ID: aiam5623

"Dear Mr. Golden: This responds to your request for an interpretatio asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a 'Lightman,' for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product. You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, 'Does the mounting of one of these devices...take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?' As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices. There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle. As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number: 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790 We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure bcc: Mr. Larry Minor Office of Motor Carrier Research & Standards FHWA, Rm. 3107";

ID: nht88-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: RICHARD W. WARD -- VICE PRESIDENT; K-D LAMP COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO RICHARD W. WARD, V. P., K-D LAMP CO., FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in reference to your letter of Aug. 19, 1988 to Paul Scully regarding the exclusion of reflex reflector area when calculating minimum square inch lens area. Apparently your letter has caused a future customer of KD Lamp Co. to reconsider and rej ect the use of a Turn Signal Lamp of ours which has a lens area of 8 square inches. The following information and enclosed documentation is offered for your evaluation, and I respectfully request your reply to clarify the requirement of minimum square i nch lens area for Turn Signal and Stop Lamps.

In S1. of Purpose & scope FMVSS 108 the standard covers requirements for original and replacement lamps. When a new lamp is designed the requirements of 108 in effect at that time are naturally incorporated into the design. The present requirements of 108 shown in Table #1 for vehicles 80 or more inches wide indicates the applicable SAE standard is J-588e Sept. 1970 for Turn Signal Lamps and J-586c Aug. 1970 for Stop Lamps. Both of these SAE standards in section 3.2 require a minimum lens area of 8 s quare inches (rear lamps) for a single compartment lamp. The device in question meet the J-588e and J-586c, however, our customer has interpreted your letter that 12 square inch minimum lens area is the requirement. Their conclusion is based on the 2nd paragraph of your letter wherein you make reference to S4.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108 and 12 square inch lens area.

It is our position that S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS 108 is not the present requirements but rather an exception or a permissable use of an old SAE J-588d June 1966 and J-586b June 1966 for lamps used on vehicles manufactured between 1973 and 1978 (ref . page 28238 Fed. Reg. Aug. 6, 1986). If the full context of S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 is taken into consideration it is apparent the intent, particularly the words "may also be designed", of these sections is to cover vehicles of older manufacture.

After your review of the above and attachments, I would appreciate your comments so the immediate problem as well as any future questions in this regard can be resolved.

Thank You.

ID: 86-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Marshall D. Carter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking two questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked "is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?" There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.

You have also asked "Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?" We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the "gauges" listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word "Yes" in Column 5. The last "gauge" listed is "Automatic gear position", and the word "Yes" appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a "gauge" as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, "a display that is listed in . . . Table 2 and is not a telltale". Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

SINCERELY,

Whisper Electric Car AS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Att: Erika Jones, Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing to obtain confirmation that the FMVSS do not regulate certain specifications and parameters of automobile performance and design.

First, I should explain that our vehicle is exclusively battery powered, with 12 X 6-volt traction batteries, plus a service battery for the auxilliary functions (lights, windshield wipers, etc.). The service battery is charged at the same time as the traction batteries. In addition, the service battery is charged while driving through a converter between the 72-volt system (traction batteries) and the 12-volt system (service battery).

Now comes an engineer with the following hypothetical: The vehicle is unable to drive because of mechanical breakdown, therefore the converter between the 72-volt and 12-volt systems cannot recharge the service battery. There is no supply of electricity nearby to recharge through the main charger. The hazard lights are engaged, running only on the service battery. The characteristics of the hazard light design and intensity aside, is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?

In the absence of NHTSA direct regulation or past practice with respect to this situation, may we suggest that fulfilling the European standard is this regard also be sufficient to the U.S. market.

A second question involves illumination within the passenger cabin. Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection? I do not see that SN 101 requires either a display or illumination, but we request your comments.

SINCERELY,

Marshall D. Carter

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

MARCH 18, 1986

Dear Ms Jones,

I am also enclosing some guidelines which one of our people found by chance. I understand these to be requirements for the electric vehicles for which the Fed. Gov. has granted funding or subsidies and requirements for vehicles which the Fed. Gov. might purchase, but, while useful guide-lines, not requirements which apply generally to electrical vehicles. I would ask you to please confirm this interpretation.

WHISPER ELECTRIC CAR A/S

Marshall D. Carter

encl.: FR Part 475

Whisper Electric Car AS

ID: nht87-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation as to whether a new mini-van you will introduce into the United States would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581). In a June 5, 1987, phone conversation between members of my staff and your staff, it has stated that this interpretation should not address the question of how this vehicle would be classified for purposes of the avera ge fuel economy standards. You stated in your letter your opinion that this new mini-van should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis.

Your opinion was based on the fact that both passenger and cargo versions of this mini-van have already been sold in Japan. You stated that the cargo version of the mini-van has a chassis that is substantially reinforced from the chassis used in the pass enger version of this mini-van. The version of the vehicle you will offer for sale in the United States will be a passenger version of the vehicle, but will use the chassis offered on the Japanese cargo version of this vehicle. Apparently, you do not pla n to offer any cargo versions of this vehicle for sale in the United States. However, you believe that the chassis that will be offered on the United States version of this mini-van is a truck chassis, and this should not result in the United States vers ion this vehicle being classified as a multipurpose vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the bumper standard.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that both the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S. C. 1915(c)), with respect to the bumper standard, place the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. This agency may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify a vehicle for the purpose s of these standards. It is important for the manufacturer to be aware that these tentative statements are based entirely on the information provided to the agency by the manufacturer, and the tentative conclusions may change after the agency has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself.

A December 1, 1983, letter to Mr. Nakaya discusses how we would consider and apply the various factors to determine whether a vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis. A copy of th at letter is enclosed for your information. Our position has not changed since this 1983 letter.

To briefly summarize the letter, the fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one of which is classified as a truck, is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the ch assis has truck attributes. This further evidence might consist of information showing the chassis designed to be more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis, which you stated is the case for the chassis on this new vehicle. The 1983 letter makes clear that NHTSA will examine the classification of your new vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle more carefully than other such classifications, since no truck version of this vehicle will be offered for s ale in the United States. However, at that time and assuming that your statements about the reinforcement of the chassis are accurately it appears to us that this vehicle is constructed on a truck chassis. Accordingly, the vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the bumper and safety standards. The version of this letter that has been placed in our public docket, together with your letter to me, have all information identifying you and your company deleted therefrom. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(see 12/1/83 NHTSA letter to Mazda, Inc.)

12/22/86

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of Part 571.3 Definitions; "Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV)" and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Pub.L. 92-513 USC 1901-1991.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) plans to introduce a Colt/Mirage Station Wagon in the 1988 model year. We request that NHTSA treat our letter as confidential since the disclosure of our future product plans could cause serious competitive harm. MMC b elieves this wagon should be classified as a MPV for the following reasons:

The Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is a small wagon which will be identical to the Mirage Van sold in the Japanese market in the following respects:

The Mirage Van is a commercial vehicle and has a truck chassis as follows:

(1) The chassis of the Mirage Van is reinforced from that of the Mirage Sedan for commerical use in the Japanese market.

The components reinforced include the following: - The rear suspension is changed from independent to rigid.

- The rear floow pan and longitudinal members are changed and strengthened for commercial load support.

(2) As the result of such reinforcement, the gross vehicle weight of the Mirage Van in the Japanese market increases 300kg as follows:

Mirage Van 1525kg

Mirage Sedan 1225kkg

(5) the Mirage Van has other commercial features as follows:

- The flat cargo floor extends from the folded rear seat back to the tailgate.

- The end of the cargo floor has no stepped up crossrail. This makes loading and unloading of cargo convenient.

- The roof is raised 40mm from the sedan for cargo capacity.

Since the chassis of Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is the same as that of the Mirage Van, we believe the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon has a truck chassis and can be considered a MPV.

Please inform us in a timely manner whether our interpreatation is correct.

If you have any question, please contact me or Hiroshi Kato at (313) 353-5444.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-5.54

DATE: 02/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1976, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to motorcycles and mini-bikes.

You first asked "if any motorcycles are exempt" from the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. If the configuration of any motorcycle is such that it cannot be licensed for use on the public roads it is considered exempt. One example is a competition cycle intended solely for racing, conveyed by trailer or truck, which has no lights, and is equipped with special tires, and gear ratios rendering it unfit for low speed on-road traffic conditions. Another is the off-road machine with knobby tires, modified suspension and gear ratios, clearly intended for trail riding, hill climbing and the like. Motorcycles with a dual off-road on-road capability are, on the other hand, subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You also asked for our "interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." I enclose a copy of an interpretation issued in 1969 that reflects our views on this matter. As a general rule mini-bikes are not considered "motor vehicles", while most motorcycles do come within the definition. We consider both the C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90 to be "motor vehicles", even though we understand the latter is intended for dual-purpose use.

