ID: nht95-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Shultz -- Vice President, General Counsel and General Manager -- Public Relations, Diamond Star Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/20/95 LETTER FROM GARY SHULTZ TO EDWARD GLANCY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shultz:

This responds to your letter asking about Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that section 583.6 specifies that manufacturers are to determine the percentage U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, before t he beginning of each model year. You stated, however, that the regulation does not indicate what should be done when there is a change of plans in the source of production for a particular carline in the middle of the model year. According to your lett er, one of your carlines currently in production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan, which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point.

You requested confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether section 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carline's content only on a o ne-time model year basis. You also requested confirmation as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, section 583.5(a) requires manufacturers to provide five basic items of information on the label: (1) U.S./Canadian parts content; (2) Major sources of foreign parts content; (3) Final assembly point; (4) Country of origi n for the engine; and (5) Country of origin for the transmission. The first two items are determined on a "carline" basis; the last three items are determined with respect to individual vehicles.

Both Part 583 and the American Automobile Labeling Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304) contemplate that U.S./Canadian parts content and Major sources of foreign parts content are determined on a once-a-model-year basis for a particular carline. In par ticular, section 32304(b)(2) reads as follows:

At the beginning of each model year, each manufacturer shall establish the percentages required for each carline to be indicated on the label . . . . Those percentages are applicable to that carline for the entire model year . . . .

We believe that Congress included this provision to reduce unnecessary manufacturer costs, and was seeking to make it clear that the manufacturers could not be required to revise their calculations during the model year. The specified percentages are es timates by nature, and the assumptions underlying them are subject to change during the model year. It would be very burdensome to manufacturers to be required to constantly recalculate the estimated percentages throughout the model year.

Your letter raises the issue, however, of whether a manufacturer is permitted to revise the carline percentages in the event of a major change in source of production during a model year. It is our opinion that a manufacturer may revise the percentages in such circumstances, at its option. Such revision would be analogous to correcting an error and would prevent the possibility of misleading consumers. If you do make such a revision, however, the revised estimates should reflect the model year as a w hole and not just the balance of the model year. In addition, the label should include a note indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the model year. This is necessary to prevent confusion when consumers compare the labels of v ehicles within the same carline manufactured at different times.

You also asked whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Since final assembly point is determined for individual vehicles rather than carlines, the label must be changed to indicate the actual final assembly point of the vehicle. See section 583.5(a)(3).

The section which you cited, i.e., section 583.5(e), permits manufacturers to provide additional information for carlines assembled in the U.S./Canada and in one or more other countries. Since your carline would now be assembled in the U.S./Canada and J apan, your company may avail itself of this option. I note that section 583.5(e)(3) provides that a manufacturer selecting this option for a particular carline must provide the specified additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the ca rline. In your situation, you would need to provide the additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline, beginning from the time the vehicles were manufactured in both places.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht95-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 11, 1995

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- EXEC DIR. NYSBDA

TO: Walter Myers -- STAFF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RICHARD KREUTSIGER (A43; PART 565)

TEXT: MR. MYERS; I DID TRY TO REACH YOU BY PHONE ON FRIDAY (2/10/95) PERTAINING TO THE LONG STANDING QUESTION RELATING TO THE INTRUSION OF THE LEFT SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR ON A SCHOOL BUS OF THE FOLDING SEAT, UNDER PROVISIONS OF FMVSS 217 AMENDED, WHEN THERE IS VERY DISTINCT ILY DEPICTED A 30 CENTIMETER AISLE (CLEAR) EVEN THOUGH THERE IS FROM 1/4" TO 3/4" INTRUSION BY THE FOLD UP SEAT FRAME.

I WILL BE ATTENDING A MEETING MONDAY (2/13/95) AT WHICH I AM CONFIDENT THAT THIS QUESTION WILL ONCE AGAIN ARISE - AND I WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF ACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR YOU TO CONTACT ME AT 607-722 - 7575

I AM NOT NOT TRYING TO PICK ON YOU BUT ANOTHER QUESTION HAS DEVELOPED WHICH IN MY RESEARCH OF THE CFR FOR TRANSPORTATION HAS NOT PROVIDED ME WITH MUCH OF AN ANSWER.

