ID: nht95-7.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. @@ 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former @ 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former @ 108 (b) (1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112 (b) (1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a) (2) (A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in @ 30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under @@ 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. @ 30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between - 40 degrees F. and + 125 degrees F. . ." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-2.48

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John P. Murtha, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Steve Zufall. Mr. Zufall is interested in the specifications applicable to the manufacture of propane tanks to be used in the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles. He asked how to obtain "numbers" to be listed on the tanks and mentioned the designation "4VA-240", which someone had discussed with him.

The enclosed discussion sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. The applicable statutory authority is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.

There are no requirements under the Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that specify "numbers" which must be stamped on propane gas tanks. The designation mentioned by Mr. Zufall, "4VA-240", is actually "4BA-240" and refers to specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. These regulations would not apply, however, to tanks or fuel systems on private vehicles. For further information regarding these regulations, Mr. Zufall should contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

The Federal Implications of Installing Auxiliary Fuel Tanks and Of Converting Fuel Systems to Use Alternate Fuels

Before getting into the legalities of these installations and conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles with are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.

The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees I. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.

Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (A)(1) of the Act, new Motor vehicles must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.P. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).

Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $ 1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).

With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline-powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane-powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:

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 . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 361-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (N.P. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs a replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be covered by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.

The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle so that it has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term "manufacturer" includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.

Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or makes propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and the propane systems would all be treated as "replacements equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.

Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 per violation.

Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering. As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term "manufacturer" is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.

Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of the liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary or replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.

I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have any further questions I will be happy to answer them.

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: SEMA

ID: 86-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David E. Martin -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, GM

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Steed concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of "seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly" at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.

You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existing language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard no. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.

You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since an owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 205. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 201's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.

Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additional anchorages is not minimal. You said that "the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints."

While we believe that you have raised a number of important issues concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency his consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as "a strap, webbing, or similar device" used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 203. a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides "pelvic and upper torso restraint." Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.

The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts and automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used "in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by" S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by 54 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that "an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be uses...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, we believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

USG 2421

July 30, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed Administrator -- NHTSA

Docket 74-14, Notice 38

Dear Ms. Steed:

General Motors is currently developing new vehicle models which will be introduced concurrent with, or after, the start of the passive restraint phase-in period. This has necessitated a review of NHTSA FMVSS interpretations as they would apply to seat belt restraint systems. It is apparent from that review that several previous NHTSA interpretations do not comprehend current automatic seat belt technology.

Of specific concern to General Motors is NHTSA documentation which suggests that automatic seat belts are experimental and, therefore, not "Type 2" seat belts for the purposes of S4.1.1. of FMVSS 210. Without assurance that the position set forth in these NHTSA documents is no longer considered current by the agency, a manufacturer is faced with the prospect of having to add manual seat belt anchors into a vehicle even though automatic seat belts are to be installed.

1 A NHTSA position that additional manual belt anchors were necessary because of the "experimental" nature of automatic seat belts was first noted in Docket 72-23, Notice 5 (43 FR 53440, dated November 27, 1978) which granted a petition by General Motors to exempt automatic belts from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210. Most recently, the agency in its January 29, 1985 response to a letter from the Daihatsu Motor Company regarding the redundant anchor requirement reiterated that, "The exemption was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs."

While NHTSA's position that automatic seat belts are "experimental" was perhaps appropriate in 1978, we believe that a change is warranted in light of design developments and recent regulatory initiatives. Significant field experience has been gained over the last decade with automatic belt designs, e.g. the VW Rabbit and GM Chevette. In addition, FMVSS 208 rulemaking responses suggest that many manufacturers are currently developing such belt systems in anticipation of the passive restraint requirements. Finally, concern for public reaction to automatic seat belts, which is basic to the agency's use of the term "experimental" was discounted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in its July 17, 1984 final rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 36). Noting that most, if not all manufacturers, would be expected to use detachable automatic seatbelts, DOT stated that, "Detachable belts should alleviate some consumer concerns about automatic belts."

The aforementioned NHTSA letters of interpretation notwithstanding, there is existing regulatory language which General Motors believes supports a position that S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 is satis-fied if a passenger car is equipped with any belt restraint system meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS 208. Most compelling is the fact that the definition of a "Type 2" belt assembly, as set forth in S3 of FMVSS 209, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints. The definition does not differentiate between manual and automatic belt systems. Further, S4.3 (j) of FMVSS 209 states that the requirements of that section apply to Type 1 and Type 2 belt systems. This has been interpreted by the agency to include both manual and automatic seat belt systems. (See NHTSA letter of interpretation to Volkswagon, dated August 7, 1981.)

