ID: aiam0092

Dear Mr. Yamada: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1968, in which you requeste clarification of the term 'optically combined' as applied to motor vehicle lights.; 'Optically combined' in this context means that the same lens area i used for more than one function such as tail and stop lights or stop and turn signal lights or tail, stop and turn signal lights. The normal means used to accomplish this 'optically combined' lamp has been to incorporate a single dual-filament bulb with a reflector and lens.; Since the design of your Toyata (sic) Crown combination stop, tail an turn signal lamp is such that a different part of the lens area is used for the turn signal lamp, we do not interpret it to be optically combined with the tail and stop lamp.; The concurrence of the above interpretation with yours and that of th California Highway Patrol should not be construed to be an approval of your design. The results of recent research on lighting and signaling reviewed by this Bureau indicate that signal lights should be separated 4 1/2 to 5 inches minimum (centerline to centerline separation.) Although no dimensions are specified on your drawing it appears to be approximately full scale with a separation distance of 2 1/4 inches between the stop and turn signal lamps. The steady-burning stop lamp may therefore 'wash out' or significantly reduce the effectiveness on the turn signal lamp. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 does not require a minimum separation distance between signal lights, however, upon completion of our present research contracts on rear lighting and signaling, we may consider such a requirement in the future.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam2112

Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whethe rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.; In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.; In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider th addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-4.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: John M. Marcum -- Chairman and CEO, Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to NHTSA Administrator; Also attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A37; VSA Sec. 108(2); Part 591)

TEXT:

Electric Vehicles, S.A. of 1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20006, is applying for a temporary exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EVSA prototype electric minibus. The firm is incorporated in Geneva, Switzer land and manufactures both electric minibuses and delivery trucks. EVSA has built its first two 16 passenger electric minibus prototypes (13,700 GVWR). They are currently being tested and evaluated in Allentown, Pennsylvania and Hong Kong. Through this testing program, EVSA plans to improve the performance and establish conformity to FMVSS requirements of our production vehicles. However, meeting all of these standards for our prototype would impair the development and field evaluation of this electri c vehicle. The 16 passenger minibus is powered with a Chloride 55 kw traction motor and carries 128 two volt batteries in four battery packs placed on top of the chassis and in sealed compartments under the passenger seats on either side of the the vehi cle. The batteries are accessible through fiberglass doors that run the length of the vehicle on either side. The minibus is a hybrid vehicle in that it is equipped with an optional 7 kw gasoline powered generator or range enhancer which is in a compar tment at the rear of the bus.

If this exemption is granted it will allow the vehicle to be used in a "free" test and evaluation passenger service operated in Allentown in the downtown shopping area. The bus will operate on a 1.7 mile loop that averages 20 stops per loop and where th e average speed is less than 10 mph. EVSA requests that this exemption be for a period of three months. During this time the minibus would be operated on the downtown loop by the Lehigh and Northhampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) as part of a join t test and evaluation program between EVSA, LANTA, the Pennsylvania Energy Office, Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and others.

The prototype vehicle in Allentown differs in several respects from the FMVSS requirements. The first is that due to the use of thick "show type" fiberglass it is overweight. The vehicle unloaded is approximately 13,200 lbs. This means that when fully loaded to the 16 passenger (17 persons including the driver) capacity it will be about 2,000 lbs. or 15 percent over the GVWR of the chassis.

This vehicle also does not meet fully the requirement for emergency exits. It does not have a roof top emergency exit or the required one exit per three seating positions. However, it does have one side emergency door near the rear on the opposite side from the main entry door which does provide the total emergency exit requirement of 1139 square inches.

EVSA believes this should provide adequate egress in the event of an emergency in this limited operating mode.

The vehicle also fails to meet the standards in other areas including windshield washer, seat belt warning light and so on. These are in the process of being added to the vehicle during the test program. The chassis has passed its brake tests under ful l load at the Bendix proving ground and additional tests of the integrated vehicle are being carried out at the Mack Truck test track in Allentown.

The minibus has already demonstrated the capacity to carry 20 or more persons safely at its first showings in exhibitions in Athens, Greece and Houston, Texas. Moreover the front wheel drive heavy duty rail type chassis is conservatively rated and the m inibus will be driven at very low speeds on flat ground under passenger loads ranging from within the GVWR up to a maximum overload of 15 percent. Consequently, EVSA and its partners in the Allentown project do not believe there is any appreciable risk to the public resulting from the non-conforming aspects of this prototype vehicle. Operating this minibus in the downtown area during this experimental program would allow EVSA and LANTA to acquire valuable data for the designing and fabrication of futu re electric vehicles that would meet all of the applicable standards and would help fulfill the objective of the Alternative Fuels Vehicle Program of UMTA.