THE "QUESTION" PERTAINS TO "MODEL YEAR" DATING. I HAVE FOUND UNDER THE SECTION RELATING TO "VIN" THAT THE MODEL YEAR IS TO BE INCLUDED AT A SPECIFIED POINT - BUT MY DIRECT QUESTION - IS THERE ANY FEDERAL MANDATE STATUTE - REGULATION - LAW - THAT PROVIDE S A SPECIFIC DATE OR TIME FRAME IN WHICH A MANUFACTURER HAS TO CHANGE MODEL YEAR DATING - PROVIDING ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE VEHICLE PRODUCTION MAKE-UP OR DESIGN FEATURE. I AM AWARE THAT MOST OF THE BIG THREE AUTO COMPANY'S MAKE ANNUAL CH ANGES, BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS ADDING OR DELTING A "WIDGET". ANY INFORMATION YOU MIGHT HAVE WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED. THANK YOU.

ID: nht95-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Forbes Howard -- Goodlife Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/2/94 from Forbes Howard to John Womack (OCC 10074)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusua l configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of t he man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straig ht sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mir ror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has regis tered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

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

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maxi mum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them re semble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf cars") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehi cle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule pub lished May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808) (copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 final rule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweigh t vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Blouse -- V. P. Engineering, Fitting Image

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/26/94 LETTER FROM GARY BLOUSE TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSOLE, NHTSA (OCC 10315)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blouse:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a "rigid plastic" hook at the end from whi ch plastic grocery bags are suspended.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Man ufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 3 0102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as "after market equipment," allow me to explain how NHTSA determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertisi ng, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S.

Code.

Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected u se relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle).

While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. C ode concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that require s, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance w ith that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how "rigid" the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 pro hibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, complia nce with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation .

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authorit y to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.61

ID: nht95-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/21/94 LETTER FROM SCOTT E. PETERS TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of inte rnal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to pro longed operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, ma nufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limi ts:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Stand ard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiti ng the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: G. Brandt Taylor -- President, Day-Night Mirrors, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/6/94 LETTER FROM G. BRANDT TAYLOR TO PHILIP R. RECHT (OCC 10553)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanica lly rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any veh icles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such refl ectance automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether "west coast" mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable man ual override.

The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991)

The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirro r. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operat ion would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Liebscher -- President/Director, Electric Car Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/16/95 LETTER FROM KEN LIEBSCHER TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: We have reviewed your application of January 16, 1995, for temporary exemption of the M1-6 electric passenger car from six Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on the basis that compliance would cause Electric Car Company ("Electric Car") substantial economic hardship. We need some additional information before we are able to consider the application further.

A hardship applicant must provide corporate balance sheets and income statements for the three fiscal years preceding the filing of the application. You have filed statements for E.T.C. Industries and only for two years, those ending December 31, 1992, and December 31, 1993. This is acceptable since your submission indicates that E.T.C. Industries (apparently a Canadian corporation) is the parent of Electric Car (a Nevada corporation incorporated on November 24, 1993), and that "the consolidated finan cial statements [that you have provided us] include the accounts of Electric Car . . . ." We would like to have balance sheets and income statements for Electric Car for the year ending December 31, 1994, but if these are not yet available, we would be w illing to accept statements for E.T.C. Industries (or its predecessor Bradsue Resources, Ltd.) for the year ending December 31, 1991. If the information reflected in the financial statements is given in Canadian dollars, please provide a key indicating the value in American dollars on December 31 of each year for which the information is provided.

In order to grant a hardship application, the Administrator must find that an applicant has tried to comply in good faith with each standard for which exemption is requested. Your application contains no information upon which the Administrator could ma ke such a finding with respect to any of the six standards for which you seek exemption. In spite of your confidence about the MI-6's performance in a 30 mph barrier impact, the fact that the MI-6 uses equipment installed in motor vehicles that are cert ified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not mean that the MI-6 will meet any of the six standards with the equipment installed. We therefore suggest that you supplement the application with information demonstrating that you hav e examined each of the six standards in some detail, and have made a study of possible compliance problems and possible solutions to them. It is permissible to ask to be excused from only a portion of a standard, and you may find, after studying your pr oblems, that you will be able to narrow your requests for exemption from Standards No. 201 and 208. We assume with respect to the latter that you are concerned with the airbag requirements. Although your letter speaks of "restraint systems", we would l ike your further identification of them as two-point (lap belt) or three-point (lap and shoulder belt) systems.

Although you appear to be a manufacturer in the start-up stage and one whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding the filing of the application was far less than 10,000, you have omitted to provide the number of motor vehicles that you pr oduced in 1994 which is information that we require. Please do so in your response to this letter.

