ID: nht95-7.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Edward J. Googins -- Chief of Police, City of South Portland (Maine)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Edward J. Googins (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: The question has been raised as to whether our DARE bus needs to have seat belts installed. This bus was given to us by the school department for use by the DARE officer to transport DARE students to activities. These activities occur for the most part outside of the regular school day.

The bus is a 1982, International - Model #S1700 with a GVWR of 20,200. It has stated seated capacity of 35 but due to the size of the students involved, it is difficult to get that many seated. The bus, in accordance to state law, had the flashing red and yellow lights removed.

I would appreciate a response from you as to whether this bus in its present use requires the installation of seat belts.

Thank you for your time.

Abuse Resistance Education Drug = DARE

5th & 6th grades

Bus was manufactured as a school bus.

ID: nht95-7.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995

FROM: Patrick Holmes

TO: To Whom it May Concern

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Patrick Holmes (Std. 218; A43)

TEXT: To whom it may concern.

Due to the high cost of buying a helmet from any shops. I have decided to manufacture a helmet for my own use. What I would like to know is if I follow all specifications that the Dept. of Transportation says I must in order to certify the helmet as D.O.T. approved may I than certify my homemade helmet?

I would appreciate an answer to this question at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

ID: nht95-7.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122)

TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC.

Confidentiality

Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, the very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets.

We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. Whereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantilever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals

The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist motor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.)

Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.]

A. License Plate Attachment

CONFIDENTIAL

[We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS are silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.]

B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps"

This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that:

"Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that:

1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment."

CONFIDENTIAL

One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.]

We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requirements) need not be adjustable.

C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids".

CONFIDENTIAL

[Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation.

The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that:

"Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR).",

and,

"Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR."

The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based.

"S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic system mineral oils . . ."

CONFIDENTIAL

[The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretation that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.]

D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2

CONFIDENTIAL

[The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, much easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.]

Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that:

"Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2."

S5.1.2.1 States that:

"Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL

[Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero.

Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies to an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system.

If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.]

E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the motor is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-stop distances contemplated by Standard No. 119]

Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours.

Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes.

CONFIDENTIAL

Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that speed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior.

We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution.

ID: NMEDA_questions

Mr. Jacques Bolduc
SRD Bolduc, Inc.
20, 34^th Ave O.
Blainville, QC
J7C 2X9
Canada




Dear Mr. Bolduc:

This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. Your letter contained a series of questions compiled by you and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association regarding the applicability of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. I have addressed each of your questions below.

1. Is there a specific manufacturing date for the vehicle?

49 CFR Part 567 requires vehicle manufacturers to affix a certification label to a motor vehicle. Section 567(g)(2) requires the certification label to include the month and year of manufacturer. As originally established, vehicle and lift manufacturers were required to comply with FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 beginning December 27, 2004. We understand that your question reflects concern with the potential difficulty in determining whether a vehicle manufactured in December 2004 would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 given that the manufacture date does not provide the day of manufacture.

On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2005 (69 FR 76865). The new compliance dates are at the beginning of the months. Therefore, the manufacture date provided on the certification label provides sufficient information to determine whether a vehicle was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date.

2. If a modifier has a client that refuses to use anything but a rotary lift what options are available?

FMVSS No. 403 applies to all platform lifts designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. In instances in which different requirements and / or variations in test procedures are necessary for rotary lifts, the regulation provide the appropriate specifications; e.g. , S7.7.3. We are unaware of any technical impediments that would prevent the manufacture of rotary platform lifts, which comply with FMVSS No. 403.

3. Follow-up to question 2. It is very unlikely that the rotary type lift can be made compliant, at least in the short term. If the lift user cannot use a more traditional type lift that is compliant to FMVSS 403, is there any way for him to legally have this type of non-compliant lift installed in his vehicle?

As stated in our response to Question 2, we are not aware of any reason that would prevent the manufacture of compliant rotary platform lifts. Nevertheless, a vehicle owner may have a non-complaint lift (i.e. , a lift manufactured before the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403) installed on a vehicle so long as the installation is performed after the first retail sale of the vehicle and the vehicle was not originally certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404.

See Letter to Deny Betrand, January 1, 2005 (copy enclosed); and Letter to Michelle Filippi, February 11, 2005 (copy enclosed).

4. What about existing bids that are with government agencies that rely on the pre-FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 prices.

We cannot comment on the practices of other government agencies. FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established on December 27, 2002 (67 FR 79416). This provided industry with a two-year lead time to make the necessary preparations for compliance. As stated above, NHTSA recently extended the compliance dates for these standards providing additional time for these preparations.

5. Follow-up to question 4. Since the increase in cost for the compliant lift is still unknown, how could we have provided a quote to our customers last year?

As stated above, industry was originally provided a two-year lead time prior to the effective dates of the standards.

6. Manufacturers are sending out notices to buy up lifts that were manufactured prior to the compliance date so that they have an inventory of pre-FMVSS No. 403 lifts. Lift manufacturers have stated these lifts may be installed on vehicles without FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 compliance concerns. Is this correct?

As established in the December 2004 final rule, lifts manufactured prior to April 1, 2005 are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Lifts manufactured prior to the compliance date may be held in inventory and sold without having to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Under FMVSS No. 404 however, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their 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.

If after first retail sale, a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, regardless of the vehicle manufacture date, a modifier is not required to bring that vehicle into compliance with FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

See Letter to Deny Betrand and Letter to Michelle Filippi, referenced above.

7. S6.13.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lift manufacturers to specify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed. Vehicles may be identified by listing the make, model, and year of the vehicles for which the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design elements that would make a vehicle an appropriate host for the particular lift, and for which the platform lift manufacturer has certified compliance. How are design elements to be determined?

It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to determine the design elements that make a vehicle an appropriate host for a lift. If a lift manufacturer chooses to provide design elements as opposed to specifying a specific host vehicle, it must ensure that the design elements are sufficient to maintain a lifts compliance with all of the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403 when installed and provide the design element information in the installation instructions.

8. Follow-up to question 7. In the event that the design elements specified by the lift manufacturer are too complex or specialized for an average installer to understand, how does the installer determine it has complied with FMVSS No. 404?

In instances in which a vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the party installing the lift to ensure that the vehicle complies with the standard; the lift is FMVSS No. 403 compliant; and the lift is installed in accordance with the lift manufacturers instructions. If an installer has questions regarding the vehicle design requirements specified by the platform lift manufacturer, we suggest that the installer contact the lift manufacturer.

9. Follow-up to question 7. If the installation of a platform lift on a vehicle specified by the platform lift manufacturer takes the vehicle out of compliance or makes inoperative a regulated safety feature (for example, the lift manufacturer may require that the vehicle structure be such that it must be altered in a manner that could affect crashworthiness), can we assume that the lift manufacturer is assuming compliance responsibility because it is instructing the installer to alter the vehicle?

It is the responsibility of the business installing the lift to ensure that the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSS. It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. If a lift is installed after the first retail sale of a vehicle, it is the responsibility of the installer, if that installer is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business, to ensure that the installation does not take a vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30122.

10. What if a client wants to transfer their existing lift (built before 12/27), because they cannot afford a new lift, into a new and/or used vehicle (built after 12/27)? How does the modifier stay in compliance?

Refer to the response to Question # 6.

11. Follow-up to question 10. Situation:Several customers lease vans for two or three years with lifts that are used only occasionally. As these lifts are still in good shape at the end of the lease, the normal procedure has been to transfer the current customer owned (used) lift to the replacement lease van. Lifts are usually replaced every other lease.
    Questions:
    
    • Can a customer owned (used) non FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift be transferred to a customer owned van that is manufactured after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date?
    • Can a customer owned (used) non FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift be transferred to a new replacement van built after the FMVSS No. 404 compliant date?
    • Can a new non FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift in inventory be installed in a customer owned van built after the FMVSS No. 404 compliant date?

Again, please refer to the response to Question # 6. Also, see the response to Question #3.

12. Can a repair business (modifier) disconnect a regulated feature that is malfunctioning and is the cause of user safety concerns, for example a continuously faulty switch that makes the deploy function inoperable?

As previously explained, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. However, removal of a malfunctioning component would not violate the "make inoperative provision" because that element or design would already be inoperative.

A modifier removing a defective component would have to ensure that the removal would not make inoperative any other aspect of the lift. Further, we would encourage the proper repair or replacement of a malfunctioning component as opposed to its removal.

13. Follow up to question 12. If it appears that the malfunction discussed in question 12 is a design defect, can a modifier make that feature inoperative, or otherwise modify the lift manufacturers design so as to ensure the safety of the lift user?

As stated in our response to Question # 12, removal of a malfunctioning component would not make inoperative an element or design installed on the lift in compliance with the standard because that element would already be inoperative. A modifier removing a defective component would have to ensure that the removal would not make inoperative any other aspect of the lift. Again, we would encourage the proper repair or replacement of a malfunctioning component as opposed to its removal.

Further, if a modifier believes that a platform lift has a design defect, he or she should contact our Office of Defects Investigation at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).

14. Follow up to question 12. If a customer who has an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift has a service problem down the road and is unable or unwilling to pay for the repair of one of the interlocks and demands the modifier get the lift working without the interlock, can this be done? What is the liability from the modifier's standpoint?

There is no affirmative duty for a repair business to repair a platform lift so that it is brought into compliance with FMVSS No. 403 in instances in which the platform lift was not in compliance with FMVSS No. 403 prior to initiation of the repair work.

Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law.

15. Follow up to question 12. If a customer disconnects an interlock and later brings the lift in for service, can the modifier repair the lift without being required to bring the lift back into compliance?

Refer to the response to Question # 14 above.

16. Can a business recondition an old lift (manufactured before 12/27) that he took as a trade-in and install it in a vehicle manufactured after 12/27?

FMVSS No. 403 applies to lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005. A lift manufactured prior to that date would not need to comply with the standard. Regarding the installation of a reconditioned non FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, please refer to the response to Questions # 3 and # 6.

17. Whose responsibility is it to supply the interlock and platform lighting for the lift? Currently, both are available from the lift manufacturers but only as options. Do these systems need to be supplied with the lift?

On October 1, 2004, FMVSS No. 403 was amended with respect to the interlock and lighting requirements (69 FR 58843). As originally established a platform lift was required to be equipped with all of the necessary interlocks. In the October 2004 final rule we recognized that in many cases the vehicle sensors and switches needed by an interlock system may already be part of an existing vehicle system. S6.10.2 of FMVSS No. 403 now permits a platform lift manufacturer to provide less than a full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicles existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements of S6.10.2.1 through S6.10.2.7 are met.

The October 2004 final rule also amended the platform lift lighting requirements. The requirement to provide lighting for a public use lift is now the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer under S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404.

18. If the vehicle being equipped with a lift does not have an owners manual, are we to understand that the lift manufacturers manual does not have to be given to the vehicle owner?

S6.12 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that platform lift manufacturers provide inserts for a vehicle owners manual to provide specific information about the platform lift. S4.2 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that if a vehicle is equipped with an owners manual, the owners manual must contain the inserts. The inserts provide information that is critical to the safe operation of a platform lift. If a vehicle were not accompanied by an owners manual we would still expect the final lift customer to be provided a document with the information required in S6.12.1 through S6.12.4.

19. The 403 compliant lift has several new features, some of which a customer may not want. Must a lift be installed with all of the elements provided made operational (i.e. , threshold warning device, lights, interlock, etc. )?

If a vehicle is required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, any lift installed on that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 403 and the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. See S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404.

The agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

20. Can the end user-owner disconnect the threshold warning device once the FMVSS No. 403/404 compliant lift/vehicle is home in their driveway?

The "make inoperative" provision previously discussed does not apply to modifications a vehicle owner makes to his or her own vehicle. Our standards do not prevent a vehicle owner from disconnecting the threshold warning device on their own vehicle. However, State law may prevent such a modification.

21. Do I have to buy a wheelchair lift-vehicle interlock with the 403 compliant lift?

As previously stated, S6.10.2 through S6.10.2.7 establish the interlock requirements. Lift manufacturers may either provide all the interlocks necessary to meet the requirements or provide less than a full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicles existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements are met.

22. Does a 403 compliant lift have to include a wheelchair lift-vehicle interlock?

Refer to the response to Question # 21.

23. When wiring the lift-vehicle interlock, must I use the "lift stowed" signal from the lift as an input to verify if the lift is stowed or deployed?

S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that platform lifts must be installed in accordance with the installation instructions or procedures provided pursuant to S6.13 of Standard 403. Additionally, S6.13.2 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lift manufacturers to provide procedures for operational checks that must be performed to verify that a lift is fully operational. If the installation instructions or the operational checks specify the use of a "lift stowed" signal, then that signal must be relied upon for compliance under FMVSS No. 404.

24. What determines if I can use a Public Use or Private Use lift in my vehicle?

S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that lift-equipped buses, school buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, other than motor homes, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) be equipped with a public use lift certified as meeting public use lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

25. Can a private use lift, as defined under FMVSS No. 403, be equipped with platform lighting?

S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 establishes platform lighting requirements for vehicles equipped with a public use lift. Vehicles equipped with private use lifts are not required to be equipped with platform lighting. However, nothing in FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 prevents a private use lift from being equipped with platform lighting.

26. If the customer wants an FMVSS No. 403-compliant, public use lift installed on a vehicle not required to be equipped with a public use lift, must the platform lighting be provided?

If a public use lift, as defined in FMVSS No. 403, is installed on a vehicle that must comply with FMVSS No. 404 then platform lighting must be provided. S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that a public use lift, as installed, have a light or lighting system that provides the required level of illumination.

27. How does an OEM/dealer/customer determine whether a vehicle was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date?

49 CFR Part 567 requires vehicle manufacturers to affix a certification label to a motor vehicle. Section 567(g)(2) requires the certification label to include the month and year of manufacture.

28. On an FMVSS No. 403-compliant Private Use lift installation, do I have to use the "park brake" as an input for the lift-vehicle interlock?

S6.10.2 through S6.10.2.7 specify the interlock requirements for all FMVSS No. 403-compliant lifts. An interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position unless the vehicle transmission is placed in park or the transmission is placed in neutral and the parking brake is actuated or the vehicle service brakes are actuated by means other than the operator depressing the vehicles service brake pedal (see S6.10.2.2).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: nokiantyres(4-7-05)

LaDonna Bowers
Manager, Customer Service--Distribution
Nokian Tyres, Inc.
339 Mason Road
La Vergne, TN 37086




RE: Interpretation of Foreign Defect Reporting

This is in reply to your E-mail letter of March 10, 2005, to Andrew DiMarsico of my staff requesting a clarification of the reporting of tires involved in a foreign recall. You present the following hypothetical to illustrate your concerns:

A tire, of a certain production week, has been manufactured in foreign country A and sent to retailers in foreign country A and foreign country B. None of these tires have been purchased by a consumer in either foreign countries A or B. Due to subsequent quality control by the manufacturer, the manufacturer will recall these tires from both foreign countries A and B (total quantity less than 40 tires).

You ask whether there is a need to report a recall of these tires which have not been sent to, or purchased in, the USA, but will likely be sent to, and sold in, the USA in the future in limited quantities and from subsequent production weeks?

The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA) regulations concerning foreign defect reporting are located at 49 C.F.R. Part 579, Subpart B. Section 579.11 requires manufacturers to report to NHTSA within five days of determining to conduct a safety recall or other safety campaign in a foreign country covering a motor vehicle, item of motor vehicle equipment, or tire that is identical or substantially similar to a vehicle, item of equipment, or tire sold or offered for sale in the United States. With respect to the facts presented in your hypothetical, the tires have not been shipped to or offered for sale in the United States. Therefore, the manufacturer of the tire in your hypothetical would not have to report the recall determination to NHTSA at this time.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/19/05

ID: noll.ztv

Mr. Frederick W. Noll
Director of Manufacturing
Orange Blossom Quick Loader
4 Anderson Drive
Albany, NY 12205

Dear Mr. Noll:

This responds to your letter of February 28, 1997, regarding the rear lamp location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You ask whether the location of rear taillamps and turn signal lamps shown in the photographs you enclosed comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108. You comment that "the center bar is the only practical area. . . ."

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires rear taillamps and turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width exceeds 2032 mm (80 inches) to be located "on the rear" and "as far apart as practicable." In certifying compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the manufacturer is certifying that the trailer also meets the rear lamp and reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108.

Unless the manufacturer's determination of practicability is clearly erroneous, it is the policy of this agency not to contest it. In this instance, you have located the lamps on the "center bar" because "the ramp will extend from the original frame of the trailer and we would not be in compliance with the lamps only on the outside corners." We accept, therefore, your representation that the rear taillamps and turn signal lamps shown on the photographs you enclosed are located "as far apart as practicable."

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:4/4/97

ID: ntea.ztv

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 2002, requesting an interpretation of several provisions of the "early warning reporting" final rule (49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C).

You asked three sets of questions. The first of these was:

All reports . . . require the vehicle make, model, and model year. As many of the bodies and equipment manufactured by NTEA members are installed on a variety of different makes and models of trucks most body and equipment manufacturers have never needed this information nor required it to be provided in normal processing of warranties or consumer complaints. Also, the vehicle make and model year are seldom recorded in field reports because the primary focus is on the truck body or equipment. Give the "Minimal Specificity" provision outlined in 579.28(d), if the historical records do not include the vehicle make, model and model year, it is our interpretation that they are not reportable by the body or equipment manufacturer since there is no way to identify the vehicle make or model. Is this interpretation correct and would it also apply to the one-time three year historical report and the nine years of historical data to be included in the quarterly reports?

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of "bodies and equipment" is a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment." The bodies and equipment manufactured by NTEA members are "original equipment" because they are equipment installed on a motor vehicle at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. (This answer assumes that the "bodies and equipment" are installed on a chassis by a third person.) The only early warning reporting requirements of Part 579 that apply to manufacturers of original equipment (other than tires) are the limited reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27.The one-time historical report established by Section 579.28(c) is required only of manufacturers "covered by Sections 579.21 through 579.26 of this part."This does not include manufacturers covered by Section 579.27, such as manufacturers of original equipment.

If an NTEA member that is a manufacturer of original equipment receives a claim or notice of an incident involving death, the claim or notice need not be reported if it does not identify the equipment with "minimal specificity" (Section 579.28(d)). For bodies and other equipment, "minimal specificity" (as defined in Section 579.4(c)) amounts to the name of the manufacturer (and if there is a model or family of models identified on the item of equipment, the model name or model number). Even if the equipment is identified with minimal specificity, the claim or notice need not be reported if the identified equipment was manufactured prior to four calendar years before the reporting period (Section 579.27(b)).

In sum, it appears to us that NTEA members who are solely manufacturers of original equipment will have very limited reporting responsibilities under the early warning reporting rule.

NTEAs second question was as follows:

In the truck body and equipment industry, typically, a body manufacturer supplies the body to a distributor who installs it on the truck chassis. In this case, the body manufacturer would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and the distributor would be the final stage manufacturer. Distributors (the final stage manufacturer) typically complete warranty work, as it applies to the body, on a customers vehicle and subsequently submit a warranty claim to the body manufacturer for coverage under its warranty plan. If the distributor is the final stage manufacturer of more than 500 vehicles per year, then presumably the distributor must report warranty information to NHTSA. There is the potential that both the distributor and the body manufacturer will submit warranty information to NHTSA on the same warranty claim. How is this situation to be handled?

In the example you give, the body manufacturer is subject to the reporting provisions of Section 579.27. This section requires reporting only of information regarding claims and notices of incidents involving deaths. There is no requirement that the body manufacturer report warranty claims to NHTSA, even if it receives them. However, the entity that you have characterized as the "distributor" would be a vehicle manufacturer under our statute and thus would have to submit warranty data if it produced 500 or more vehicles of a given category per year. It is possible that such claims may also be reported by the chassis manufacturer (although it probably would not have to do so), but our screeners will be able to adjust to avoid double counting.

NTEAs third question was as follows:

Some body manufacturers install the bodies on truck chassis themselves (thus becoming the final stage manufacturer) while also selling some bodies through distributors, who become the final stage manufacturers of those vehicles. Does this body manufacturer need to submit reports as both an equipment manufacturer and a motor vehicle manufacturer? Do they need to submit one form for the bodies sold as equipment and one for the bodies they installed as the final-stage motor vehicle manufacturer? If so, should the equipment manufacturer form cover both those bodies sold via distributors and those bodies installed directly? Does the body manufacturer need to report on behalf of its independent distributors?