ID: nht90-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-25-90 TO T. VINSON--NHTSA, FROM J. CORNELL; (OCC 5035; ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCKET SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. 108 which were published on May 15 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in te rms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confus ion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedenc e over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May 15 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square i nches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch.

With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On may 15, Standard No. 108 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement." (S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together

to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp ... and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap ." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signa l", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple co mpartment lamp."

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht88-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 28, 1988 LETTER FROM BALL TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck e missions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have cer tain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA do es not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively stat e how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be

2

aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the G M 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 mi nivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chass is" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

ID: nht94-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/94 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Barbara A. Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the BMW 7 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The propo sed modification is to be effective beginning with the 1995 Model Year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

In a Federal Register notice dated October 9, 1986 (51 FR 3633), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on the MY 1988 BMW 7 car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

In assessing whether changes are de minimis, the agency has focused its inquiry on whether the changed device would continue to provide the same aspects of performance as did the device on which the exemption was based. An example of a de minimis change is the substitution of new components for old components, without changing the aspects of performance provided by the device. NHTSA has also determined that adding a new aspect of performance, making an exempted antitheft device even more effective, wh ile leaving the original aspects undisturbed, is a de minimis change.

The change from the original BMW MY 1988 antitheft device to the one proposed for the MY 1995 BMW 7 car line does not present a simple case of either substituting new components for old, without changing the aspects of performance provided, or enhancing the effectiveness of an existing device, by adding a new aspect. Instead, the change is more complex, involving not only the addition of a new aspect (monitoring glass breakage), but also the deletion of some original aspects (monitoring the radio and g love box).

2

The agency is uncertain about the net effect of these changes and is therefore also uncertain whether the new modified device would be at least as effective as the original device. Monitoring glass breakage might decrease the likelihood that a would-be thief would ever enter a vehicle. On the other hand, adding this aspect of performance would not necessarily enhance effectiveness of the antitheft device. If a thief were to gain access to the passenger compartment with a slim-jim or other tool, witho ut breaking the glass, no alarm would sound, making the inside compartment vulnerable to theft. Further, no alarm would sound if the thief then tampered with the radio or glove box, individually.

NHTSA believes that the necessity for making judgments about the relative effectiveness of new and removed aspects of performance, and the complexity of the issues underlying those judgments, indicate that the changes are not de minimis. Indeed, these ju dgments are similar to the ones that the agency must make in considering a new petition for exemption.

Accordingly, if BMW wishes the planned MY 1995 device to be the basis for a theft exemption, it must submit a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information or the m odified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor on (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht70-2.28

DATE: 09/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Aractho Motors Distributors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I wish to express my apology for the fact that you have not received a response to your letter of August(Illegible Words) of our correspondence records does not indicate that it ever reached my office.

From information available on the Bureau Mini-bike, it would appear that it would fall within the scope of the Mini-Bike interpretation,(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) -- October 3, 1969), a copy of which is enclosed for your information and guidance.

Each manufacturer must decide whether his vehicles are manufactured primarily for off-the-road use. This is usually determined by the manufacturer after his review of the aforementioned interpretation.

Your attention is directed to the fourth paragraph of that document which states in part, "Thus, if a vehicle is operationally capable of being used on the public thoroughfares, and in fact, a substantial proportion of the consuming public actually view it that way, it is a 'motor vehicle' without regard to the manufacturer's intent, however(Illegible Word)."

At this time, the Bureau would have no reason to challenge your off-the-road(Illegible Word) only" classification.(Illegible Word) on the other hand, we find that the vehicles are in fact being used for other than the intended purpose, your classification could be questioned by the Bureau.

Thank you for your letter and I trust this will answer your question.

ID: aiam3799

Dear Mr. Barbie: This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.; The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards i determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3800

Dear Mr. Barbie: This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.; The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards i determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4116

Dear Mr. Fish: We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) date September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011. Your letter was referred to my office.; In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213 *Child Restraint Systems*, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The two answers to your specific questions are as follows:; 1. Page 12--*Resistance to Microorganisms*. Polyester and nylon, whic comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.; 2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. *Seating Systems*. The requirements of S5.4.3. apply to child restraints that are 'designed for use by a child in a seated position.' Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel