ID: 1984-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. J. DiMaggio Manager, Gov. and Customer Relations The Firestone Tire a Rubber Co. 1200 Firestone Parkway Akron Ohio 44317

Dear Mr. DiMaggio:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to the Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The noncompliance consists of omission of the "DOT" certification symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.

It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions of the DOT symbol ss failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.

Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 8, 1983

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 117

Dear Ms. Steed:

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company hereby petitions, in accordance witn the provisions of 49CFR 556, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a noncompliance with the requirements of FMVSS 117 (49CFR 571.117). The basis for this petition is that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it pertains to motor safety.

Section S5.2.3 (a) of FMVSS 117 requires that the symbol DOT be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each retreaded tire. Section S6.1 states that this symbol certifies that the retreaded tire on which it appears meets tne requirements of FMVSS 117. One mold, number 49, put into production at our retread plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, was found to have all the required stamping except the DOT symbol. The tire identification number area in this mold reads -R-DBL 49 XXX instead of DOT-R-DBL 49 XXX. All other molds in this size, L, LR7815 Town & Country were found to be correctly stamped.

The fact that the aforementioned symbol was missing was detected when a tire from the subject mold was submitted to our testing facility as part of our compliance surveillance program. The tire met all other requirements of FMVSS 117, indicating that the plant was eligible for continued certification of compliance insofar as the quality of the product was concerned.

Inventories in the plant of tires from the subject mold were impounded and branded correctly. It is estimated that in the period during which this mold could have been in use, a maximum of 1,340 retreaded tires could have been produced. During this period, weeks 320 to 373, the plant was producing product which was in compliance with the quality of product test requirements of FMVSS 117. Further, all casings used bore the DOT symbols indicating compliance of the original tire with the requirements of FMVSS 109. Only passenger casings with this DOT stamping are used by us for retreading.

The bases upon which this petition is being submitted are as follows:

1. The quality of the subject tires met the requirements of Firestone and NHTSA. Retreaded casings cured in the subject mold all were certified by the original tire manufacturer as being in compliance with FMVSS 109. The plant follows Firestone Retread Shop practices intended to produce high quality, safe retreads. These practices include submitting tires for compliance surveillance testing. 2. The symbol -R- is stamped in the mold in the vicinity of the serial, leaving no doubt that the tire can be identified as a retread. 3. The absence of the symbol DOT does not adversely affect the quality or safety capabilities of the tires cure in the subject mold.

In view of the above, we conclude that the stamping noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and respectfully request exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Very truly yours,

A. J. DiMaggio MANAGER, GOV. AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS

AJD:g

ID: 77-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to AM General Corporation's July 18, 1977, request for confirmation that certain aspects of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. In an October 3, 1977, telephone call with Mr. Herlihy of this office, it was determined that the request for interpretation is now limited to confirmation that the four-way pressure protection valve described in M.A.N.'s June 22, 1977, letter would meet the location and functional requirements of S5.1.2.3 of Standard No. 121. Section S5.1.2.3 specifies --

S5.1.2.3 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

I am enclosing prior interpretations of the location requirement of S5.1.2.3. While the agency cannot "approve" systems based on schematic drawings, it appears that the location of the four-way protection valve in the M.A.N. drawings does not violate the provisions contained in S5.1.2.3.

As we understand the description and capabilities of the four-way valve, it appears to be a pressure protection device that is "equivalent" to the check valve otherwise required by S5.1.2.3.

SINCERELY,

AM General Corporation

July 18, 1977

Duane E. Perrin NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

As you may be aware, AM General has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nuernberg (M.A.N.) of West Germany for the purpose of importing roughly 400 articulated buses into the United States which, after completion in our Marshall, Texas facility, will be delivered to eleven domestic transit properties. Contractually, the responsibility for compliance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is divided between AM General and M.A.N. relative to areas of design and manufacturing responsibility. As M.A.N. is primarily responsible for the major mechanical components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension, braking systems, etc., compliance with Federal and State Safety Standards in these specific areas rests with them.

During design of the braking system, it has been determined that clarification relative to Paragraph S5.1.2.3 of FMVSS 121 is required. More specifically, approval is requested for utilization of a 4-way air pressure protection valve in lieu of the simple service reservoir check valves described in the standard.

The functioning configuration of this 4-way protection valve is completely outlined in the attached material from M.A.N.

Additionally, consideration and approval is requested relative to the outlined testing procedure which will be utilized to demonstrate proof of compliance to FMVSS 124.

I believe the attached material is fairly self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions or require additional information, do not hesitate to call me at area code (313) 722-4900.

Your prompt consideration and approval will be greatly appreciated.

M. J. Shillinger Project Engineer

ATTACH.

To the Department of Transportation

June 22, 1977

Re: Clarification for compliance with FMVSS 121 and 124:

Dear Sirs:

M.A.N. is supplier of articulated buses to AM General, Wayne, Mich., importing these vehicles for the first time to the US, and therefore is confronted to proof compliance with all FMVSS standards applicable.

Due to the fact, that this is the first time we have some specific problems with the interpretation of certain paragraphs, which could not even be clarified absolutely by the friendly assistance of our partner AMG, we are relaying our requests now to you.

Enclosed please find two write-ups of our interpretation of certain details of FMVSS 124 and 121.

The problem area regarding FMVSS 124 concerns the test conditions where we would like to ask you either to approve our interpretation or to inform us of an acceptable solution.

Regarding FMVSS 121 we are quite aware of the tests we have to perform to verify compliance, but we would like you to check the basic schematics of our brake system. Please give special attention to the fact, that this schematic does not allow the incorporation of additional check valves on the inlets of the individual air tanks as air flow in both directions occurs. We assume, however, that these tanks are to be regarded as one system and are sufficiently protected by the four circuit protection valve.

To our knowledge the system as described incorporates safety features superior to the systems presently operating in the US. We would like to thank you for your efforts and to point out the urgency the matter has for us.

MASCHINENFABRIK AUGSBURG-NURNBERG Aktiengesellschaft Werk Munchen

ppa.

(Dr. Hagen)

(i.A.)

(Dr. Domandl)

[ENCLOSURES OMITTED.]

ID: 05-006195drn

Ms. Sherra C. Jarrells
191 Montrose Drive
Mooresville, NC 28115




Dear Ms. Jarrells:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether your proposed product, a "large Kayak with retractable gear legs for the purposes of not needing a trailer to transport the boat" is a "motor vehicle." We have also received via e-mail, photographs of the product in production. This letter confirms that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers your product to be a "motor vehicle," specifically a trailer. You also asked several questions relating to requirements for trailer manufacturers, which are answered below.

By way of background information, NHTSA administers the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) at 49 CFR Part 571 are promulgated.

You wish to know whether your product is a "trailer", and thus, a "motor vehicle".NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your kayak with axles to be a "motor vehicle" depends on its use. It is the agencys position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. (Such equipment is the subject of the October 20, 2003, letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle of Schiller International Corp. that you provided to us.) In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Based on the information you have provided, it is our opinion that your product is a motor vehicle, specifically a trailer. You indicated that the purpose of the retractable gear legs/wheel assemblies is so that a trailer is not needed to transport the boat, and that the product is intended for highway use. Given the nature of the product, we believe that owners would routinely tow it behind their vehicles to take it to various recreational areas. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your product on the public roads to be a primary purpose, and not incidental. Since your product is a motor vehicle, it would be subject to the FMVSSs. Your product would be considered a trailer, defined in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

I am enclosing an information package, "Requirements for Trailer Manufacturers" issued by NHTSAs Enforcement Office, which explains in some detail NHTSA regulations that apply to the manufacture of trailers. Since the agency has determined that your product is a motor vehicle, the product must comply with applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable FMVSSs. The certification procedure is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

You also ask how to ensure that your trailer complies with the laws of each of the fifty States. We regret that we cannot provide this type of information. You may wish to contact the various States and/or a private attorney concerning this question.

Finally, because NHTSA has no statutory authority to regulate "boats," I am unable to provide an opinion whether your product is also a "boat".

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/15/05

ID: 14-001678 IMMI STAR crs

ID: nht92-9.44

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

TO: Harry Thompson -- Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division, NHTSA; Barry Felrice -- Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking, NHTSA; Patricia Brescin -- Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Std.; Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Jim Simons -- Plans & Policy, NHTSA; Bob Hellmuth -- Director Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: Nick Bilello

TITLE: Re: F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul N. Wagner (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to attempt to clarify some questions revolving around the application of F.M.V.S.S. #208 to the light truck industry, primarily those built in MULTIPLE stages, such as van conversions.

Last year, our firm, and others, traveled to the Agency AND worked with the automotive companies to achieve compliance with the dynamic requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #208 for light trucks, for our part in the van and pick-up truck industry. This involved vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

In virtually all instances of communication during 1991 with the Agency, (including public forum contact with individuals such as your Mr. Bob Hellmuth), and the auto companies, the general response was that there would be NO EXTENSION in the application of dynamic testing (F.M.V.S.S. #208) of light trucks with a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, effective 9/1/91.

Additionally, after proceeding with body-in-white sled testing, despite finding additional complications hampering the testing effort, our firm filed a petition with the Agency (copy attached), noting these and other problems occurring with light trucks manufactured in multiple stages. The petition itself is self-explanatory; however, it was promptly rejected as being untimely, among other things.

With this information, we proceeded with further sled AND barrier testing for compliance and liability reasons, with the research and testing costing nearly $200,000.00 in aggregate.

Now, five months after the submission of the attached petition, and three months after the Agency's rejection of said document, we have received notification (copy attached) from the trade group R.V.I.A. that indicates an extension is on the horizon.

Thus, in 1991, the general consensus from the Agency, the auto companies, R.V.I.A., N.V.C.A., and others, was that we must comply to the new requirements for all light trucks affected, with no extension possible. Now, in 1992, rumors of a possible extension are confirmed by the attached correspondence from R.V.I.A.

Please do not take this letter as a rejection of the safety aspects of F.M.V.S.S. #208, but as one of frustration of market perception. The problem at hand is not an extension, but the ultimate market confusion that exists, due to rumors and conflicting correspondence such as that enclosed.

One fair question that we believe we have is, will there or will there not be an extension of the F.M.V.S.S. #208 light truck requirements?? A timely response would be most helpful to curb the current market confusion.

There are many firms, such as Mark III Industries, and clients we work with, who have effectively put their compliance programs together in order to meet with the Agency's direction last year regarding F.M.V.S.S. #208. Many companies have hastily, but effectively, put their costly compliance programs in place, while others chose to complain and groan about F.M.V.S.S. #208, while ignoring its true safety attributes.

Arguments about F.M.V.S.S. #208 regarding light trucks can be presented at length, but what cannot be acceptable is confusion in the market regarding the status of this regulation.

We will not attempt to debate the merit of dynamic requirements for light trucks, nor will we argue over which trade group, if any, truly represents the van and truck conversion industry. We do believe, however, that because of our costly, good faith effort toward F.M.V.S.S. #208 compliance, we are entitled to a response concerning any extension of time on the above issue.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Attachment (memorandum)

RVIA Recreation Vehicle Industry Association P.O. Box 2999 - 1896 Preston White Drive - Reston, Virginia 22090-0999 Telephone (703)620-6003 - Telefax (703)620-5071

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 17, 1992 TO: RVIA Members with 208 Interest FROM: Bruce A. Hopkins RE: NHTSA/RVIA Meeting - January 14, 1992

Automotive company representatives and the members of RVIA's FMVSS 208 Task Force and its technical subcommittee, met with key policy and enforcement officials of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to

discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) on January 14 in Washington, DC.

RVIA requested the meeting to ask NHTSA officials to consider making effective dates for future amendments to FMVSS later for final stage manufacturers than for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.

Industry also wanted the opportunity to relate the substantial actions that have been taken to achieve compliance with the dynamic test requirements of 208 as well as the complex situations and problems that developed in the course of these efforts.