The body manufacturer must submit reports as both an equipment manufacturer and a motor vehicle manufacturer when circumstances dictate. However, as discussed above, only the limited reporting requirements of Section 579.27 apply to manufacturers of bodies furnished to persons who become the final stage manufacturer. If the body manufacturer becomes a final stage manufacturer of less than 500 vehicles annually, the limited reporting requirements of Section 579.27 will also apply. Each claim or notice of a death it receives as a body manufacturer and as a vehicle manufacturer must be reported separately. If the body manufacturer is the final stage manufacturer of 500 or more of any category of vehicles annually (e.g., medium heavy vehicle), it must furnish full reports as specified in the sections that apply to the type of vehicle completed.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: ntea2.ztv

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 2003, asking 20 questions relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by this agency (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579). By letter dated April 11, 2003, we previously answered several other questions you asked about these regulations. Your questions, and our responses, are as follows:

"1) For manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year, is NHTSA requiring a report for each quarter when there are no fatalities?"

No.

"A) If not, are low volume and equipment manufacturers still required to submit a request for an m [User] ID and password when they have no fatalities to report?"

No.

"B) Is it true that low volume and equipment manufacturers can submit reports for fatalities in writing to NHTSA?"

No. "Low volume" and equipment manufacturers eligible to report under Section 579.27 must submit reports of claims and notices involving deaths in one of the two ways specified under Section 579.29(a)(2), either by submitting them to the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) early warning repository through the use of templates available through NHTSAs internet home page, or by filling out an interactive form on ODIs early warning website.

"2) Is there another method for requesting and receiving a [User] ID and password, and also the designation of manufacturer's contacts, besides writing to the Director or [sic] ODI, as required under Part 579.29?"

No.

"A) If [a request for] an ID and password is submitted in writing within the required period, and it is not received prior to the due date for the reports, what should a manufacturer do?"

ODI will attempt to provide user IDs and passwords well before the due dates for reporting. If a manufacturer does not receive that information by the due date, it should notify ODI which will take appropriate action. We would then expect reports to be submitted within 10 working days after the manufacturer receives the User ID and password.

"B) Also, if a low volume or equipment manufacturer has no fatalities to report, are they still required to submit a request for an ID and password and the designation of the manufacturer's contacts?"

No.

"3) Part 579.29 - Manner of Reporting, indicates that the required reports must be submitted to NHTSA's early warning data repository identified on NHTSA's Internet home page (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). As of April 21, 2003, there does not appear to be any reference to the repository or to early warning reporting in general, including the Excel templates on the home page. When will the repository, Excel templates and any other information be listed on the home page?"

The NHTSA home page contains a link to "Early Warning Reporting (EWR) Requirements" under the list of "Popular Information."That link will take the viewer to templates and other information which are available now for downloading. Templates may be updated, as necessary. Manufacturers are encouraged to check the website periodically for any such updates.

"A) Also, Part 579.29 indicates that manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year and equipment manufacturers can either submit reports to the data repository "or by manually filling out an interactive form on NHTSA's early warning web site." Where is this located, and are there instructions/examples for using this interactive form? (See question 1 regarding low volume/equipment mfg.)"

There will be a link from the NHTSA website. We will also provide an information manual on how manufacturers are to report to ODI.

4) [Answered by the Final Rule published April 15, 2003, 68 FR 18136]

"5) For manufacturers that have production of 500 or more vehicles for the first time in the 2003 calendar year or after, but not in any prior year, what would be their reporting obligations?"

"A) If such a manufacturer reaches a production level of 500 for the very first time in the 4th quarter of a given calendar year, are they then responsible for submitting reports for the 4th quarter and each of the prior 3 quarters of that calendar year?"

In this situation, a manufacturer would submit reports under Section 579.27 for the first three calendar quarters, and, for the fourth quarter, reports under Sections 579.21-24, according to the type of vehicle manufactured.

"B) If so, would such a manufacturer also be required to submit a one-time historical report?"

The one-time historical report is due only on the date specified in Section 579.28(c), and would not be required from a manufacturer that begins to submit reports under sections 579.21-.24 at a subsequent date.

C) [Moot]

"D) How are the reporting obligations for the quarterly reporting and one-time historic report determined for manufacturers whose production fluctuates above and below 500 vehicles per year for the previous 2 or more years?"

The EWR regulations provide that if a manufacturers aggregate production of a vehicle type "during the calendar year of the reporting period or during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more," the manufacturer is not eligible to report under Section 579.27 for that type, and must provide quarterly reports and a one-time historical report in accordance with Section 579.28(c). See, e.g. the introductory text of Section 579.22.

"6) When acting as an intermediate stage manufacturer, how are vehicles that are modified treated? Are they counted for production?"

As we explained in our letter of April 11, 2003 to you, for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, only the manufacturer of the completed vehicle is required to report as a vehicle manufacturer. Incomplete vehicles, including vehicles produced by intermediate manufacturers, are deemed to be equipment, and information about them need not be reported under Sections 579.21-.24. However, we recognize that some light vehicle manufacturers may choose to include information about their incomplete chassis along with their other vehicles for which they report under Section 579.21. The final rules definition of "type" includes "incomplete vehicle" as a category of "light vehicle." Therefore, such a manufacturer would report production numbers and other data for incomplete vehicles that will be light vehicles when completed.

"A) Are intermediate stage manufacturers considered to be equipment manufacturers, since they are not completing the incomplete vehicle?"

See prior answer.

"7) Production Number reporting - do manufacturers of vehicles built in 2 or more stages count both the vehicles that they complete from incomplete chassis and the number of vehicles that they alter? The OEM of the completed vehicles that are altered, such as a pickup truck with the box removed and a new body added, would already have counted the completed pickup in their production numbers, so would the alterer need to count it as well after their manufacturing operations?"

