ID: 1766y

Mr. Les Schreiner
Fresia Engineering Inc.
700 E. Main Street
Suite 1618
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:VSA d:4/3/89

ID: 11409.MLS

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the thermal performance requirements in FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your specific question is what pedal force may or must be used during cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles for purposes of establishing allowable pedal force for thermal testing. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a vehicle must meet thermal test requirements at or below the average pedal force that achieves the shortest stopping distance during cold effectiveness tests conducted in accordance with the standard's test procedures.

The provisions in S7.5 set forth the cold effectiveness test for passenger car braking. That provision requires that the vehicle be capable of stopping within 70 meters from a speed of 100 kph with a brake pedal force that does not exceed 500 Newtons. Pursuant to S6.5.3.2, unless otherwise specified, the vehicle is to be stopped in the shortest distance achievable (best effort) on all stops.

As you correctly stated, the average pedal force used during the cold effectiveness test establishes the allowable average pedal force (and thus the stringency) for the hot performance test in S7.14 and the recovery performance test in S7.16. Specifically, S7.14 requires a vehicle with heated brakes to be capable of achieving at least 60% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force recorded during that cold effectiveness stop, while S7.16 requires the vehicle to be capable of achieving between 70% and 150% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force used during that cold effectiveness stop.

According to your letter, this test protocol is straightforward for testing non-ABS- equipped vehicles, but may be unclear with respect to testing ABS equipped vehicles. You stated that in testing ABS-equipped vehicles, GM rapidly applies and holds a constant 500 Newton pedal force throughout the cold effectiveness stop. You further stated that the presence of ABS allows the driver to apply a constant 500 Newton pedal force, stay within the standard=s wheel lock constraints, and meet the 70 meter stopping distance requirement. You stated that a problem arises because a lower pedal force could be used to match or possibly improve the stopping distance compared to a constant 500 Newton pedal force. This is so because at the 500 Newton level, the ABS would cycle to prevent excessive wheel lock, whereas a 400 Newton average level could result in an equivalent stopping distance if the driver modulated the braking force to avoid wheel lock and ABS cycling. You claimed that the pedal force difference would be unimportant for the cold effectiveness test since any force at or under 500 Newtons could be used to meet those requirements. However, it would be crucial in establishing the allowable pedal force and associated stringency for the hot performance and recovery performance tests. You stated that this could lead to compliance disputes between NHTSA and a vehicle manufacturer.

You suggested three alternatives to clarify the pedal force that may or must be used when conducting cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles:

(1) Allow a constant 500 Newton pedal force for cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles, notwithstanding the requirement in S6.5.3.2 to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance;

(2) Rewrite the thermal assessment provision of FMVSS No. 135 to use constant pedal force stops at the onset of the thermal sequence, rather than the pedal force obtained in the cold effectiveness stops, as the baseline for thermal performance assessment; or

(3) Stipulate that the pedal force used during cold effectiveness testing can exceed neither 500 Newtons nor the pedal force necessary to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance.

You recommended that NHTSA adopt Option #1 for a near term solution of this testing issue, and Option #2 as the longer term solution. You believe that Option #1 is practical, objective, repeatable, and provides a well defined pedal force constraint for the subsequent thermal tests. You acknowledged that there is a drawback to this option, i.e., that it may not result in a comparison of braking performance based upon the lowest possible average pedal force for the cold effectiveness stop. You stated that Option #2 would require rulemaking and the associated delay to implement. You stated that Option #3 would provide the intended "apples-to-apples" comparison of cold versus hot brake performance. You stated, however, that this option is not practical from a testing standpoint, since, for an ABS-equipped vehicle, a test driver could not be expected in the allowed six cold effectiveness stops to determine the minimum pedal force yielding the shortest possible stopping distance.

We anticipate that test drivers will utilize a variety of pedal forces during the six cold effectiveness stops in an effort to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance consistent with the test procedures. The average pedal force that resulted in the shortest stopping distance of

these six tests would be used to ascertain compliance with the thermal and recovery performance requirements under S7.14 and S7.16. If, as you suggest, the shortest distance can be achieved at more than one average pedal force level (e.g., if the ABS cycles at a variety of pedal forces below 500 Newtons, or the test driver is able to modulate braking forces to avoid wheel lock while matching the stopping performance of the ABS system), the vehicle must be capable of satisfying the thermal and recovery performance requirements at all such average pedal force levels.