When we have received this information, we shall prepare a notice requesting public comment which will appear in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has made a decision. We expect this to be three to four months after we ha ve received your further submission. If you have any questions on our requirements, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David O'Neil -- Hehr International Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/6/94 LETTER FROM DAVID O'NEIL TO PHILIP R. RECHT (OCC 10574)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the labeling of glazing installed on transit buses. You stated that the passenger and driver side window glazing on certain transit bus es will be a glass-plastic composite consisting of 1/4 inch tempered glass with DuPont Spallshield 307 plastic laminated to the interior surface. You asked whether this glazing must be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B glazing or whether it is possib le to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3. You also asked whether taping the required cleaning instructions to the glazing satisfies the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10.

Question One: Must the glazing be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B or is it possible to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3?

The glazing described in your letter is tempered glass-plastic and therefore must be certified and marked as either Item 15B or 16B glazing. Item 2 and Item 3 glazing refers to glass, not glass-plastic glazing. It would be incorrect to certify and mark a glass-plastic item of glazing as glass.

Question Two: Does a label containing all required instructions which is taped to the glazing satisfy the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10?

Paragraph S5.1.2.10(a) states that

Each manufacturer of glazing materials designed to meet the requirements of S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.6, S5.1.2.7, or S5.1.2.8 shall affix a label, removable by hand without tools, to each item of such glazing material. Th e label shall identify the product involved, specify instructions and agents for cleaning the material that will minimize the loss of transparency, and instructions for removing frost and ice, and at the option of the manufacturer refer owners to the veh icle's Owners Manual for more specific cleaning and other instructions.

S5.1.2.10(a) applies to your Item 15B/16B glazing since the glazing is required to comply with S5.1.2.6 or S5.1.2.8, S5.1.2.10(a) requires a manufacturer to "affix a label, removable by hand without tools . . . ." Taping the instructions to the glazing i s one way to affix a label to glazing that could be removed by hand without tools. Therefore, a manufacturer could comply with the requirements in S5.1.2.10(a) by taping the instructions to the glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Baysul Parker -- Manager, Safety Department, California Trucking Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/20/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO J. LESLIE DOBSON, 7/1/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO GENE FOUTS, 3/19/91 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JERRY TASSAN, 5/24/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN PAUL BARBER, AND 12/21/94 LETTER FROM BAYSUL PARKER TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 10622)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 21, 1994, in which you state that you have received numerous inquiries regarding whether an alterer can change a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) before the vehicle's first sale. You state that you hav e received similar inquiries concerning changes to the GVWR on used vehicles. You describe these inquiries as coming generally from owners of vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 26,000 pounds who wish to lower the GVWR so that these vehicles may be driven by operators who do not possess a commercial driver's license. From your review of regulations governing vehicle certification that have been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), you express the understanding that only a vehicle manufacturer can assign a GVWR, but that either the manufacturer or "an alterer approved by NHTSA" can change the GVWR before the vehicle's first sale. This has led you to ask whether there is a list of NHTSA approved alterers.

Under NHTSA's regulations on vehicle certification, found at 49 CFR Part 567, the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle is responsible for affixing a label to the vehicle that specifies, among other things, the vehicle's GVWR. Section 567.4(g)(3) of those regulations states that the GVWR assigned by the manufacturer "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." NHTSA requires a vehicle's GVWR to be specif ied on the certification label to inform the vehicle's owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load carrying capacity, and intended use.

Section 567.7 of NHTSA's certification regulations provides that if a vehicle is altered before its first purchase in such a manner that the vehicle's GVWR is different from that shown on the original certification label, the modified GVWR must be specif ied on the label that the alterer affixes to the vehicle. Contrary to your understanding, NHTSA does not approve vehicle alterers, and consequently maintains no list of such enterprises.

You stated that you have received inquires concerning whether the GVWR of a used vehicle can be changed. As detailed in the certification regulations discussed above, a vehicle's GVWR is assigned by its manufacturer as part of the certification process. To avoid statutory violations, the manufacturer must complete the certification process before the vehicle is first sold to a consumer. The GVWR is therefore fixed prior to this first sale. The only exception to this is if the manufacturer seeks to c orrect an error (such as an error in calculation or a typographical error) in the originally assigned GVWR.

NHTSA recognizes no other circumstances in which an originally assigned GVWR can be changed. The agency has stated on a number of occasions that modifications to assigned GVWRs should not be made for reasons relating to the GVWR threshold of the commerc ial driver's license program. This is reflected in the enclosed letters to J. Leslie Dobson, dated November 20, 1992, Gene Fouts, dated July 1, 1992, and Jerry Tassan, dated March 19, 1991. The commercial driver's licensing program is administered by t he Federal Highway Administration. If you have any further questions concerning licensing requirements for operators of commercial motor vehicles, you should contact Mr. James Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-1, Federal Highw ay Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning NHTSA's certification regulations, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at 202-366-5263.