Yes. A manufacturer must include in its production numbers any vehicle to which it attaches, or should attach, a certification under Part 567, either as its original manufacturer or as its alterer.

"A) Are used vehicles that are modified counted toward production, warranty claims, etc. since the company performing this is technically not a "manufacturer" at this point, but a repair facility? Ex. a used chassis that has a new body installed on it."

As a general rule, a used chassis with a new body installed is not considered a new vehicle, and no reporting is required under the EWR regulations. In addition, modifications of used vehicles, with two exceptions, are insufficient to create a new vehicle subject to NHSTA regulations that apply to new vehicles. Those two exceptions are based upon the extent of the modifications. See Sections 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, and 571.7(f), Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. These provisions may be relevant to the operations of some NTEA members.

"If so, what model year is used for reporting, the original model year of the vehicle or the year in which it was modified?"

If a truck or trailer is considered newly manufactured under Sections 571.7(e) or (f), the model year would be that of the year of the vehicles modification, and reporting would be required under the EWR regulations in the same manner as other new motor vehicles. If a truck or trailer is not considered newly manufactured under these sections, no reporting is required. This moots your remaining questions under "A."

"B) Along the same lines, under Part 571.7(e) and (f), since certain vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, does it make a difference whether a vehicle that is modified after the first retail sale is considered newly manufactured or not with regard to being counted toward production. For example, if it is not newly manufactured is it

accounted for, and if so how? If it is considered newly manufactured is it accounted for, and if so, how? If not, what about when a new VIN is issued? If so, for a vehicle with a new VIN, what model year would be used to designate it?"

See our answers to questions 7 and 7 A) above.

"C) Also under Part 571.7(c), since military vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, are vehicles and/or equipment produced and sold to the US Armed Forces counted toward production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc.?"

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

"D) Vehicles modified for mobility of the disabled are allowed to use the exemption from the make inoperative prohibition under which the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail is defined as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered in the Final Rule of February 27, 2001. Are vehicles that are modified under this provision counted for production purposes?"

Part 595 only applies to modifications made after first sale. Therefore, they will be counted for EWR purposes by their original manufacturers, and not by the modifier.

"8) What are the model years of production volumes that need to be reported for the one-time historic and on-going quarterly reports? The July 10, 2002 (sic) indicates that production volumes from 1994 to the present must be reported for each year of the one-time report and then a moving window of the current model year plus the past 9 model years for the quarterly reports (i.e. is it provided for every year starting with 1994 and carries forward so there are always 9 years plus the current year shown on the quarterly reports?)."

For the quarterly reports, the reports must cover all vehicles "manufactured during the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period." See, e.g., the introductory text of Section 579.22. For the one-time historic report, each of the twelve reports must cover claims and field reports applicable to vehicles back to model year 1994.

"A) Can you please give examples of what production information should be submitted for both the one-time historical report and the quarterly reports?"

The production information that is required for quarterly reports and the one-time historical report by manufacturers is described in the introductory text of Sections 579.21- 579.24, and subsection (a) of each of these sections. See the production template at NHTSAs EWR website for an example of the information that is to be submitted.

"B) Also, are the one-time historical reports to be produced utilizing the quarterly spreadsheet templates?"

Manufacturers should use the templates for the production numbers and the number of warranty claims and field reports for their one-time historical report.

"If so, what would be the file name strategy vs. the quarterly reports?"

ODI is developing a "naming convention" which will be covered in an early warning reporting manual that will be issued in the near future.

"9) Can the one-time historical report for warranty claims, warranty adjustments and field reports be submitted electronically?"

The one-time historical report should be filed electronically in the same manner as quarterly reports under Section 579.29(a).

"10) The Final Rule published on January 28, 2003 indicates that NHTSA would allow electronic submission of foreign defect reports under Part 579.11, so that they may be transferred by email or fax. Does this apply to other documents required under Part 579.11, specifically the annual list of substantially similar vehicles?"

Yes. Moreover, NHTSA is developing a template for these submissions.

"11) Clarification - are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for equipment that was installed after the first retail sale by someone or themselves?"

We assume that the last phrase of this question meant to say "by someone other than themselves." Vehicle manufacturers need not report warranty claims, etc. under those circumstances. However, they would have to report a claim or notice about a death or injury regarding their product, even if they believe the claim arose out of the performance of an aftermarket addition.

"12) Are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for altered vehicles? If they don't count toward the alterer's production count, it would seem then that they should be excluded from reporting in any of the other categories not involving deaths or injuries."

Alterers are responsible for reporting on the vehicles they alter. If an alterer has certified, or was required to certify, 500 or more vehicles per year within a specific vehicle category, it is required to submit production numbers, the number of warranty claims, consumer reports, etc.

"13) What are the rules for forwarding information that is received from other manufacturers in regards to external communications? Do engineering bulletins that are produced by another manufacturer and sent to more than one other manufacturer, dealer, customer, etc. and then redistributed by one of the recipients who also happens to be a manufacturer, have to be sent to NHTSA by the manufacturer recipient who re-distributes the bulletin/communication?"

Yes, they must do so under Section 579.5, even though the information may also be submitted by the original issuer of the document.

"14) Is there a hierarchy of reporting categories for incidents that fit more than one reporting category? E.g. how would an incident that starts as a consumer complaint that turns into a warranty claim be logged? Both as a consumer complaint and warranty claim or just one of them?"