This is consistent with the agency=s long-standing view that, as a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit the unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. However, nothing about Standard No. 135 or its purposes provides a reason to limit the range of average pedal forces.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:135 d:5/16/96

ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill

ID: 14907a.jeg

Mr. James Sanders
President
Automotive Innovations, Inc.
4 First Street
P.O. Box 474
Bridgewater, MA 02324

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This responds to your letter concerning modifications that your company makes to vehicles to accommodate persons with physical disabilities. I apologize for the delay in this response. You ask for clarification of a matter concerning our prohibition against making inoperative safety devices or elements of design in motor vehicles that have been sold to the end user.

You explain that some of the adaptations and modifications you perform are funded by your state vocational rehabilitation agency, the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC). MRC is requiring you to write to our office every time you contract with MRC to adapt a vehicle for a driver, prior to performing these adaptations or modifications, "to get a ruling on whether we are violating Federal law and whether or not we would be prosecuted under 49 U.S.C. section 30122." You state that it is your understanding that you are currently allowed to perform certain modifications to a vehicle, such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities, without having to obtain a ruling from NHTSA. You ask for help in clarifying the matter.

In general, modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain statutory limits on the type of modifications they may make.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under 49 U.S.C. section 30122 from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

As to your understanding that "we are currently allowed to perform certain modifications such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities," we believe you are referring to the effect of an exclusion⁽¹⁾ from the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for light trucks and vans "manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities." Instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, these vehicles may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions.

You do not need to write to NHTSA for a determination that the modification qualifies for this exclusion. However, to qualify for this exclusion, the vehicle must:

• be a light truck or van manufactured before September 1, 1997,
• incorporate a level change device (e.g. lift or ramp) for on loading or off loading an occupant in a wheelchair,
• have an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position (such as a raised roof, or dropped floor), and
• have either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation (examples are an easily removable driver's seat for driving from a wheelchair, or a power seat base for those who transfer) to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate the vehicle.

If you modify a used light truck or van originally certified to Standard No. 208's dynamic test and automatic protection requirements, and do so in a manner that it would have qualified for the exclusion cited above, it would not be a violation of the "make inoperative" provision if you disconnected the air bag or modified the OEM lap and shoulder belts within the scope of that exclusion. In other words, at the end of such modification, instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, such a vehicle may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions. Because Standard No. 208 would have permitted the vehicle to be manufactured in this manner when new, there would neither be a violation of the 30122 "make inoperative" provision or any need for this agency to consider granting an exception from that provision.

In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

If you believe that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, you may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why you cannot avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate the that proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances.

For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/29/97

1. This exclusion is only available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1997.

ID: 16-002814 Chrysler_VIN_interp_clean_1

ID: 1985-02.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of May 30, 1984, asking for interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to center high-mounted stoplamps.

In your letter you stated that the preamble to the final rule discussed the definition of "window opening" and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. You have presented two rear window designs in which (1) ceramic opaque dots descend in increasing size to the bottom of the glazing and in which (2) shaded material becomes progressively darker as it descends, though the material is translucent, not opaque. You also show a design with an interior-mounted windshield wiper, including motor and cover, placed on the rear vertical centerline above the bottom of the glazing. In each instance you have asked at what point would the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) consider an "obstruction" exists for purposes of defining the bottom of the window.

The phrase "window opening" does not appear in Standard No. 108. The preamble discussion appears to be irrelevant with respect to the final rule, and was intended as a clarification of proposed location requirements which, in fact, were not adopted. The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 8, 1981, proposed a definition of "daylight opening" as "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface...," relating to three alternative locations proposed for the lamp in which the term "daylight opening" was used as a locational reference. For instance, in Alternative 1, proposed paragraph S4.3.1.9(a) would have placed "the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside bottom edge of the rear window daylight opening." When the final rule was adopted in October 1983, none of the three alternatives was judged acceptable and a requirement allowing more design freedom was adopted omitting all reference to "daylight opening." Paragraph S4.3.1.8 simply specified that "no portion of the lens shall be higher than the top of the back window or lower than three inches below the bottom of the back window." The requirement was even further relaxed in the May 1984 response to petitions for reconsideration in which paragraph S4.3.1.8 was amended to allow mounting "at any position on the centerline" (note, no limitation on upper mounting height relative to the rear window) and if "mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars" The preamble also clarified that, if the lamp were mounted on the interior, photometric compliance would be judged with the glazing in place.

Thus, whether glazing is opaque or obstructed is not the question a manufacturer must ask in determining the location of the lamp with respect to the lower edge of the window. If the lamp is mounted on the interior, it must meet photometric and visibility requirements with the glazing in place, taking into account any graduated dots on or opaqueness of that glazing, and any wiper motor. If the lamp is mounted on the outside, its upper permissible height is determined by the height of the car and not by the window. The question of opaqueness or obstruction is irrelevant to the lower permissible height of 3 inches below the window. The window is the perimeter of its glazing, and 3 inches is measured from the lower edge.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated Equipment - High Mounted Stoplamp

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The recent final rule amending Standard No. 108 addresses many issues raised by manufacturers, including the definition of "window opening". The preamble of the final rule discussed this definition and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. Applying this definition to the bottom rear window opening boundry, certain aspects of the final rule establishing this boundry as the reference for the mounting location are still not clear. Our questions are as follows:

1. In Figure 1, two examples are shown (out of many possible designs) that are aimed at minimizing the visibility of objects in the passenger compartment by means of a graduated shade. Design A employees a series of ceramic, opaque dots forming an array that become progressively larger (and allow less light transmittance) as they descend toward the glazing/body interface. Also, Design B utilizes a material that becomes progressively darker (and allows less light transmittance) as it approaches the bottom of the rear window glazing. However, the material is translucent, not opaque. For purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider individually each graduated shade design and identify the point (A, B or C) at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom rear window opening obstructed (should reference point B be identified, please quantify).

2. Contained in Figure 2 is a depiction of a rear window wiper motor, cover and blade. The motor and motor cover are mounted inside the vehicle along the vehicle centerline for reasons of symmetry. Although a small obstruction is projected onto the rear glazing, the device does not contact the glazing and is limited to only a narrow portion of the bottom rear window opening. Again, for purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider this design and identify the point at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom window opening obstructed. Further, does availability of such a device as a factory option or as standard equipment have any bearing on this matter?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these aspects of FMVSS 108 at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

NH/mls

enclosures

ID: 1985-02.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: James H. Westlake -- National Automobile Dealers Assocaition

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James H. Westlake Associate Director American Truck Dealers Division National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephen Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.

"1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?"

Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("safety standards") contain the terms "rebuilding" and "first stage manufacturer". Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a "new" vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.

The agency's regulation on Combining new and used components, 49 CFR 571.7(e), provides:

"When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle".

Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components are reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.

Your reference to "first stage manufacturer" implies that there may be rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is "new", then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages. If the truck meets the definition of "incomplete vehicle", then the "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the "intermediate stage manufacturer" or the "final stage manufacturer" as the case may be (Sec. 568.3).

"2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?"

As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 Certification. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 Manufacturer Identification.

"3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federal regulations?"

As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating any provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 25 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your telephone assistance Friday morning, and for directing our question to the appropriate individual.

The American Truck Dealers division of the National Automobile Dealers Association represents over 1,700 medium and heavy duty truck dealers. Many of our members are engaged in the business of rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks. On their behalf, we are requesting NHTSA provide guidance on the following questions.

1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered "rebuilding" when the three major components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from "rebuilding" to "first stage manufacturer"?

2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as "new manufacturing", what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?

3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these federal regulations?

Your assistance in answering these questions and providing specific citations is greatly appreciated. If our questions require additional detail, please feel free to contact me at the above number.

Sincerely, James H. Westlake Associate Director, ATD

ID: nht87-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: William L. Millard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William L. Millard, Esq. Law Offices of Shirley F. Majors 2656 South Arlington Road Akron, Ohio 44319

Dear Mr. Millard:

This responds to your letter concerning the "emergency shutdown switch" which would allow a passenger to shut of the ignition on a vehicle. You indicate in your letter that your client, Anthony M. Mazzagatti, would like to sell this idea to the Departmen t of Transportation. Your letter has been forwarded for a response to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency within the Department of Transportation. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

This agency did not purchase or require the use of particular patented devices. By way of background information, the NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 51391, et seq.) to issue safe ty standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These are performance standards which leave the choice about means of compliance to the manufacturer.

Since your client may wise to sell his device directly to manufacturers or to consumers, let me describe some Vehicle Safety Act provisions he should bear in mind. The NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipmen t for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Instead, under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable F MVSS. A copy of the Safety Act is enclosed for your information.

This "self-certification" process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its product meets all applicable FMVSS requirements. This agency periodically tests items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the standa rds, and also investigates alleged safety related defects. If your client or the agency determines that a safety related defect or noncompliance exists, your client would be obligated to notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem without cha rge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is e nclosed.)

If your client's product is installed in a previously certified new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then the person performing this alteration would be considered a vehicle alterer under the certification regulation, 49 Code of Federal Reg ulations (C.F.R.) 567, Certification. Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable safety standards. The safety requirements that may apply to the installation of your client's device as described in your letter are Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems, and Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. I have enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of o ur regulations.

In addition, your client should be informed that the installation of this device in a used vehicle could be affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. This section provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal mot or vehicle safety standard....

Thus, a commercial business installing your client's product in a used vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of the safety standards.

Finally, please note that section 108(c) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that compliance with these regulations does not preclude him from liability under common law for any accidents or injuries caused by the use of this device.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. DC 20590

Re: Safety Switch

To Whom It May Concern:

I represent Mr. Anthony M. Mazzagatti in his attempt to sell a low-cost safety device that can save many lives. This device can be called an Emergency Shutdown Switch (ESD Switch). This would take the form of a button located in the center of an automobi le dashboard; it would be wired to the ignition system so that, if pushed, it would shutdown the primary ignition circuit. The only way to reset the ignition would be to stop the car, put the shift lever in park, and turn the key off.

This would save lives in several situations.

1) If a passenger finds herself in the company of a driver who is inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, she can push the ESD Switch. The car would roll to a safe stop and the passenger would have time to exit the vehicle. The driver would have time to r ethink his driving and, perhaps, travel no further.

2) In a panic situation, such as a stuck accelerator pedal, either the driver or the passenger would have the ability to stop the car without turning off the ignition and locking the steering column. If the ESD Switch was mounted in the middle of a minia ture stop sign plaque attached to the dash, it would be more likely to be used by panic stricken drivers than the ignition switch.

The ESD Switch. for the first time, gives the automobile passenger a voice in the safe driving of a vehicle. Its cost would be but a few dollars. The payback would be immense, not only in lives and money saved, but also in peace of mind.

My client would like to sell this idea to you. Please contact me to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,

William L. Millard. Attorney at Law

ID: nht87-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Autery -- President, Auto Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Autery President Auto Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 10044 New Iberia, LA 70561

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The sp acer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, a ny dealers that follow your proposed installation procedures might violate Federal law.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) sets forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions; ...

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part , any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation proce dures for your armrest.

For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on its front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your i nstallation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening the m depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.

Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a)12)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that render s inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.

Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agency either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, th e Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.

To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with you r installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of t he law.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ATTN: JOHN MESSERA REG: CENTER ARMREST INSTALLATION ON VOLVO 240 SEDAN.

I WOULD LIKE AN INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH ASSEMBLY WHICH IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL OUR ARMREST. OUR A/R IS A AFTERMARKET ACCESSORY WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 6 YEARS NOW. THE A/R WAS DESIGNED TO INSTALL I NTO PRE-EXISTING HOLES ON THE TUNNEL OF THE CAR. AT THE TIME OF DESIGN AND UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THE HOLES WERE LEFT BLANK ON THE AMERICAN MODELS BUT USED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY'S. THE VOLVO CAR CORP. OF SWEDEN HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SEAT BELT LATCHES AVAILABLE. STARTING IN MID 87 VOLVO AMERICA SWITCHED SAME DESIGN USED IN EUROPE WHICH INSTALLS INTO THE HOLES OUR ARMREST WAS DESIGNED TO GO IN.

OUR ARMREST CAN STILL BE INSTALLED INTO THE HOLES IF YOU REMOVE A LARGE WASHER FROM THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY AND REPLACE THE WASHER WITH OUR ARMREST MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS .

THE LARGE WASHER THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IS A SPACER THAT IS USED TO SHOULDER UP THE BOLT TO THE FLOOR OF THE TUNNEL WHICH IS BELOW THE SAME THICKNESS OF CARPET.

THE ACTUAL SEAT BELT LATCH PIVOTS ON THE BOLT WHICH HOLDS IT IN PLACE. SO AS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FROM SAMPLES I'VE SENT AND FROM THE ILLUSTRATIONS, THAT EXCHANGING THE WASHER, FOR THE A/R MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS, WON'T AFFECT TH E PERFORMANCE OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH.

I'VE ENCLOSED THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. THE PROCEDURE WILL BE DONE BY QUALIFIED MECHANICS AT THE INDIVIDUAL DEALERSHIPS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE DO A LOT OF BUSINESS WITH SEVERAL VOLVO DEALERS IN YOUR AREA, AND COULD EASILY ARRANGE FOR A DEMO OF THE INSTALLATION IF THIS WOULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE.

WE 15 EMPLOYEES AT AUTO ACCESSORIES WILL BE EAGERLY AWAITING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE.

SINCERELY YOURS PAUL AUTERY PRESIDENT AUTO ACCESSORIES, INC.

ID: nht88-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKO LL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equip ped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are pa rallel to the seat and covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety b ar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the lati tudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the

requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety b elt. S4.1.2 gives manufactures the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection syste m that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purpose of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bar" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bar" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety b ar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "saf ety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emerg ency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bar," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibili ties, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect

related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE