle Designs, Ltd. of Leicestershire, England. Over 400 vehicles have been sold in England since 1986 to help disabled individuals lead a more fulfilling life.

Today, through a special agreement with Special Vehicle Designs, Cottle Industries, Inc., has the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the CHARIOT in the U.S. and Canada.

The CHARIOT/Mobility Vehicle At A Glance

* Welded steel safety chassis * Safety locks

* Gasoline-powered

* 70 miles per gallon

* One gallon gas tank

* Three wheels

* Dimensions: 72" long, 52" wide, 40" high

* Total weight: 270 pounds

* 49 cc two-stroke engine

* Electric ignition

* Automatic transmission

* Steel wheels

* 2.75 x 10-inch tires

* Independent suspension with hydraulic damper

* 12-volt battery

Options for the CHARIOT

* wind screen

* custom colors

* 80 cc engine (licensed as a motorcycle, speeds of up to 45 m.p.h.)

About Cottle Industries

Cottle Industries, Inc., researches, develops, manufacturers, and markets devices that help disabled people lead more productive, independent, and fulfilling lives. Our product line includes the CHARIOT and other fourth-generation mobility vehicles that overcome many of the limitations of conventional wheelchairs.

We are committed to excellence. To this end, we conduct extensive research to apply technological innovations to our products. We offer a complete sales and after-sales support service to ensure customer satisfaction. All complaints are handled direct ly by us, not by our dealers. This direct approach makes for better quality control and service.

Cottle Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 1165 Fairfield, Iowa 52556

Call Your Local Dealer Today To find out more about the CHARIOT, call your local dealer today or phone Cottle Industries at 515/472-7281 directly for the name of the dealer closest to you.

Cottle Industries recommends wearing a safety helmet when operating the CHARIOT.

ID: nht88-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/88

FROM: LEBOEUF LAMB LEIBY AND MACRAE

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: PORSCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KARL H. MAYER, REDBOOK A33 (4), STANDARD 101, STANDARD 102; CONFIDENTIAL LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -- CLARIFICATION F MVSS 101 AND FMVSS 102; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

TEXT: Dear Ms. DeMeter:

I write to confirm our conversation of August 15 concerning Porsche's June 28, 1988 request for a regulatory interpretation of FMVSS 101 and 102. We ask that the June 28 request and the attachments to that request remain confidential until September 30, 1988, at which time this information may be made public.

I understand from our conversation with NHTSA will honor our request to keep the information confidential until September 30. If my understanding is not accurate, please let me know.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours truly,

ID: nht88-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KUNIO SHIMAZU -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. OFFICE - TOYOTA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 26, 1988 LETTER FROM SHIMAZU TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you were concerned with the requirements for positioning automatic safet y belts on the test dummy prior to dynamic testing. You noted that, before conducting compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belt systems, section S10.5.2 of Standard No. 208 necessitates the following step: "Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy." You asserted that this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. You further expressed your concern that, during the agency compliance testing, test personnel might believe that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path on the dummy after the door has been shut for any reason other than the belt's failure to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. You asserted that, if NHTSA does not adjust the belt path as you have suggested for its compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belts, the compliance testing will be insufficiently representative of "real-world" performance of the automa tic belts.

Standard No. 208 does provide for adjustment of automatic belts only if the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. Belt systems that require some additional deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to provide effective crash protection f or the occupant are not automatic belt systems within the meaning of Standard No. 208, as explained below.

Standard No. 208 has always permitted manufacturers to comply with its requirement for automatic crash protection by any means that "requires no action by vehicle occupants." See 35 FR 14941; September 25, 1970. Automatic safety belts that require no ac tion by vehicle occupants are one means of satisfying the requirement for automatic crash protection. On April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency issued an interpretation of this concept, in which the agency said that it would not consider a belt

system that had to be manually moved out of the way by the occupant to be an "automatic" system within the meaning of Standard No. 208. The following discussion also appeared, at 39 FR 14594:

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) Entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

* * *

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive system is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. A t this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mph impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

After further consideration, the agency tentatively concluded that its interpretation might have been too stringent in suggesting that a belt system that had to be manually moved out of the way by an occupant to enter or exit the vehicle would not be con sidered an automatic belt system for purposes of Standard No. 208. The agency sought public comment on this tentative conclusion in an April 12, 1985 notice (50 FR 14580). The four commenters that responded to this request all concurred with the agency 's judgment that the 1974 interpretation was too stringent, and the agency revised its interpretation in a November 6, 1985 rule (50 FR 46056). The following discussion appears at 50 FR 46064:

. . . The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupants to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but w ould normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort. . . . (Emphasis in original)

This interpretation was added to the end of Standard No. 208 to make clear that a belt system requires "no action by vehicle occupants" if the occupant must slightly push the webbing when entering or exiting the vehicle or if the occupant must make a sli ght adjustment to improve comfort. This interpretation neither said nor implied that a belt system

that must be adjusted to provide effective occupant protection would be considered an automatic belt system for the purposes of Standard No. 208. Indeed, since the vehicle occupant would have to take separate deliberate actions to deploy such a belt syst em, the interpretation makes clear that such a system would not be considered an automatic belt system.

The positioning procedures for automatic belts reflect this understanding of what constitutes an "automatic" belt system. Such procedures were added to Standard No. 208 in a September 5, 1986 final rule (51 FR 31765). The following discussion appeared in the preamble to that rule: In the agency's NCAP testing, the only adjustment NHTSA has made to an automatic belt once it has been deployed on the test dummy is to ensure that the belt is lying flat on the test dummy's shoulder when the belt is in its final position. The agency is adopting the same procedure for the Standard No. 208 compliance test. 51 FR 31766.

An adjustment to ensure that the belt webbing is not twisted on the test dummy's shoulder is the sort of adjustment that would normally be made by a vehicle occupant for comfort. Hence, this type of adjustment in compliance testing is consistent with th e November 6, 1985 interpretation of automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA intentionally did not provide for any further adjustments of automatic belts prior to Standard No. 208 compliance testing, because automatic belts require no action by vehicle occupants. Any belt systems that need some further adjustments to offer effective occupant protection require some action by vehicle occupants, and therefore are not automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

ID: nht88-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: D. BURKARD; H. T. EBNER; ALFRED TEVES

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, AND MAY 24, 1974 FROM TEVES TO GREGORY

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You raised several issues concerning the standard in regard to a brake system you are considering p roducing. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

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

The master cylinder reservoir of your proposed brake system can be described as follows. The master cylinder services two brake circuits, Brake Circuit 1 and Brake Circuit 2, and an ancillary unit which itself services Brake Circuits 1 and 2 directly. The total volume (V) of the master cylinder equals V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], where:

V[1] represents the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[1] servicing Brake Circuit 1. The fluid represented by V[1] is not available to Brake Circuit 2 or the ancillary unit.

V[2] refers to the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[2] servicing Brake Circuit 2. The fluid represented by V[2] is not available to Brake Circuit 1 or the ancillary unit.

The sum of V[3] + V[4] refers to the volume of the portion of the reservoir which provides a common supply to Brake Circuits 1 and 2 and the ancillary unit. V[4] refers to that portion of this volume which is above the level where a fluid level indica tor lamp is activated.

You noted that your proposed brake fluid reservoir design differs from conventional designs in having the exit for the ancillary unit. You stated that you believe your design meets the requirements of sections S5.4.2 and S5.3.1(b), and requested confirm ation of your interpretation.

Section S5.4.2 reads as follows: S5.4.2 Reservoir capacity. Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs m ove from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separa te compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston. . . .

With respect to the requirement expressed in the first sentence of section S5.4.2, you stated that the total volume (V), i.e., the sum of V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], of your reservoir is "greater or equivalent to fluid displacement resulting when all whee l calipers move from a new lining position to a fully worn lining position." An issue raised by this statement is whether you are correctly calculating the total volume for purposes of section S5.4.2. More specifically, the issue is whether fluid which i s available for use by the ancillary unit, i.e., the fluid represented by V[3] and V[4], can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2.

It is our opinion that such fluid can be counted, since, even with the presence of the ancillary unit, the fluid is solely available to the brakes. In an October 9, 1981 interpretation to Toyota (copy enclosed), the agency interpreted section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. In that letter, the agency concluded that fluid which was available to both the brakes and the clutch could not be counted, since some or all o f the fluid might be used by the clutch and thus not be available for the brakes. The ancillary unit in your design is not comparable to the clutch, however, since it is part of the brake system and does not use brake fluid for purposes other than for t he brake circuits.

With respect to the requirement expressed in the second sentence of section S5.4.2, your letter indicates that V[1] and V[2] are each greater than or equivalent to the volume displaced by a full stroke of the related master cylinder piston. Given this s tatement, and the fact that compartments V[1] and V[2] are separate compartments such that their fluid is neither available to the other brake circuit or to the ancillary unit, we do not see any particular interpretation question raised by your design fo r this requirement.