A review of FMVSS 210 regulatory history also supports a position that seat belt performance is neither assured nor necessarily limited by anchor locations. While vehicles equipped with manual belts meeting the existing anchorage location requirements of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 210 have demonstrated excellent performance in the field, this experience should not be interpreted as establishing that other anchorage locations would not have produced equally good results. In fact a parametric study by General Motors, which was provided to NHTSA in 1979 (USG 1763), suggests that specific vehicle interior parameters, such as occupant proximity to steering columns, instrument panel, etc., could have more influence on measured dummy data than some of the restraint parameters. A copy of that study is attached.

While the above discussion deals with the regulatory aspects of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210, there are additional compelling reasons for a new interpretation of that section. These reasons are based on practical implications as well as recent rulemaking actions that bear on the existing interpretations.

Most importantly, the redundant anchors would very likely never be used. It is highly improbable that a customer would demand an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door anchored belt were available from the manufacturer as a replacement for the OEM automatic seat belt. This would be true whether or not the passive restraint requirements were eventually rescinded. As noted in General Motors' response to Docket 74-14; Notice 36 (USG 2284), automatic seat belt designs would need to be detachable to ensure public acceptability. As a result, a detachable automatic seat belt design would also be usable as a manual seat belt. (See Attachment 6 of USG 22B4). This "convertibility" feature would be expected to further reduce the likelihood of replacement.

The redundant seat belt anchor issue is clouded by NHTSA's recent manual belt dynamic test proposal in Docket 74-14, Notice 38. If enacted, that proposal would provide manual belts with the same exemption from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210 now afforded automatic belts. This would allow manufacturers to find an optimum anchor location for manual belt systems on the basis of best overall performance. With this scenario, the S4.1.1 requirement in FMVSS 210 becomes even more inappropriate in that it may not reflect a belt anchor location needed to meet the FMVSS 208 injury criteria.

General Motors is concerned that cost factors may have been understated and this may have misled NHTSA regarding the need for a review of the current S4.1.1 interpretation. This is suggested by the agency's denial of a 1981 Toyo Kogyo petition (46 FR 54391) wherein it was stated that, ".the cost increase associated with these additional anchorages is minimal at best". The cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned, assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.

In summary, it is General Motors view that the requirements of S4.1.1 in FMVSS 210 would be satisfied by the vehicle seat belt anchors utilized by any belt restraint system that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and requests that the agency issue an interpretation to that effect. That interpretation would acknowledge that a three-point automatic belt qualifies as a Type 2 belt; therefore, additional anchors would not be required. If such interpretation is not possible, General Motors requests notification of that fact and further requests that this letter be treated as a petition for amendment of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 in a manner which supports General Motors view, as set forth above.

Sincerely,

David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering cc: B. Felrice G. Hunter S. Esch Docket 74-14, Notice 38

ID: 21708.ztv

Ms. Carol Morton
Washington State Patrol
Equipment and Standards Review Unit
P.O. Box 42614
Olympia, WA 98504-2614

Dear Ms. Morton:

This is in reply to your fax of May 23, 2000, addressed to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked "Can Washington State legally license . . . off-road motorcycles for road use if they comply to our equipment requirements and are issued a 'state assigned vin'?" You report that Luke Loy of this agency sent you "information indicating that for our state to license off-road motor-cycles for road use appears to be a violation of 49 USC 30112."

Under the pertinent portion of 49 U.S.C. 30112, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Federal law does not address the licensing or operation of motor vehicles, which is left to the States. Under Section 30103(b), however, a State is expressly preempted from having a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a FMVSS unless the State standard is identical to the Federal requirement. We have interpreted this as preventing States from adopting or enforcing operational or licensing requirements that would preclude the operation of vehicles that comply with the FMVSS. Thus, for example, a State could not prohibit a motorcycle from being equipped with a modulating headlamp system in order to be licensed or operated because there is a FMVSS (Standard No. 108) that expressly allows such a system.

Federal law does not prohibit Washington from registering a motorcycle meeting such requirements as the State may have imposed for licensing either new or reconstructed motor vehicles, provided that the State's requirements applicable to an aspect of performance regulated by the FMVSS are not more stringent than those of the FMVSS.

The letter you enclosed from Baja Designs of San Diego states that the company manufactures and sells modification equipment to help vehicle owners bring their motorcycles "up to State Department of Transportation criteria." In the company's opinion, 49 U.S.C. 30112 "was not intended to stop the individual vehicle owner from modifying a vehicle to comply with specific State DOT requirements and re-titling the vehicle under a state's reconstructed vehicle titling process."

Baja's interpretation of Section 30112 is not on point. To be sure, Section 30112 was not intended to "stop" a vehicle owner from complying with State requirements. Its intent is to prohibit "a person" from failing to comply with Federal requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles. The issue with which we are concerned under Section 30112, then, is the Federal requirements that may apply to the conversion of an off-road motorcycle to on-road use.

For purposes of this discussion, an "off-road motorcycle" is one that was not manufactured and certified as meeting the FMVSS that apply to motorcycles, because, under our interpretations, it was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. The act of conversion for use on the public roads creates a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSS will become applicable at the time of the conversion. The FMVSS that apply to motorcycles are Standards Nos. 106 (brake hoses), 108 (lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment), 111 (rearview mirrors), 119 and 120 (tires and rims), 122 (brake systems), 123 (controls and displays), and 205 (glazing materials, if the motorcycle has a windshield). Therefore, the converted motorcycle must meet, and be certified to meet, all these FMVSS.

For purposes of compliance with DOT laws and regulations, we regard the converter as the manufacturer. However, under our interpretations on kit cars, a person who supplies all the equipment required to create a motor vehicle is also regarded as a "manufacturer." Baja has related that it supplies customers with "DOT approved lighting, DOT approved tires, mirrors, speedometers, custom wiring harnesses and other equipment to facilitate compliance with state and federal standards for street vehicles." From this list, we surmise that, at the least, Baja may be providing equipment that purports to bring off-road motorcycles into compliance with FMVSS Nos. 108, 111, 119, and 123. However, we cannot conclude on the basis of this correspondence that Baja is providing all equipment needed for on-road use, and specifically that required to comply with FMVSS Nos. 106, 120 and 122 . Therefore, it appears that the converter is the manufacturer and responsible under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112, for the compliance of the vehicle and its certification of compliance. We encourage all States to refuse to license vehicles for use on their roadways unless they are certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS.

Finally, we come to the question of whether the State may assign a VIN to a vehicle which we view as required to meet the FMVSS. One purpose of the Federal VIN, as expressed in section S565.1 of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, is "to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns." As noted above, the converter has become the manufacturer, and, as the manufacturer, it is also responsible for conducting recall campaigns. Where an individual has only modified his or her own motorcycle, we would not insist that the single converted vehicle be furnished with a VIN meeting Part 565, as compliance is not needed to achieve the purpose of the regulation. In this instance, a State may assign a VIN to the motorcycle. Our answer would differ, of course, if we had concluded that Baja is the manufacturer. In that event, Baja would have to furnish VINs that meet the requirements of Part 565.

One final point. In its letter, Baja uses the term "DOT approved." This term has no basis in either fact or law. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. If a "DOT" symbol appears on an item of equipment or its container, the "DOT" is the equipment manufacturer's certification that the equipment conforms to all applicable FMVSS. Such certification may be found as an indication of conformance with FMVSS Nos. 106, 108, 119, the rim requirements of 120, and 125. We do not know what Baja means by use of the term "DOT-approved mirrors," because FMVSS No. 111 does not apply directly to mirrors but specifies performance requirements that a motorcycle mirror system must meet when it is installed.

You have Taylor Vinson's e-mail address; please consult him if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/26/00

ID: nht93-6.47

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President - Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter date 4/27/93 from Scott R. Dennison to John Womack (illegible OCC number)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993, clarifying your FAX of March 12 to which I responded on April 19.

We appreciate your goal of helping people comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and those of EPA. We can well understand why, as you put it, "at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers." The regulation of kit cars and vehicles combining old and new parts is a complicated subject, and our opinions usually depend upon the specific facts of individual cases with the result that one may differ in degree from another. Because these are legal opinions, the Office of Chief Counsel is the proper Office within NHTSA to address questions of this nature, rather than the agency's Enforcement office.

We are sorry that some of your inquirers "are afraid to call (NHTSA) for fear of reprisal." By this, I think you mean that a call from a small manufacturer might cause NHTSA to initiate enforcement action concerning nonconformance with the FMVSS or agency regulations. The potential of an enforcement action should be sufficient to encourage those engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles to discern their responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to comply with them. We are willing to assist manufacturers in interpreting the Act and regulations. If they do not wish to write or call us, they can review our interpretation letters which are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Also, they can consult a private attorney.

You enclosed a copy of the "EPA Kit Car Policy" which we have reviewed, comparing it with NHTSA policy. In most respects, the two policies are congruent. Paragraph 1 of the EPA document fairly expresses NHTSA policy; fully assembled kit cars, and complete kit car packages are "motor vehicles" under the Act, required to be certified by the manufacturer or kit supplier. If they are not certified, they must be imported by a NHTSA-registered importer (the counterpart to EPA's Independent Commercial Importer), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to certify the kit car (an allowance that we understand does not exist under EPA regulations). I shall return to Paragraph 2 later. Paragraph 3 differs from NHTSA policy; although automotive bodies are not "motor vehicles" under either EPA or NHTSA's definitions, they are "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of NHTSA's jurisdiction. Paragraph 4 essentially states NHTSA policy; kit car body/chassis combinations may be imported as automotive equipment and are subject to NHTSA's regulations. Similarly, any attempt to circumvent the

Act or import regulations may be viewed as a violation subject to enforcement. However, NHTSA will also regard as a "manufacturer" any person importing kits or kit cars for resale, as well as the actual fabricator or assembler of a kit.

Paragraph 2 reflects the fact that EPA regulates only engines and emission- related components. A vehicle "will be considered to be a rebuilt vehicle of a previously certified configuration and will be considered to be covered by that configuration's original EPA certification of conformity" if the engine and all emission-related components and settings conform to those of the previously certified configuration, and if the weight of the completed kit vehicle is not more than 500 pounds greater than that of the originally certified configuration. Under EPA policy, a "rebuilt vehicle" could be a motor vehicle all of whose parts were new and unused except for its engine and engine-related components. NHTSA has no definition of "rebuilt vehicle" which would permit a similar interpretation, and while a vehicle as I have described could be covered by the previously existing EPA certification, NHTSA very likely would regard it as a newly manufactured motor vehicle which must be certified as meeting all contemporary FMVSS. It is here that the two agencies most diverge because of the breadth of NHTSA's regulatory authority which encompasses all motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicles assembled from that equipment.

You cite as an example of difficulty "the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod." The first question to answer is whether the car has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Factors to consider in this determination are whether the Hot Rod is intended solely for use on closed race tracks, whether it must be trailered from race to race, and whether a State would license it for on road use. If the car has not been manufactured primarily for on road use, then it is not a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not subject to the FMVSS. If the car is a "motor vehicle" and entirely assembled from parts from a disassembled motor vehicle or vehicles previously in use, then it is considered a "used" vehicle, and also not subject to the FMVSS (but subject to state and local standards). On the other hand, if the kit car is entirely comprised of previously unused parts, then it is a new motor vehicle that is required to comply with, and be certified as complying with, the FMVSS (and its manufacturer may be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of those standards under 49 CFR Part 555). If the kit car is comprised of parts both previously used and unused, NHTSA's examination of the list of components in each category will enable it to advise whether the kit car must comply with the FMVSS that apply to new vehicles.

In addition, we also receive inquiries from those who wish to construct vehicles which use a "host" chassis from a previously certified vehicle. The Act permits a manufacturer to modify a previously certified vehicle in any manner as long as it does not knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed by the original manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that, if the manufacturer removes the original body, at the end of the conversion process the resulting motor vehicle must continue to comply with the FMVSS that were in effect when it was originally manufactured. However, a certain divergence from original vehicle

compliance is permitted. For example, if a 1982 enclosed passenger car is modified to become a convertible, at the end of the conversion process it is no longer required to meet enclosed car FMVSS but must comply with those that applied to 1982 convertibles. The Act does not require that such vehicles be certified but the manufacturer should be prepared to substantiate that it has not rendered inoperative any of the vehicle's original safety equipment, either directly or indirectly (such as a substantial increase in the weight of the vehicle that might affect its crash protection characteristics) in the event NHTSA should so ask.

Finally, we note your remark that NHRA and SEMA are debating whether a policy can "be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards." As I discussed above, the FMVSS would not appear to apply to a replica vehicle such as a Miller racing car from the 1920's that could not be licensed for on road use. However, the FMVSS do apply to vehicles composed of newly manufactured parts that replicate the look of older vehicles. For this reason, 100% authenticity cannot be achieved for a replica required to meet the current FMVSS because of equipment such as the center highmounted stop lamp, side marker lamps and reflectors, and head and other occupant restraints required for safety today. As a general rule, we would not provide temporary exemptions from these standards. In our view, the only viable candidate for an authentic replica is one that is constructed on a "host" chassis of a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the first FMVSS became effective, or entirely from used parts. I would also note that much authenticity could result from use of a "host" chassis manufactured during calendar year 1968. Although the appearance of the interior would be affected by compliance with certain FMVSS, the FMVSS requiring side marker lamps and reflectors and head restraints did not become effective until January 1, 1969.

ID: nht81-3.29

DATE: 10/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which you petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of "moped" and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a "moped" uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommended definition of "moped", which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.

The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as a category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.

Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to the public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.

"Moped" means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.

Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definitions of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).

We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the various definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of "moped" stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term "moped" for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term "moped" in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.

Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of questions relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ENC.

Question 1: The present definition of "motor-driven cycle" is a "motorcycle" with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR @ 571.3 (1979). Does this mean that a "motor-driven cycle" must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?

Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that apply to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.

Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 123, 49 CFR 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?

Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when the moped is being propelled by the engine.

Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems be operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?

Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they would comply with the requirement.

Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR @ 571.127 at S.3 (1979) excludes motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR @ 571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motordriven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?

Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer, that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.

ID: Wheelchair_ramp

Mr. Paul Collett
Liberty Motor Company Inc.
2390 South Service Road West
Oakville, Ontario
Canada, L6L 5M9




Dear Mr. Collett:

This responds to your letter and phone inquiry in which you asked several questions concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, to the modification of a vehicle to accommodate a wheelchair ramp. You first asked if a door latch assembly you described would comply with FMVSS No. 206. You then asked a series of questions based on a comparison of the door system you described and other door assembly designs. I have addressed your questions below.

In a conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff you stated that your company, Liberty Motor Company Inc. (Liberty), installs wheelchair ramps onto the back doors of minivans. Prior to installation of a ramp, you stated that the minivans typically have a "rear tailgate door with hinges at the top" and a single latch system located at the center of the bottom edge of the door. You explained that the installation requires lowering of the vehicle floor and the attachment of a folding ramp. As described in your letter, when the ramp is stowed it acts to "seal the door opening between the bottom of the closed tailgate door and the lowered floor".You further explained that the latch and striker of the original vehicle is removed and reinstalled onto the ramp so that when the back door is closed it latches to the stowed ramp.

You raised a variety of issues related to this type of modification. We have read your letter as requesting a response on two main issues: (1) is such a modification compliant with FMVSS No. 206, and (2) would such a modification result in a door system analogous to a cargo-door or "double side door" for purposes of the standard?

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or modification of a motor vehicle. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). See 49 CFR 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

1. Compliance with FMVSS No. 206

In equipping a vehicle with a wheelchair ramp your company would have to ensure that the modification did not take the vehicle out of compliance with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 206. S4.4 of FMVSS No. 206 specifies the requirements for hinged back doors. Each hinged back door system must be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly as defined by the standard. The primary latch and striker assembly must not separate when subjected to the specified forces applied in the specified directions.

Another important standard to consider is FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection. FMVSS No. 214 specifies safety requirements for vehicles subjected to impact by a moving deformable barrier at 33.5 mph. S5.3.2 of that standard specifies that any door (including a rear hatchback or tailgate), which is not struck by the barrier must not disengage from the latched position, must not have its latch separate from the striker, and must not have hinged components separate from each other or from their attachment to the vehicle. The latches and hinge systems of unstruck doors must not pull out of their anchorages.

The primary latch and striker provided by the original manufacturer must continue to meet these requirements as re-installed. However, nothing in our standards would expressly prohibit a design such as you described.

We note that on December 15, 2004, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to update requirements and test procedures specified in the standard (69 FR 75021). If adopted, the proposal would add requirements and test procedures for sliding doors, add secondary latch position requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors, provide a new test procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extend the application of the standard to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds.

2. Similar Door Systems

You asked a series of questions based on the premise that the back door as modified would be analogous to a cargo-type door or a "[double] side door as found on some extended cab pick-up trucks. " We do not agree that the rear door / ramp system you described would be analogous to either of these door systems for the purposes of FMVSS No. 206.

FMVSS No. 206 defines a cargo-type door as:

[A] door designed primarily to accommodate cargo loading including, but not limited to, a two-part door that latches to itself.

Cargo-type doors are subject to more abbreviated standards than hinged back doors.

Contrary to the definition of "cargo-type doors", your door system is designed primarily to permit wheelchair occupants to enter and exit a vehicle. Further, in extending FMVSS No. 206 to hinged back doors, we rejected the idea of treating hinged back doors as cargo-type doors (60 FR 50124; September 28, 1995). The intent of S4.4 is to prevent the back door ejection of occupants by ensuring the integrity of latch/striker and hinge systems of back doors to reduce the incidence of unintended back door opening (60 FR at 50128).

The "double side door" systems described in your letter are located on the side of a vehicle and are therefore subject to the requirements applicable to hinged side doors. The door / ramp system described in your letter is located at the back of a vehicle and is therefore subject to the hinged back door requirements.

FMVSS No. 206 defines "back door" in part as:

[A] door or door system on the back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded[.] (Emphasis added. )

The portion of the ramp that acts to secure the back opening would be considered part of the back door system. Therefore, the system described in your letter would be a "hinged back door" for the purpose of FMVSS No. 206.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.2/24/05

ID: nht79-2.17

DATE: 03/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mar 19 1979

Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Crewe Chesire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Knight:

This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, and January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, Controls and Displays. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must be rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.

2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirement for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.

(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.

3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibiiity requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a "few" inches, we mean up to approximately thee inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the acency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.

4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMCSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

NOA-30:KDeMeter:pfp:3/5/79 cc: NOA-30 Subj/Chvon NOA-30 Ms. DeMeter NRMS-11 Interps: Std. 101-80 Redbook: (3) CC

ID: 007713

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety And Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request that we reconsider a May 2, 2003, letter of interpretation we issued to Hyundai concluding that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) no. 108 does not preempt a California statute regulating the distance between front turn signal lamps and fog lamps. As discussed below, after carefully reconsidering our interpretation, we conclude that FMVSS No. 108 preempts State laws regarding the distance between front turn signal lamps and fog lamps. This letter withdraws and supersedes our May 2, 2003, interpretation.

We note that, in a letter dated July 1, 2003, Hyundai requested that we reconsider our May 2, 2003, interpretation. However, the California Highway Patrol subsequently informed Hyundai that it recognized that the lamp spacing requirements in its regulations are not identical to those contained in FMVSS 108, and that the provisions of FMVSS No. 108 covering the same aspect of performance prevailed over the State regulation. Therefore, in a letter dated August 12, 2003, we advised Hyundai that we considered its July 1, 2003, request as mooted. you expressed concern, however, that other States may nonetheless rely on the May 2, 2003, interpretation letter, and asked that we clarify our position on this issue.

The California law at issue provided that fog lamps must be mounted so that the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp. FMVSS No. 108 provides, by means of incorporation by reference of SAE Recommended Practice J588, that if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater. Thus, the standard expressly contemplates the placement of fog lamps in an area that would be prohibited under the California law.

Under 49 u.s.c. 30103(b), preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to" a federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Thus, the relevant issue is whether the California law addresses the same aspect of performance as one addressed by FMVSS No. 108.

In our August 12, 2003, letter to Hyundai, we summarized our May 2, 2003, interpretation as follows:

In brief, fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. thus, if California were to preclude fog lamps, FMVSS No. 108 would not preempt such an action. similarly, California can address the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. However, California could not regulate fog lamps in a manner that would be inconsistent with the functioning of front turn signal lamps, which we do regulate.

We note that, in our May 2, 2003, interpretation, we stated that we believed the thrust of J588 was to regulate performance of turn signal lamps, and that the reference to fog lamps was illustrative.

We have reconsidered our May 2, 2003, interpretation. As noted above, the relevant issue is whether the California law and FMVSS No. 108 address the same aspect of performance.

On reconsideration, we believe that both FMVSS No. 108 and the California law seek to prevent obscuration of the turn signals. FMVSS No. 108 requires that if a fog lamp is closer than four inches to the turn signal lamp, the turn signal lamp must be brighter. The California law requires that fog lamps not be any closer than four inches to turn signal lamps. Since the California law addresses the same aspect of performance as FMVSS No. 108 and is not identical, it is preempted.

We note that you Stated in your letter that the alliance agrees that a State law prohibiting fog lamps would not be preempted, and we are not changing our view on that issue.

I hope this clarification is helpful. If you have any questions, you may call Edward Glancy of this Office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/1/04