The incident would be reported both as a consumer complaint and as a warranty claim.

"15) Make - Is it acceptable to use the chassis manufacturer's designation for the make and model?"

No. Our system will not accept submissions that attempt to specify multiple, unrelated manufacturers producing the same make, model, and model year vehicle. For EWR purposes, a final stage manufacturer can create a pseudo make by combining the final stage manufacturers name with the chassis make, such as Widget Ford, Widget Dodge, Widget Volvo, etc., used in conjunction with the appropriate model application. If a single body is installed on various chassis of a single manufacturer, the model designation would be modified to reflect the chassis. From the example above, Widget Ford becomes Widget Ford 150, Widget Ford 250, etc.

Whichever way a final stage manufacturer identifies a product in its production data, that product identification must be applied throughout each quarterly report (i.e., Death, Injury, Warranty, Consumer Complaints, etc.) as well as in all future quarterly reports.

"16) What constitutes structure"?

For purposes of the EWR regulations, "Structure" is defined in Section 579.4(b).

"A) If truck bodies are considered structures, are all components of the truck body considered to be part of the structure for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

Yes.

"B) If yes, what about latch mechanisms on the body compartments-would they be categorized under latch-17?"

Yes. "Latch," as defined in Section 579.4(b), applies to latching devices on "doors" of all exterior body compartments.

"C) Further, are there any components of truck body that would not be reportable for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

A manufacturer that has certified a completed truck is not required to report the number of property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports, involving a body component that is not considered "structure." However, the manufacturer would be required to report incidents involving death or injury with respect to such a component, using Code 98.

"i Clarification - are paint runs or dents or scratches reportable as warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

No. These do not relate to any systems or components of a vehicle specified in the regulations.

"ii What about equipment that is attached to or stored within a body? How would they be classified? Examples: ladder racks, generators, welding equipment, cranes, tool boxes, liquid storage tanks, sprayers, etc."

Equipment attached to the exterior of a body could create a safety problem if it detaches from the body while the trailer is in motion should be classified as "structure." Please note that the definition of "structure" includes mounting elements such as brackets and fasteners. On the other hand, equipment stored within a trailer is normally related to the structure of the vehicle. However, an incident that occurs that is due in whole or in part to the equipment, such as a fire or an incident involving a death, would be reportable.

"(a) And, would it make a difference if the vehicle to which the equipment is attached was completed from an incomplete vehicle vs. an altered vehicle with the same equipment?"

No.

"17) Would the definition of latch include locking/latching mechanisms that are located internally to a vehicle, such as on the inside of a second unit body of a truck or the interior of a trailer?"

No. The definition of "latch" relates only to a vehicles exterior doors.

"18) Would power take-off (PTO) issues be classified?"

"A) If so, how?"

"B) What about transmission mounted vs. engine mounted PTO's? Would the mounting location change the classification?"

Claims and other items involving PTOs would be reportable in the context of how they affect the vehicle or roadway safety; e.g., if a PTO failure causes the engine to seize, then it would be reported in the "Engine and Engine Cooling" category; if a hydraulic line to a PTO ruptures causing a fire, it would be reported under "Fire;" if there is an electrical problem as a result of a failure or problem with a PTO, then it would be reported under "Electrical System."

"19) In regards to the one-time historical report, the Production Information of Part 579.22 indicates that "[i]f the service brake system in a vehicle is not readily characterized as either hydraulic or air, the vehicle shall be considered to have hydraulic service brakes." Brake system information is not readily accessible in the records of many final-stage manufacturers, however, GVWR information typically is available. Given this, could manufacturers base their brake system designations on GVWR for the lack of any records to indicate otherwise? Some companies manufacture vehicles that are primarily under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR while others primarily manufacture Class 8 (over 33,000 Lbs. GVWR) vehicles. The guidance provided would be proper for assuming a hydraulic brake system for vehicles that are under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR, but not for vehicles that are over 33,000 Lbs. as they are predominately equipped with air brakes."

With respect to the service brake issues in the one-time historic report, the manufacturer should provide the warranty claim counts, as they are available. If the counts are not divided by type of service brake system, the approach suggested by NTEA is acceptable except that to prevent any gaps, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight less than 30,000 lbs. GVWR should be filed in Service Brake System, Hydraulic, and all others in Service Brake System Air.

"20) Part 573.5(a) states that [e]ach manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall be responsible for any safety-related defect or any noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle or in any item of original equipment. Does this mean that a final-stage manufacturer would be required to perform a recall on vehicles that it completes where the defect or noncompliance lies within the incomplete chassis upon which the completed vehicle is based?"

Recall responsibility rests primarily with the manufacturer that certified the completed vehicle. See Sections 568.7, 571.3, 573.5. If the final stage manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is primarily responsible for remedying any safety-related defect or noncompliance in the vehicle, including the portion of the vehicle manufactured by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is responsible for remedying the safety defect or noncompliance regardless of the manufacturer of the part or system that is the subject of the recall. Of course, the final stage manufacturer could seek indemnification or other redress from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

"A) Further, are incomplete vehicles considered to be "original equipment" for reporting purposes?"

See answer to Question 6.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: ntea3.ztv

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 2003, which, to facilitate future reference, is your third request for interpretations relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by this agency (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579).