For manufacturers choosing to meet Standard No. 105's brake system indicator lamp requirements by means of a fluid level indicator lamp, section S5.3.1(b) requires activation of the lamp under the following condition:

A drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

With respect to this requirement, you stated that (V[1] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[1] + V[3] + V[4]), and that (V[2] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[2] + V[3] + V[4]). An issue raised by this stat ement is whether you are counting the correct fluid in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b).

The issue of which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b) was addressed in the letter to Toyota, discussed above. As discussed in that letter, the minimum warning level is determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment and not the capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommends a higher safe level. In reference to your design, the compartments in question are compartment V[1] and compartment V[2]. Thus the warning level for compartment V[1] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[1]. Similarly, the warning level for compartment V[2] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[2]. This interpretation differs from your stated understanding, and ma y result in a lower minimum warning level. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in your design.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/04/88

FROM: FRANK J. TRECY -- GENERAL MANAGER - MANUFACTURING MILLER STRUCTURES, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO FRANK J. TRECY, REDBOOK A33 (4), VSA 102 (3), STANDARD 115; LETTER DATED 11/14/88 FROM F. J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC 2811

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing with regard to an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, subpart S2, titled: Application.

I called your office and was told it would be better to put my request in writing. After you have reviewed my request, I was told I could expect an interpretation shortly.

Miller Structures, Inc. primarily manufactures offices, storage buildings, classrooms, laboratories, branch banks, medical clinics and other related commercial buildings. The buildings are constructed in widths of 8, 10, 12, and 14 feet, with lengths ranging from 10 to 80 feet. I do not classify them as over-the-road type trailers. A considerable number of our units go to a location, are placed on a foundation and remain there permanently. The remainder are placed on a location for varying length s of time and are then re-located. A good description of our product would be a permanent or relocatable type commercial building.

It has been my interpretation that we are exempt from implementing the VIN identification system. At the present time, we are using a numerical system of serial number identification and once a serial number is used, it is never used again.

The state of South Dakota has issued a directive stating all trailer manufacturers would have to implement the VIN system by January 1, 1989. I spoke with Ms. Deb Hillmer, Deputy Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, regarding the interpretatio n stated herein. Ms. Hillmer stated that if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurs with my interpretation, she would accept it.

Therefore, I am requesting an interpretation of this matter from your office. Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: J. W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER COMPLIANCE VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORP

TO: ERIKA L. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS-124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 03/17/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LEON STEENBOCK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, manufacturer of "WHITEGMC" and importer of "VOLVO" trucks 26,000 lbs and greater GVWR, respectfully requests you reconsider and rescind the interpretation of FMVSS-124 issued by the Administration on March 17, 1988. Spe cifically, VolvoGM believes the March 17 statement "locking hand throttle controls are expressly prohibited by Standard 123" should either be rescinded or restated in such a way as to continue to allow installation of the devices described in this reques t.

All VolvoGM trucks available in the United States are diesel powered and do not have automatic low speed limiting devices such as automatic chokes used on gasoline engines. Like most, if not all heavy truck manufacturers, we install a hand throttle to a llow the driver to increase the low speed idle at will for a multitude of reasons. The most common uses of these hand throttle are for engine warmup, extended idle periods (some times in cold weather diesel trucks will not be shutdown for days) and voca tional applications such as pumping, ready mix delivery, compacting, etc. The vocational applications usually occur when the vehicle is stationary, however, there is no lockout device restricting their use to the non "drive" transmission positions. All hand throttles we install are "locking hand throttle controls" in that once set they hold engine idle at a driver selected level until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed or disengaged the throttle.

FMVSS-124 @ 4 Definitions addresses hand throttles.

"Idle position" means the position of the throttle at which it first comes in contact with an engine idle speed control appropriate for existing conditions according to the manufacturers recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning, and emission control, and the use of throttle setting devices." (emphasis added)

Source: 37FR pg. 20035 September 23, 1972

The throttle setting or hand throttle control provisions of the Standard are in direct response to a Mack Truck petition addressing hand throttles for heavy duty diesel truck. The FR37, No. 186 preamble discussion on page 20033 dated September 23, 19 72 expresses the Administration's intent at the time the Standard was promulgated.

"Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position". Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within t he same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the use of throttle positioners."

The standard has been in effect for 15 years during which time hundreds of thousands of heavy duty diesel trucks have been equipped with these devices apparently with no safety problems. We trust this discussion clears the technical issues and if we may be of assistance are most willing.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS INC

TO: TAYLOR VINRON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BYUNG M. SOH, REDBOOK A33(6); VSA 108(A)2(A); STANDARD 108; STANDARD 211

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We would like to have your opinion on the enclosed Hub Cap, whether it violates any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

It is structured to meet FMVSS No. 571.211. We, however, feel that incorporation of LED's on the hub cap need to be clarified from your office. As described in our press release, the intensity of the LED is maximum 40mmAmp, and it is designed solely fo r cosmetic purpose, not for illuminating purpose.

Your immediate reply would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Enc.: 1. our press release 2. color photo of product in motion

STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap

What is STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Cap?

A Hub Cap that has a self-contained motion activating generator in the core of the Hub Cap, and made of durable, rust-proof, virgin ABS. Maintenance Free and requires NO special tools or knowledge for installation. This innovative concept is patented i n 18 countries including the U.S.A. Requires NO wiring and can be installed/replaced just a easily as replacing a regular Hub Cap.

How will STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap Work?

STARRACE has 14 LED lights aligned on a linear plane of a hub cap diameter, and self-motion activation generator which could generate a minimum 20 to a maximum 40 mmAmps/LED's depending on the RPM's. Intensity of the LED lights proportionate to the spee d of the vehicle, as it triggers ON/OFF automatically by motion.

Target Market of the STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Caps?

According to our survey, major demographic target market falls in those ages between 18 to 35, male and female, nationwide: People who spend a considerable amount of money for automotive accessories should be a primary target group. The secondary target group could be those who drive major or rural highways daily. An excellent Safety device by enhancing visibility to other driver in addition to its unique cosmetic purpose. Another substantial potential market is a segment of car owners who like to dec orate their cars to distinguish them from others. STARRACE will certainly satisfy ego's of those sectors.

ID: nht88-3.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 7, 1988

FROM: George T. Miller -- Child Riding Inc.

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Childing Riding, Inc.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R.J. Sullivan (A36; Std. 213); Also attached to letter dated 10-23-89 from R.J. Sullivan to D. Fujita (OCC 4098)

TEXT:

NHTSA held a public meeting in Washington on August 9, 1988. My presentation at the meeting was limited to a discussion of built-in restraints. I expressed concern that a super-technical construction of the new regulations might serve to deny the publi c access to this new technology.

After the meeting I spoke with Ms. Joan Tillman. She recognized my concern. However, she stated that it was not the intention of NHTSA to be super-technical in its interpretation of Standard 213. However, she made it clear that a formal interpretation of Standard 213 can be made only in response to written inquiry directed to your attention.

On January 22, 1988 Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 213, CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, was amended to permit installing built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars.

The stated purpose of the Agency was to amend 213 "only to the extent necessary to accommodate built-in restraints. In those instances where specifications would not accommodate built-in restraints, the Agency proposed creating a separate requirement fo r each kind of restraint" (see Fed. Reg. Vol. 53, No. 14 pg. 1783).

Accordingly, S4 of CFR 571.213 was amended in part, as follows:

(a) "Built-in child restraint system" means any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car.

"Specific vehicle shell" means the actual vehicle model part intowhich the built-in child restraint system is fabricated, (Emphasis Added) including the complete surroundings of the built-in system. If the built-in child restraint system is manu factured as part of the rear seat, these surroundings, include the back of the front seat, the interior rear side door panels and trim, the rear seat, the floor pan, the B and C pillars, and the ceiling.

In addition, S7.3 of 49 CFR 571.213 was revised to read as follows:

S7.3 Standard test device.

(b) The standard test devices used in testing built-in child restraint systems under this standard are either a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle. (Emphasis Added).

We are prepared to test our built-in child restraint system in a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle.

We would expect to successfully test the built-in restraint in your standard small, medium and large size vehicles before offering it to the general public.

This approach would seem to be consistent with the stated purpose of NHTSA. This will mean that your typical young family (who may not be able to afford a new vehicle) can now avail itself of the convenience and safety offered through use of a built-in restraint.

However, we do have a major concern. If NHTSA makes a super-technical interpretation of Standard 213; then it could require that the built-in restraint be tested in each and every vehicle before the restraint could be properly used in any particular mod el. For example, using such reasoning, NHTSA could require that the manufacturer crash test a 1977 Ford before permitting a sale of the restraint to the owners of 1977 Fords.

I would appreciate it if I could have official confirmation from NHTSA that no such requirement was intended. I would also hope the NHTSA could publish some guide-lines on this problem.

Please understand that, absent such guidelines, the manufacturers of built-in restraints unnecessarily risk considerable financial exposure.

I plan to be in Washington next week and I would like to take the opportunity to show you the completed and installed prototype of our new seat.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter