ID: nht91-5.38

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: None

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This is to request confirmation of our interpretation that specific future vehicle models may be properly classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Attachment I contains a description of these future vehicle models.

As described in Attachment I, the new models will be constructed on a truck chassis. The chassis-frame is separate from the vehicle body (a design usually associated only with trucks) and the chassis was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation.

The vehicles also have special features for occasional off-road operation.

- Attachment I describes some of the special features for off-road operation.

- Attachment II shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for the new models (preliminary estimates) with characteristics listed in NHTSA's CAFE regulations which are used to identify vehicles capable of off-highway operation (minimum approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and front and rear axle clearances). The new models are expected to meet the criteria for three out of the five off-highway vehicle characteristics listed.

- Attachment III shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and axle clearances for a variety of current model passenger cars and MPVs with estimated specifications for the new models. In general, the new models have specifications outside the range of most passenger cars and within or close to the range of most MPVs.

Because the future vehicle models described above are constructed on a truck chassis and have special features for occasional off-road operation, we believe that they would be properly classified as MPVs for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please confirm that our interpretation is correct.

ATTACHMENT I

Description of Future Vehicle Models ATTACHMENT II

CAFE Regulation Minimum Preliminary Vehicle for Automobiles Capable Estimate for Characteristic of Off-Road Operation New Models

Approach angle 28 degrees Departure angle 20 degrees Breakover angle 14 degrees Running clearance 203 mm Axle clearance Front 178 mm Rear 178 mm

ATTACHMENT III

Charts and graphs showing vehicle specifications. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-5.39

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alonzo Bendolph

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-9-91 from Alonzo Bendolph to Legal Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6346)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 9, 1991 concerning possible regulations governing the placement of personalized stickers in the upper portion of the front windshield and rear window of a vehicle. You were told by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles that all signs, other than inspection and registration stickers, placed in the front windshield and rear window are illegal. You asked the position of this agency concerning the issue.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. In addition, the modification of a vehicle, after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in part, 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. . . . However, the above provisions of Federal law do not affect either the operation of vehicles by the owners of those vehicles or modifications to vehicles by their owners. The individual States have the authority to regulate the operation, use, and modification of vehicles by their owners. In the case your describe, the State of New York has exercised its authority to restrict the display of signs on vehicle windshields and rear windows. The wisdom and fairness of those restrictions is something to be decided by the State of New York, not the Federal government.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.4

DATE: July 22, 1991

FROM: Ernest Wolf -- President, Sky-Top Sunroofs, Ltd.

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS-118, Power Windows

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ernest Wolf (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation and opinion is submitted by the International Sunroof Institute (ISI), which I represent as the chairman of the Legislative Issues Subcommittee of the Technical Committee. ISI is an organization of approximately one dozen companies engaged in the manufacture and/or import/distribution of 'open air products' for the U.S. automotive market. ISI is incorporated as a non-profit organization in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Open air products include pop-out sunroofs, manual sliding and/or venting sunroofs, electric sliding and/or venting sunroofs, and manual or electric spoiler roof panels.

This request is being submitted specifically with the concurrence of those ISI member companies involved with power operated sunroofs, which will be covered by the FMVSS 118 rules as published in the April 16, 1991 issue of the Federal Register. The identities of these companies and the signatures of their representatives (via FAX communication) are shown on the attached Addendum.

Our request is for clarification of the applicability of the automatic reversing requirement when a one-time activated closing panel meets a resistive force of 22 lbs (10 kg or 100 Newtons) or more (ref Para. 571:118 Section 5(a)), with such applicability being related to operator location.

The background commentary preceding the proposed amended Standard No. 118, as published in the above cited reference, pages 15290-15295, and the amended rules proposed for implementation September 1, 1992, refer specifically to EXTERNAL key and non-key locking systems and to REMOTE control systems where continuous device activation is required to operate a power operated window system. Section 4(c) and Section 4(d) address exterior or remote activation devices; Section 5 specifically addresses one-time activation of EXTERIOR (a.1) or REMOTE (a.2) devices, or continuous activation from a distance of more than 20 feet (a.3). The reversing requirement by a force of 22 lbs or more relates only to these exterior or remote situations. That these were the singular focus and intention of this new rulemaking also becomes apparent when reading prior NHTSA publications and internal memos (e.g., B. Felrice to P. J. Rice, dated 10/16/90).

Therefore, it appears evident to us that the amended Standard No. 118 does not preclude roof panel closing by one-time activation of an internally positioned activator (switch) within a vehicle by an operator seated within that vehicle.

Legal Counsel is requested to provide an interpretation of the proposed rules relating specifically to the one-time activation of a sunroof panel

from the open to the closed mode (express close from open) by a vehicle operator, seated within the vehicle under either the Section 4(a) or Section 4(e) circumstances.

We respectfully submit that the proposed rules, as written, do not prohibit one-time activation for the closing of a power operated sunroof panel by a vehicle operator acting within 118 Section 4(a) or Section 4(e), and that the reversing pressure limitation in Section 5(a) does not apply to such a situation. The Legal Counsel's interpretation and opinion is sought at the earliest possible time.

ADDENDUM TO JULY 1, 1991 LETTER FROM ISI TO LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

The undersigned members of ISI (International Sunrool Institute) concur with the request for interpretation and opinion contained in referenced letter relating to FMVSS-118, Power Windows:

ASC Incorporated Skylite Sunroofs and Automotive One Sunroof Center Accessories, Inc. Southgate, Mi 489195 (Formerly C&C Inc.) 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, MI 48116

(Signature omitted) John Marcozzi, Director, Phillip Edwards, President Direct Sales and Secretary of ISI and ISI President

Donmar Enterprises, Inc. Webasto Sunroofs, Inc. 7980 Bayberry Road 2655 Product Drive Jacksonville, FL 32256-7410 Rochester Hills, MI 48063

(Signature omitted) (Signature omitted) Kal Levinson, President Mike Thibideau, Aftermarket and ISI Treasurer General Manager and ISI Vice President

Farmont Limited Partnership 350 East Douglas Road Oldsmar, FL 34677

Michael Winzkowski, Partner and ISI Member

ID: nht91-5.40

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ernest Wolf -- President, Sky-Top Sunroofs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-22-91 from Ernest Wolf to Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118), on behalf of the International Sunroof Institute (ISI). As you noted in your letter, the agency has published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. One such petition is from ISI. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.41

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Gary Starr -- Solar Electric Engineering

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for exemption on the basis for the facilitation of low-emission engine features

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary Starr (A38; Part 567; Part 555)

TEXT:

Applicant: Solar Electric Engineering, Inc.(a California Corporation) 116 Fourth Street Contact: Gary Starr Santa Rosa, CA 94010

Basis for petition:

1) The motor vehicle is a low-emission vehicle as defined by section 123(g) of the Act as the vehicle is an electric vehicle.

2) Since our vehicle is a standard vehicle manufactured under NHTSA standards and originally certified by the O.E.M., the vehicle should still meet most of the original standards.

i) The motor vehicle equipped with the low emission engine (an electric motor) would if exempt perhaps differ with standard 103 (Windshield Defrosting), standard 208, specifically part 572 (Anthropomorphic Test Dummy), standard 105 (Hydraulic brake systems, and perhaps other standards which are unknown at this time or would not apply to an electric vehicle.

ii, iii, iv) The vehicles are "converted" or "altered" conventional vehicles; according to one NHTSA safety engineer, the NHTSA may not require the exemption application; however, "to be safe", we are submitting one, while we are undergoing in-house and third party testing of the vehicle. 3) A temporary exemption would greatly facilitate both the development and field evaluation of the vehicle since some of our pending financing and actual purchase orders have insisted that we apply for the exemption.

4) At the end of the exemption period, we intend to conform with all standards.

5) Not more than 2500 exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12 month period for which an exemption may be granted.

6) No data need be withheld at this time.

7) It is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Safety Act to grant the exemption because clean air vehicles are of vital interest to the public and no known safety acts would be exempted to the point to put the public at any unacceptable safety risk.

ID: nht91-5.42

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: None (Confidential)

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation-FMVSS 101 "Controls and Displays and FMVSS 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Std. 208; Std. 101)

TEXT:

A major automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "The Company") is seeking an interpretation relating to the applicability of a seat belt pretensioner system indicator display with respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 101; "Controls and Displays" FMVSS No.208; "Occupant Crash Protection".

The Company is planning to incorporate a seat belt "pretensioning" system for active seat belt systems for the front outboard seating positions in some of its future models. The pretensioner system is a device that is designed to retract the belt webbing into the retractor when the vehicle experiences certain frontal area impacts. It is The Company's intention to provide an on board diagnostic system including a malfunction display that will allow the vehicle operator to assess the functional status of the seat belt pretensioner system.

The Company has proposed three alternatives to provide a visual display to illustrate the operational status for the seat belt pretensioner system Those proposals are set forth below.

Proposal #1

The Company proposes to utilize the existing seat belt telltale display field location. Presently, the seat belt telltale illuminates for a period of six seconds following ignition "key on", regardless of whether the seat belt is fastened prior to or following ignition actuation and, in conjunction with a six second audible warning accomplished by either chime or buzzer, signals the occupant to fasten the lap belt webbing of the seat belt. In the event of a pretensioner system failure, a five second period of lamp non-illumination will follow the "fasten belt message, followed by a one second illumination /0.5 second non-illumination cycle which will continue until the ignition key in the lock cylinder is moved to the "off" position. If there is no malfunction in pretensioner system, the only message displayed in the seat belt telltale field will be the "fasten seat belt" message.

Case I - No malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the seat belt pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 1

Proposal # 7

The second proposal also involves combining the "fasten belt" message and the "pretensioner malfunction", thus creating a condition of "non-discrete" messages for cases where a malfunction in the pretensioner system occurs. In the case of no pretensioner malfunction, two conditions exist: one in which the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition on, and one in which the seat belt is fastened following ignition, In the case where the seat belt is fastened prior to ignition, the fasten belt message will illuminate for seven seconds and then be extinguished. In the case where the ignition is activated prior to belt fastening, the "fasten belt" message is displayed until the belt is fastened. The Company believes that this complies with S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS 208.

Case IA - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IB - No malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition on.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 2 (Continued)

In the case of a pretensioner system malfunction, two conditions will also exist: one in which the belts are fastened after the ignition is activated. In the case where the belts are fastened prior to ignition, the display will illuminate continuously for a seven second period, followed by a non-illuminated period that will last from zero to 28 seconds. A pretensioner system diagnostic period will begin with ignition key on and will be completed within a seven to 35 second time period Following the diagnostic period, the malfunction in the pretensioner will be identified by a 0.5 on / 0,5 off illumination cycle. In the case where the belts are fastened after ignition, a 7 to 35 second illuminated period of diagnostics will occur, followed by a cycle that includes a 0.5 second period of non-illumination, 0.5 period of illumination, 0.5 second period of non-illumination, and a three second period of illumination. This cycle will continue until the seat belt is fastened, or the ignition is turned to the "key-off" position.

Case IIA - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened prior to ignition.

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case IIB - Malfunction in the pretensioner system. Belt fastened after ignition.

Seat Belt Telltale Illumination Schematic For Proposal # 2

Proposal # 3

The third proposal involves the use of the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) telltale field that is required under the provisions set forth in FMVSS No. 208, Section 4.5.2, "Readiness Indicator" for devices that deploy upon impact. If there is no malfunction in the pretensioner system and/or the air bag system, the SRS telltale will illuminate for 7 seconds and then extinguish. In the event of a pretensioner system malfunction, the SRS telltale will illuminate for seven seconds, experience a non-illuminated zero to 28 second diagnostic assessment period, and then provide a malfunction message by completing a 0.5 second on / 0.5 second off illumination pattern that will be defeated by moving the ignition key to the "off" position. It should be noted that, in the event of an air bag malfunction, the SRS telltale will also provide the identical message, which will not be distinguishable from a malfunction message for the pretensioner system by the customer. However, the malfunction message will be distinguishable to a trained service technician using diagnostic tools.

Case I - No malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

Case II - Malfunction in the air bag and / or pretensioner system

(Text and graphics omitted)

SRS Readiness Indicator Illumination Schematic for proposal # 3

The Company requests that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide interpretation regarding the proposals as follows:

Proposals # 1 and # 2

1) Does Proposal # 1 and / or Proposal # 2 comply with the requirements of FMVSS 101, S5.4 for use of common space to display messages?

2) Does Proposal # 1 comply with FMVSS 208, 57.3?

3) Does Proposal # 2 comply with FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.3(b)?

4) Is the pretensioner system malfunction message applicable to the "Readiness Indicator" requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.5.2?

5) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined in FMVSS 208, S4.5.2 as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

Proposal # 3

1) Is it necessary to provide two distinctive messages to indicate an air bag system malfunction and a seat belt pretensioner system malfunction, or is the general message indicating a malfunction in the air bag system and / or belt pretensioner system acceptable?

2) If the pretensioner system malfunction message is interpreted to be a readiness indicator, is it subject to FMVSS 101, S5.4.2. (Are readiness indicators also subject to FMVSS 101 requirements.)?

3) If the seat belt pretensioner malfunction is interpreted as a "Readiness Indicator" as defined as a device that deploys upon impact, can its telltale be displayed in a common telltale display field that is required pursuant to FMVSS 101?

General

Will The Company be required to furnish a separate display field for the pretensioner system operational status if all three proposals are interpreted as not complying with FMVSS 101 or FMVSS 208?

ID: nht91-5.43

DATE: September 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-19-91 from Rosemary Dunlap to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6150)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of statements made by NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Barry Felrice, at the July 1990 Public/Industry Meeting regarding possible federal preemption of proposed state disclosure legislation. Specifically, you requested us to provide legal support for Mr. Felrice's general statement that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may preempt state laws requiring safety information disclosures to be affixed to vehicles. During a telephone conversation on July 1, 1991, Elizabeth Barbour of my staff informed you that in order to provide an opinion as to whether the Safety Act would preempt a specific state bill, we would need to review the provisions of that bill as a whole. Accordingly, you forwarded a copy of California Assembly Bill No. 71 to this office and asked whether the bill, if enacted into law, would be federally preempted.

We have reviewed the California bill. Because the question of preemption could turn on how the State of California would interpret the language in the bill and how it would be enforced if adopted, we are declining to provide a specific opinion as to whether or not the bill would be preempted. However, our discussion identifies the principles under which the validity of such legislation can be determined.

The bill would add a new section 24011.5 to the California Vehicle Code to read as follows:

24011.5 (a) Every dealer or lessor shall affix to the dashboard or a window of every new multipurpose passenger vehicle sold or leased, or offered for sale or lease, a notice which specifies whether or not the vehicle meets the following federal safety standards applicable to passenger cars:

(1) Side door strength; (2) Roof crush resistance; (3) Passive restraint devices; (4) Raised brake light.

(b) The notice required by subdivision (a) shall not be smaller than 8 inches by 10 inches, and shall be printed in at least 20-point type and shall be affixed in such a manner as to be readily removable by the purchaser or lessee.

(c) As used in this section, "passenger car" and "multipurpose passenger vehicle" have the same meaning as defined in regulations adopted pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act . . . .

According to the California Legislative Counsel's Digest, other provisions of existing California law would make violation of this requirement a crime.

At the outset, I would like to note that NHTSA has recently extended its standards/requirements on side door strength (FMVSS 214, quasi-static requirements only), roof crush resistance (FMVSS 216), passive restraint devices (FMVSS 208), and raised brake light (FMVSS 108) to cover most multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The amendments will become effective over the next several years. Therefore, we believe that this bill will become largely superfluous during that timeframe, since most MPV's will be required to be certified as complying with the enumerated requirements. We note, however, that there may be some slight differences in the way these requirements are applied to MPV's and the way they currently apply to passenger cars.

By way of background information, Federal law, including agency regulations, can expressly or impliedly preempt state law. Under section 103(d) of the Safety Act, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard. A non-identical state standard preempted under section 103(d) would be an example of express preemption.

A requirement for a label related to safety could in some cases constitute a safety standard. For example, several Federal motor vehicle safety standards include requirements for permanent labels.

We do not, however, believe that the California bill would constitute a safety standard. Therefore, it would not be expressly preempted under section 103(d). While the bill would require an information sheet to be affixed to the vehicle, the information sheet would be readily removable by the purchaser or lessee. Thus, the information sheet is not intended to remain affixed to the vehicle after sale. The requirement that the information sheet be affixed to the vehicle appears to be solely for the purpose of ensuring that a prospective purchaser will see it, and is thus akin to a requirement that the information be prominently displayed in the dealer showroom.

Federal law impliedly preempts state law when (1) it is impossible to comply with both; (2) the federal interest in the field is so dominant that federalism principles prevent enforcement of complementary or auxiliary state laws; (3) the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to be exclusive; or (4) state law hinders the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of federal law. See Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 108 S. Ct. 1145, 1150-51 (1988).

We do not believe that the California bill would be preempted under any of the first three factors cited above for implied preemption. The California bill would not make it impossible to comply with federal law. Further, the federal interest in this area is not so dominant that complementary state laws may not be enforced, and the federal regulatory scheme is not so pervasive as to be exclusive.

There remains the issue of whether the California bill would be preempted as a state law which hinders the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of federal law. One problem in analyzing this question relates to the fact that we have difficulty understanding how the drafters of the California bill contemplate that the dealers/lessors subject to the requirements would be capable of complying with them.

Dealers/lessors would have no way of knowing whether an MPV met particular passenger car requirements unless the manufacturer advised them. For example, while dealers/lessors could visually determine whether an MPV had a passive restraint or raised brake light, they would not know whether those devices met Federal standards for passenger cars. Dealers/lessors obviously could not determine from inspection whether an MPV met the side door strength or roof crush resistance requirements applicable to passenger cars.

The drafters of the California bill may have assumed that dealers/lessors could obtain information from manufacturers concerning whether MPV's met particular requirements. However, even if manufacturers wanted to help their dealers comply with this requirement by providing such information, the manufacturers might not be able to do so. A manufacturer would not know whether its MPV's met certain passenger car standards unless it had conducted substantial testing. And it may not be possible to test some MPV's to passenger car standards, because of different vehicle configurations or other factors. If this were the case, it is unclear how anyone, including a manufacturer, would be able to determine whether an MPV met such a standard.

One of the purposes of the Safety Act that is emphasized in the legislative history is the need for uniform standards. If the bill were interpreted as going beyond requiring dealers/lessors to disclose what they or manufacturers know and instead to require manufacturers or others to undertake significant testing, it would impose burdens similar to the certification burdens of a safety standard. For some standards, such as those involving crash tests, these burdens are quite large. We believe that a state disclosure law that imposed significant testing burdens, in connection with an aspect of performance for which NHTSA has issued a safety standard or decided not to issue such standard, would hinder the objective of uniform standards and be preempted under federal law.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: nht91-5.44

DATE: September 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-91 from John Marcum to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5988)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 26, 1991, asking for a clarification of my letter to you of April 22.

As we advise you, under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." You ask whether "demonstrations or training" includes the carrying of passengers for demonstrations and evaluations. The answer is yes. Where, as here, the imported vehicle is intended for public transit, the carrying of passengers would appear to be an important and necessary part of demonstrating the features of the bus and evaluating the feasibility of offering electric-power public transportation in the United States.

You also ask whether there are any special conditions that may be observed, such as whether passengers should be charged for the rides. There are no special conditions that NHTSA has imposed under section 591.5(j) that relate to your operation. However, any test should be consistent with safe vehicle operation, such as not loading the vehicle above the capacity of the tires and suspension, having adequate braking ability, and provision for sufficient emergency exits. The question of whether a fee should be imposed for riding the bus could be relevant in a personal injury action brought against you by a rider; however, this is not a question to be answered under Federal law. You should consult a private attorney for guidance.

The fact that the law allows importation of a nonconforming bus for purposes of demonstration should not be interpreted as meaning that NHTSA is not concerned with the safety of a vehicle engaged in transporting members of the public. The agency believes that importers of buses should ensure that the vehicle is not loaded above the capacity of the tires and suspension, and that there is adequate braking ability and provision for emergency exits. Importers are reminded that the agency has the authority to impose terms and conditions related to safety in permitting importations of this nature.

Finally, you ask if there is a limit as to the length of time a demonstration with passengers is permitted. So long as the demonstration is ongoing and the length of time is reasonable, demonstrations with passengers would be permitted for the duration of the vehicle's stay in the United States.

ID: nht91-5.45

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Lombard -- Lombard Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-91 from Charles Lombard to Rick Iderstiene (OCC 6297); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S571.211). Specifically, you enclosed some drawings and photographs of your "new wheel and/or hubcap design," the "Lombard Racer," and asked whether it can be marketed. As explained below, the answer is no.

S3 of Standard No. 211 specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. The issue before us is whether the "Lombard Racer" includes any wheel nut, hub cap, or wheel disc that incorporates winged projections. To answer this, we have reviewed the drawings and photographs you have provided. Figures 4, 5, and 9 of the drawings show that the design of the octagonal hub cap incorporates two curved appendages (that the drawings depict as extending beyond the rim of the wheel), both emanating from the hub cap, that are placed at opposite ends from each other. Based on this, it is our opinion that your hub cap design incorporates "winged projections." As such, this design does not appear to comply with Standard No. 211.

I have, for your information, enclosed a copy of this agency's November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. That letter reaffirmed past interpretations stating that hub caps with winged projections do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211 and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211. We would consider each sale or offer for sale of hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (16 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

We have recently received a petition to amend Standard No. 211 to allow the manufacture and use of certain hub caps which may be prohibited under the existing language of Standard No. 211. The agency will be evaluating this petition over the next several months.

With your letter, you also enclosed promotional information from another company that offered hub caps with winged projections for sale. Thank you

for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Per your request, I have returned the enclosures in your letter to me. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney, Esq. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-5.46

DATE: September 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Y. Endo -- Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-26-91 from Y. Endo to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6187)

TEXT:

This responds to your June 26, 1991 letter (your reference ME-0172) asking about S5.3.4 (tensile strength requirement) of Standard 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

Before answering your specific question, I would like to provide some background on our agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

You ask about S5.3.4 as applied to certain multi-section hydraulic hose assemblies. Each of these multi-section assemblies includes either two or three sections of hose, which are connected end-to-end. The sections of hose are connected to each other by an intermediate metal fitting. It is not clear from your letter whether the intermediate metal fitting is a single fitting or two fittings which are joined together. As discussed below, however, this would not affect the answer to your question with regard to tensile testing.

S5.3.4 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall withstand a pull of 325 pounds without separation of the hose from its end fittings." You state in your letter that there is a difference of opinion in your company as to this requirement. You believe that the requirement applies separately to each part of the multi-section assembly. Stated differently, you believe that the tensile test should be conducted for each section of hose with fittings at the ends. In contrast, others are of the opinion that the tensile test is conducted on the complete

combination assembly. Those persons believe that only the ends of the complete multi-section assembly, and not those of individual parts, need be fixed to the tensile test machine.

We agree with your view that each of the fitting-to-hose connections should meet the tensile strength requirement. The purpose of the tensile strength requirement is to ensure that a brake hose does not separate from its end fittings while in service. Under S5.3.4, all hydraulic brake hose assemblies must meet the tensile requirement. S4 of the standard defines "brake hose assembly" as: "a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system...." Each portion of the multi-section assembly which consists of a section of hose with fittings is considered a separate brake hose assembly under that definition. This is true regardless of whether the intermediate fitting is a single fitting or two fittings joined together. (In the former case, the single fitting would be considered an end fitting for each of two sections.) Thus, each such portion of the multi-section assembly must meet the tensile strength requirements. Requiring each individual portion to meet the requirements guards against assembly failures due to the separation of the hose from any of the fittings.

However, technically speaking, the test may be conducted by applying the load to either the complete assembly or to each of the intermediate hose and fitting assemblies. Both of the test methods would provide equivalent results. Under either test, the requisite tensile load would be applied to each of the fitting-to-hose junctures.