Your first issue related to an inconsistency that others have brought to our attention, and which we intend to address in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. That is, the regulation requires complete reporting by a manufacturer of light vehicles with an aggregate number of vehicles either during the reporting period or "during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more" (49 CFR 579.21) whereas complete reporting is required for medium-heavy vehicles and buses if the aggregate number of vehicles "during either of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more" (49 CFR 579.22; see also Sections 579.23 and 579.24). The regulatory text of the final rule was intended to implement the related statement that we made in the preamble (67 FR 45822 at 45831), that manufacturers of motor vehicles would report under Section 579.27 if their aggregate number of vehicles was fewer than 500 "in the year of the reporting period and in each of the two calendar years preceding the reporting period." Accordingly, we intend to correct Sections 579.22, 579.23, and 579.24 to reflect the intent expressed in our preamble statement.

Your second request was that the template for manufacturers reporting under Section 579.27 be revised so that the entry column labeled "Deaths/ Injuries" be changed to "Deaths," to reflect the fact that these manufacturers are not required to report injuries. However, your assumption is not correct. Although manufacturers reporting under Section 579.27 need not report incidents involving only injuries, they are required to report the number of injuries of which they are aware that occurred in incidents involving one or more deaths that are identified in claims or notices received by the manufacturer.

Your third and fourth requests related to the definition of "platform" and issues you believed it may raise with respect to final stage manufacturers.

The EWR rule defines "platform" as follows:

Platform means the basic structure of a vehicle, including but not limited to, the majority of the floorpan and undercarriage and elements of the engine compartment. The term includes a structure that a manufacturer designates as a platform. A group of vehicles sharing a common structure or chassis shall be considered to have a common platform regardless of whether such vehicles are of the same type, are of the same make, or are sold by the same manufacturer.

"Structure," in turn, is defined as follows:

Structure means any part of a motor vehicle that serves to maintain the shape and size of the vehicle, including the frame, the floorpan, the body, bumpers, doors, tailgate, hatchback, trunk lid, hood and roof. The term also includes all associated mounting elements (such as brackets, fasteners, etc.

You related that vehicles manufactured in two or more stages can have both common structures on different chassis, as well as different structures on common chassis. You asserted that the "floorpan or undercarriage, and elements of the engine compartment are very rarely, if ever, added or modified by a final stage manufacturer," and you asked whether the designation of "platform" for the final stage manufacturer should "be derived from the body/equipment being added to complete the vehicle or from the original chassis."

The definition of platform includes a group of vehicles "sharing a common structure or chassis." We construe the regulatory definition to mean that vehicles with "different structures on common chassis" have the same platform. We recognize that the regulatory language could be construed such that vehicles that have common structures added by a final stage manufacturer on different chassis could also be considered to have the same platform. However, that was not our intent. Moreover, such an interpretation could lead to confusion, since, under that approach, some vehicles could be considered to have more than one platform.

Your fourth concern relates to vehicles that share a platform because they are built on a common chassis. You asked how an incomplete vehicle manufacturer would determine which models share the same chassis since this is "typically an internal designation assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer."It is our understanding that chassis manufacturers use well-established and recognized designations for their chassis, such as Ford "E Series" or General Motors "C/K Series."Moreover, platform designations by final stage manufacturers do not have to be exactly the same as those of the original chassis manufacturer. Rather, final stage manufacturers need only identify those models/vehicles that share a chassis.

Finally, you asked whether the platform designations would be "determined the same way for alterers as for final stage manufacturers?"The answer is yes.

If you have any additional questions, you may refer them to Andrew DiMarsico of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.9/4/03

ID: NY_ bus_preemption

Robert A. Rybak, Associate Attorney
Office of Legal Affairs
State of New York
Department of Transportation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY12232




Dear Mr. Rybak:

This is in response to your letter and June13, 2005, facsimile asking whether the proposed changes to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) bus inspection procedures are preempted by Federal regulations. We apologize for the delay in responding, as your original correspondence was lost. In short, we conclude that except for certain limited circumstances, the proposed procedures would not be preempted by Federal regulations.

In your letter, you explain that the new inspection procedures would require aftermarket bus modifiers to provide certain documentation and certification as to the scope of the changes made to a modified bus. Specifically, if the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567 is missing, or contains information that no longer accurately reflects the vehicle because of the extent of modifications, the new procedures would require the modifiers to provide "Certification of the Present Status of Vehicles Altered, Modified, or Remanufactured After First Sale".

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which all motor vehicle manufacturers, including bus manufacturers, are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. The certification label requirements are listed in 49 CFR Part 567. 567.4(g)(7) specifies that the certification label must indicate the type of the vehicle being certified (e.g., truck, bus, trailer).

With respect to your question, we first note that NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles, and thus, the States are not preempted from regulating these activities. However, if the rebuilding or remanufacturing involves sufficient manufacturing operations and new parts, the vehicle may be considered newly manufactured. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case-by-case basis.

We note that the preemption issue arises only with respect to the proposed NYSDOT requirements of certification. The States are not, of course, preempted from conducting inspections of all vehicles in question. We further note that, if a modified vehicle does not fall into the category of being deemed newly manufactured, the only other Federal requirement that is imposed on commercial entities that make modifications to used vehicles is that they "not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." (49 U.S.C. 30122(b)).

Finally, please be advised that on June 22, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend the definition of "designated seating position" (70 FR 36094). If this proposal is adopted, it may affect your procedures with respect to determining seating capacity.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:567
d.7/27/05