Enclosed is a Statement of Compliance for motorcycles.

Yours truly,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

GUAM

January 12, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., Department of Transportation

Subject: National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

I have been receiving inquiries regarding motorcycle imporations by military personnel reassigned from Japan to Guam, specifically, a C.B. 750 and Yamaha 90.

Would your office please advise if any motorcycles are exempt from the subject law excluding those manufactured prior to January 1968. Also, request your interpretation of and when a motorcycle or minibike would not be considered to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads and is not a "Motor Vehicle" as defined in Section 102 of PL 89-563.

Request a copy of the "Statement of Compliance" be furnished this office.

John J. Kralik -- U.S. Customs Military Advisor

ID: nht69-1.23

DATE: 08/20/69

FROM: WARREN M. HEATH

COMMANDER ENGINEERING SECTION

TO: ROBERT BRENNER --

ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: GEORGE GAUDAEN -- SAE

TITLE: REF: 81.A215.A1575

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brenner:

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be(Illegible Word). However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet these standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These standards reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to meet the(Illegible Words) for a taillamp and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above horizontal for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely complied with the

maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each side of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the(Illegible Word) Lighting Committee recognized this problem and alter a number of demonstrations of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in(Illegible Words). The original brightness problem appeares to be quote simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers were concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient(Illegible Word) for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps(Illegible Word) were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every combination of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both(Illegible Words) and SAE(Illegible Word) have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section(Illegible Words) specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the minimums required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that one lamp may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamps and(Illegible Word) candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be(Illegible Word) to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 198 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and steplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or steplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with(Illegible Word), or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-steplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the ratio even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section(Illegible Word) which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) as permitting any number of additional taillamps and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements(Illegible Words), as an example of nonimpairment of the effectiveness of the single required lamp. They would also use photometric data showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again, to prove nonimpairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempts states from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the separate lamps in the multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the Bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c) Does the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and taillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centered on the rear of the vehicle where the middle compartment as a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where one rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, as the entire lamp to be tested as a single unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the device where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specifications and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the stoplamp to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite ingenius in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific Federal or SAE standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing devices for conformance to the standards.

We would very much appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use in answering inquiries from foreign and American manufacturers and on using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht92-4.30

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Marie McFadden -- Cable Car Concepts Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/92 from R. Marie McFadden to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7468)

TEXT:

This responds to your June 23, 1992 letter requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the "Mini Trolley," the "Road Train," and the "Trolley Tram." You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Your literature indicates that the "Mini Trolley" has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a "bus" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The power unit of the "Road Train" has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1,

1991.

1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

As explained below, buses such as the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position; trucks such as the power unit of the "Road Train" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position; and trailers such as the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have safety belts.

2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram," and all "occupant seats" in the power unit of the "Road Train" must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material; therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard.

As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the "Mini Trolley" or the power unit of the "Trolley Tram." If the jump seat is in the power unit of the "Road Train," and if it is not a side-facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an "occupant seat" as defined in that standard.

Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an "occupant seat" as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." A "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as

any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207.

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

ID: 24256ogm

Doris Schaller-Schnedl, Homologation Engineer
Magna Steyr Engineering
Steyr Daimler Puch Fahrzeugtechnik AG & Co KG
Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317
A-8041
Graz, Austria




Dear Ms. Schaller-Schnedl:

This responds to your electronic mail message in which you indicate that your company would like to install Type 2 seat belts equipped with load limiters for use in the rear outboard seating positions of a passenger vehicle. Your message notes that you would like to employ load limiters as you believe that the devices would help reduce the possibility of injury in a crash. You indicate, however, that if you equip the seat belts in question with load limiters, the belts will not comply with the minimum performance requirements for belt elongation found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your message also indicates your belief that S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that belts equipped with load limiters need not meet the elongation requirements if these belts are installed in any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As your message observes that S5.1 applies only to front outboard designated seating positions, you ask if load limiters that do not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may only be installed in front outboard designated seating positions. Finally, if it is the agency's position that load limiter equipped belts may only be installed in the front outboard seating positions, you ask if belts equipped with these devices may be installed in rear outboard seating positions if the belts meet the performance requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 when tested with a dummy placed in the rear outboard seating position.

For the reasons explained below, load limiters that cause a seat belt to not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may not be installed in seating positions other than the front outboard seating positions.

Standard No. 209 establishes minimum performance requirements for seat belts and contains a number of provisions relating to elongation in seat belts and seat belt assemblies. The elongation of belt webbing is governed by S4.2(c), while the elongation performance of Type 1 and Type 2 belt assemblies is controlled by S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) and S4.4(b)(5).

Load limiters are intended to manage the forces imposed on an occupant when the occupant moves forward against the belt during a crash. To achieve this purpose, load limiters allow the belt to yield, in a controlled fashion, to the forces generated by restraining an occupant. In order to allow the use of load limiters while ensuring that belts equipped with the devices continue to provide a minimum level of safety, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 provides as follows:

S4.5 Load-limiter.


(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter is not required to comply with the elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) or S4.4(b)(5).

(b) A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles at any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ( 571.208).

As you observe in your message, S4.5 provides that a seat belt equipped with a load limiter is not subject to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 if that belt is installed at a designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. S5.1 establishes the minimum performance standards for occupant protection in a frontal crash and includes, in S5.1.1, the requirements for performance in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash test employing a 50th percentile male dummy secured by a Type 2 belt in a front outboard seating position. Because the requirements of S5.1.1 provide assurance that seat belts will provide a minimum level of safety in a frontal crash, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 excludes belts with load limiters from meeting the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 for any seating position that is tested under S5.1. As S5.1 applies only to front outboard seating positions, belts with load limiters installed at rear outboard seating positions must meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your message also asks if a manufacturer wishing to install belts with load limiters in a rear outboard seating position may comply with S4.5 of Standard No. 209 by verifying the performance of the belts through testing the belts by performing testing as set forth in S5.1 on the rear outboard seats. The answer is that belts installed at rear seating positions are subject to the elongation requirements and must meet them.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel


ref:209
d.9/19/01

ID: nht88-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Roito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Ritawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure 1" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on mot orcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure 1 a chamber containing a tail/sto p lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure 1, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with se parate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure 1b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11." Figure 1b specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sect ions used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to c omply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Tail & Stop Lamp for Motorcycle (1) photometric values (2) Spacing with Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones:

The photometric values which are required for tail & stop lamp for motorcycle are specified in S. 4.1.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp is specified in Table IV.

We would like to ask you the following questions concerning photometric values of tail g stop lamp for motorcycle and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp in the cases of Structure-(1) and -(2) which are shown in the attached drawing.

Question-1:

In Structure-(1) and -(2), which of the following cases shall be applied for the photometric values required for tail & stop lamp?

(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure lb of S. 4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamps on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photo-metric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S. 4.1.1.11.

Attn: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Jan. 25, 1988

Question-2; For each case of Structure-(1) and-(2) as illustrated in the attached sheet, shall the specification of 4 inch minimum spacing between tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp be required or not:

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: cox.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
President
Monte Carlo Minis Limited Inc.
2011 Pleasant Hill Church Road
Shelby, NC 28152

Dear Mr. Cox:

On August 31, 1998, we received your faxed manufacturer identification information sheet sent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, and your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions.

You informed us that Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc., wants to build "Mk 1 and Mk II Minis." These vehicles "will have all new parts except for the chassis or subframes." You comment that "if we replace the chassis, we know we would have to meet all the DOT and EPA regs." You ask whether you can "retain the old VIN number if we use the pre 1969 donor cars and chassis." You also state that "if we only exported the Minis to Japan I assume we would have to use the new VIN numbers as described in CFR 49."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other agency regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured for export, and which are so labeled between the completion of their manufacture and shipment from the United States. Therefore, the VIN on vehicles intended to export for Japan should conform with the requirements of that country, if any, for VINs, rather than those of 49 CFR Part 565 for vehicles intended for sale in the United States.

You incorrectly assume that retention of the old chassis alone is sufficient to excuse a vehicle from compliance with the FMVSS. The agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS . The agency did not intend the word chassis to be interpreted narrowly but meant the term to indicate an assemblage that retained the original frame and all vehicle components other than the body, including the power train, brake system, suspension, and tires and wheels.

The vehicles you intend to build would have "all new parts except for the chassis or subframes, including "the new [body] shell," "new suspension," and "new engine and transmission," while "the old chassis, sub frame is retained after being sandblasted." In our view, vehicles assembled using equipment as you have described it to us would be new motor vehicles which must comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect as of the date of assembly, and be certified as complying if they are to be sold for use in the United States. Among other things, such vehicles must have a VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Liz Severe
c/o Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc.
ref:571
d.9/29/98