RVIA also requested a delay in the effective date of the already existing dynamic test requirements to FMVSS 208 until September 1, 1992. RVIA will file a formal petition for NHTSA's action.

RVIA feels that the meeting was very successful. Dave Humphreys said that NHTSA seems genuinely concerned about the problems our industry faces in complying with new FMVSS rules and is now fully aware of industry's compliance activities regarding dynamic testing and seemed please with these efforts. Humphreys expects NHTSA to grant both short and long term relief that will benefit the industry.

See the reverse side for the list of attendees.

NHTSA MEETING JANUARY 14, 1992

ATTENDEES

NHTSA Staff

Patricia Brescin Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Dan Cohen Rulemaking Barry Felrice Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking Jeff Giuseppe Office of vehicle Safety Comp. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Jim Simons Plans & Policy Harry Thompson Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division Ken Weinstein Ass't. Chief Counsel for Litigation Steve Wood Ass,t. Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

FMVSS 208 Task Force and the Technical Subcommittee

Dusty Dickeson Seats-N-Stuff Grant Farrand Starcraft Automotive Tim Hooley Goshen Cushion, Inc. Dennis Rice Flexsteel Ind., Inc. Dave Dygert Dygert Seating Andy Verbeski Compliance Group Cliff Wieland Wieland Designs

Automotive Companies

Mick Cave General Motors Dick Humphrey GM, EA Staff, Safety Al Slechter Chrysler Corp.

Legal Consultants

Larry Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Jerry Loftus, Esq. Jerome C. Loftus, PC

RVIA Staff

David J. Humphreys RVIA, President and General Counsel Bruce A. Hopkins RVIA, Vice President of Standards Ed Conway RVIA, Assistant General Counsel

Attachment

Petition to Redefine, Enhance or Amend Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, Chapter Five, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Title 49 (Text omitted)

Attachment

Letter dated 10/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Wagner. (Text omitted)

ID: 1984-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Hern Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter about Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and Safety Standard No. 101, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. Your letter asked two questions concerning whether a proposed design for a passenger car automatic transmission shift lever would meet the requirements of those standards. Your questions are answered below. This letter also discusses additional issues raised by your proposed design that were not directly raised by your letter. Finally, since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, which explains how you may apply for confidential treatment of design information.

By way of background information, I would note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter and accompanying drawing, the design you are considering may be generally described as follows. The shift lever would be mounted on the floor console and would not be identified. A display for the transmission sequence would be provided on the instrument panel. All eligible positions would be permanently in view of the driver, and the selected position would be identified through more intense illumination.

Your first question is whether it is permissible under these standards for a manufacturer not to provide identification for the shift lever. The answer to that question is yes. Neither Standard No. 101 nor Standard No. 102 includes any requirement concerning identification of an automatic transmission shift lever. Moreover, no other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes such a requirement.

The identification and other requirements of Standard No. 101 only apply to the controls and displays listed in the standard. Since automatic transmission shift levels are not among the controls listed in the standard, the standard's requirements are not applicable. Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator. The section does not, however, require the shift lever control itself to be identified. Your second question is whether Standard No. 101 or Standard No. 102 requires the shift lever to be within a certain reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle. The answer to that question is no.

As your letter pointed out, Standard No. 101 does require certain controls to be operable by the driver when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained in the answer to your first question, however, the requirements of Standard No. 101 are not applicable to automatic transmission shift levers. I would note that the term "manual transmission shift lever," listed in section S5.1 of the standard, does not incorporate automatic transmission shift levers. Similarly, Standard No. 102 does not include any requirements concerning the location of the shift lever.

I would like to point out two additional issues raised by your proposed design. The first concerns the requirement in Standard No. 102 that "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA interprets "position" to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected. Thus, as noted above, the agency has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator.

Moreover, the agency has interpreted this section's use of the words "permanently displayed" to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, a display that would not be seen when the ignition is in the "off" position does not comply with these requirements. (A letter which discusses this interpretation is enclosed. The letter is addressed to Ford.)

Taking these interpretations together, Standard No. 102 requires the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator, both of which must be capable of being seen regardless of whether the ignition is on or off. It is not clear whether your proposed design meets these requirements. Your letter states that all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination. First, with regard to the gear lever sequence, it is not clear whether your letter's use of the word "permanently" covers periods of time when the ignition is not on.

Second, with regard to the gear position indicator, it is not clear whether the selected position is identified by more intense illumination during periods of time when the ignition is not on.

The second issue I would like to note concerns the light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101. Automatic gear position displays are covered by that standard and must meet its requirements for, among other things, light intensity. An automatic gear display is a gauge. See section S4. Section S5.3.3 requires that light intensities for gauges and their identification be continuously variable from (a) a position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. However, if the gauge is an informational readout display, section S5.3.3 only requires that it have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions.

Finally, I would note that incoming letters and attachments are routinely made public along with letters of interpretation. Since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, Confidential Business Information, which sets forth the agency's procedures concerning confidentiality. Please contact me if you wish to apply for confidential treatment for that drawing.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Miss Diane K. Steed Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA ESVG/My/u (453)

October 6, 1983 Subject: FMVSS 101 and 102; Interpretation

Dear Miss Steed,

In connection with FMVSS's Nos. 101 and 102 we kindly ask you for interpretation resp. clarification in view of the location and identification of the display of the automatic gear position and the shift lever itself.

Your early favourable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

Dr.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft - Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

Request of Interpretation of Location and Identification

Requirements for the Automatic Gear Position Display and the Shift Lever of Automatic Transmissions

In S 5.1 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the displays shall be visible to the driver.

In S 5.2 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Column 3 of Table 2 of FMVSS 101 refers to FMVSS 102 with regard to the question of the identifying words or abbreviation and no symbol is included in column 4 of the said table (automatic gear position).

In FMVSS 102 under S 3.2 the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions is requested in connection with the instruction: "....shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver".

Our Questions are the following:

1) Is an advice of transmission shift lever sequence of an automatic transmission in a passenger car sufficient; as shown in annex 1 (*)? In this case all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination.

Is it admissible in this case that the shift lever which is mounted on the floor console has no identification?

(*) For presentation we had to use the instrument desired for the German market. Please neglect this fact as the third dial-plate to the left shows the US-speedometer version and includes the requested transmission sequence.

2) The shift lever for the automatic transmission is of course located within reach of the driver who is protected under FMVSS 208. What we would like to know is if Standard 101 or Standard 102 require that the shift lever has to be within a specific reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle, since FMVSS S.5.1 under article (j) refers only to manual transmission shift lever.

We would be very grateful to hear from you as soon as possible since we have stopped designing on this subject until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours, Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration- Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Herrn Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST-GERMAMY

ID: 23014.ztv

Mr. Benjamin J. Freeman
1715 Aberdeen Avenue
Aberdeen, WA 98520





Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2001, with further questions following my letter to you of February 26, 2001.

Your first question is which of the current Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply to "light duty trucks" and "MPVs." You state that you have "the full FMVSS text." You will find your answer in the text. Each FMVSS has an applicability paragraph, either S2 or S3. This paragraph identifies the types of vehicles to which that particular FMVSS applies. We have no definition or category of "light duty truck," therefore we have no list that could help you. The category "truck" includes both light and heavy duty vehicles. However, some FMVSS that apply to "trucks" may only apply to trucks at and below a specified Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) (for example, S2 of FMVSS No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems," applies the standard to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lbs.) or less).

Your next question is whether a noncomplying vehicle, manufactured in 1989 before the effective date of the registered importer requirements, January 31, 1990, may be imported without using a registered importer. The answer is no; the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591), effective that date, require all motor vehicles less than 25 years old that are not certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS and that are imported for personal use to be imported pursuant to a contract with a registered importer to bring the vehicle into conformance and to certify that conformance to NHTSA. We regret that you have been unable to come to an agreement with any of the registered importers that you have contacted.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/10/01

ID: medcoaches3277.cmc

Mr. Dick Mattice
Vice President Engineering
Medical Coaches
399 Co Hwy 58
PO Box 129
Oneonta, NY 13820-0129

Dear Mr. Mattice:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, as they apply to platform lifts and mobile medical units manufactured by your company. I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards are effective December 27, 2004.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g., MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have patient lifts that "fold and store in an under-floor skirt compartment during transit." You further explained that although the lift design "is primarily used for non-ambulatory patients on gurneys, it could just as easily be used for wheelchair-bound patients."You stated that the lifts are designed so that a gurney would be parallel to the trailer when on the platform, and therefore a wheelchair would also be oriented parallel to the trailer when on the platform. You then asked several questions regarding the application of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 to the lifts and vehicles manufactured by your company.

1) Platform Dimensions

Your letter explained that:

[The] lifts are designed so that a gurney will be parallel to the trailer when entering or leaving the trailer. The platform itself is 84" wide x 38" deep (inner roll stop to ramp). As a result, a wheelchair would also be parallel to the trailer and not perpendicular.

You then asked if the lift orientation and dimensions would be permitted under the new standards.

Before discussing lift dimension requirements, it is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) must be equipped with a lift certified to all requirements applicable to a public use lift (see S4.1.1). All other lift-equipped motor vehicles must be equipped with a platform lift certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements (see S4.1.2). FMVSS No. 404 does not include trailers as a vehicle type that must be equipped with a public use lift. Therefore, the trailers manufactured by your company may be equipped with lifts certified to the public or private lift requirements.

FMVSS No. 403 does not establish requirements specifying the orientation of a wheelchair during lift operation. For public use lifts, S6.4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 403 does establish a minimum operating platform volume, which is based on the sum of an upper and lower part (see Figure 3; copy enclosed). The lower part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a minimum width of 725 mm (28.5 in) along the platform surface and a minimum height of 50 mm (2 in). The upper part must accommodate a rectangular solid that has a base with a minimum dimension of 760 mm (30 in) wide by 1,220 mm (48 in) long and a minimum height of 711 mm (28 in). While the standard specifies that the base of the upper part must be tangent to the top surface of the lower rectangular volume and the centroids of both parts must coincide with the vertical centroidal axis of the platform, the standard does not specify the orientation of the upper part to the lower part. There is nothing preventing the upper part from being rotated in relation to the lower part.

Based on the information provided in your letter, your platform would conform to the minimum operating platform volume requirement for public use lifts. Your platform is 84 inches by 38 inches and would be able to accommodate an upper and a lower rectangular solid of the minimum size required. Further, if you were to certify the lift to the private use lift requirements, you would be required to specify the unobstructed platform operating volume and include it in the lift insert to the vehicle owners manual.

2) Wheelchair retention device impact test

Again, you stated that upon loading, a wheelchair is intended to be oriented parallel to the trailer. You ask if S7.7, Wheelchair retention device impact test, must be performed in this orientation, with the wheelchair accelerated in a direction parallel to the trailer.

The wheelchair retention device impact test verifies the integrity of the inner roll stop and the wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. The test simulates uncontrolled acceleration of a wheelchair or mobility aid when loading a platform. When loading the platform at the vehicle floor level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the wheelchair retention device. When loading the platform at ground level, a mobility aid may accelerate forward and strike the inner roll stop. In both instances, the mobility aid has the opportunity to achieve a measure of speed and momentum in a direction perpendicular to the trailer before striking a barrier.

In FMVSS No. 403, S7.7.2.3 requires a test device to be positioned with its plane of symmetry coincident with the lift reference plane. This results in the test device oriented perpendicular to the vehicle. The reference to the orientation of the test device in S7.7 refers to whether a wheelchair is loaded onto the platform in the forward or reverse direction.

On your vehicles, a mobility aid is loaded in a perpendicular direction to the trailer, even though once loaded it is positioned parallel to the trailer. Once the mobility aid is positioned on the platform parallel to the vehicle body, it is stationary. Even if it were to move forward or rearward, because of limited space on the platform, it could not achieve the level of momentum that is possible when rolling onto a platform from the vehicle or ground. However, during loading, an unimpeded mobility aid could heavily impact either a wheelchair retention device or outer barrier. Accordingly, the wheelchair retention device impact test would be performed on the wheelchair retention device/outer barrier and the inner roll stop.

3) Public use verses private use lift

Your letter asked if the lifts installed on the mobile medical units manufactured by your company would be required to be certified as public use lifts. As explained in response #1, because the vehicles manufactured by your company are trailers, the lifts could be certified as complying with either the public use or private use lift requirements.

4) Platform freefall limits

Under S6.6 of FMVSS No. 403, no portion of a platform may fall vertically faster than 305 mm (12 in) per second in the event of any single-point failure of systems for raising, lowering, or supporting the platform. Your letter asked if a failure of a hydraulic line by rupture constitutes a single-point failure.

If a system for raising, lowering, or supporting a platform were to include a hydraulic line, then the rupture of that line would constitute a single-point failure under S6.6. Therefore, if the hydraulic line were to rupture, the platform must not fall vertically faster than permitted by the standard. Additionally, you may need to evaluate other failures, as S6.6 applies to any single-point failure.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:403#404
d.6/25/04

ID: 16-004482-Weight Distribution Truck Camper Trailer-Roy

ID: 04-004377drn

Jock Marlo, Esq.
Hart, King & Coldren
P.O. Box 2507
Santa Ana, CA 92707

Dear Mr. Marlo:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements that your clients product, the "Smart Shift," must meet. The "Smart Shift" permits drivers to shift gears by a push button system, replacing transmission shift gear levers.

You described the "Smart Shift" as follows:

The Smart Shift is an automotive aftermarket product. It is sold to vehicle owners for installation by the vehicle owner or his designee. The Smart Shift is an electronically controlled shifter that attaches to an automatic transmission which allows the user to shift the transmission gears by the touch of a button, thereby eliminating the transmission gear selector rod or cable. It features a neutral safety device, a built in reverse light relay, a safety button to prevent accidental shifts, and back lit buttons and LCD display for positive gear selection.

You also provided a copy of the "Smart Shift Preliminary Users Manual." The manual shows, on page 5, a schematic of the "Smart Shift" system that includes the shift position keyboard. From left to right, in a row, the buttons are: "P," "R," "N." Slightly above this row is a button, "D+." Slightly below the row is a button, "D-." I will assume that "P" stands for "park," "R" for "reverse," "N" for "neutral," "D+" for a higher drive and "D-" for a lower drive. The schematic also includes a "Display" which you explained in your letter displays the "positive gear selection."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor

vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

Among FMVSS 102s provisions are the following:

• a neutral position must be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions (see S3.1.1);
• the engine starter must be inoperative when the transmission shifting device is in a forward or reverse drive position (see 3.1.3);
• for a transmission shift sequence that includes a park position, identification of the shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, must be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted; (b) the transmission is not in park (see S3.1.4.1); and
• the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 must be displayed in view of the driver in a single location (see S3.1.4.4).

Although the standard makes references to "transmission shift levers," no provision in FMVSS No. 102 would preclude a device that allows the user to shift the transmission gears by the touch of a button.

Since FMVSS No. 102 applies to motor vehicles, not to aftermarket automatic transmission shifting devices, your client would not be required to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 102. However, if the "Smart Shift" is installed by certain parties, 49 U.S.C. Section 30122 would be relevant. Section 30122 provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

Section 30122 would prohibit any of the above-named commercial entities from installing a "Smart Shift" if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 102. For example, if the "Smart Shift" caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the requirements noted under the bullets above, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance of the vehicle with that standard.

You also write that your clients product may be installed by vehicle owners. In this situation, our safety standards would not affect the sale or installation of the product. The "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if the modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSSs. However, we encourage all persons to avoid making vehicle modifications that have an adverse effect on safety.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:102#VSA102(4)
d.8/11/04