ID: 1982-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 25, 1982

Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridan Street Wichita, KA 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1982, concerning compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular compliance with Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.

You are correct that section 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(2)) defines; in part, a motor vehicle safety standard as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance...." Thus, each of the agency's safety standards sets a minimum level of performance which must be met by every manufacturer. Manufacturers are free to utilize designs that exceeds the minimum level of performance set by a standard as long as their products still comply with the standard. Thus, in the case of schoolbus rearview mirrors, a manufacturer must at least comply with the requirements of section 9.1 of Standard No. 111 regarding mirror size, and may voluntarily provide a mirror of a larger size. As explained in the enclosed letter, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the agency to regulate aspect of design, such as mirror size.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 8, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to direct your attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the State of Texas.

It is my opinion and belief standards established by the NHTSA are minimum and should not probibit the use of an item that is Superior in Safety Performance.

This Design Standard requires 50 square inches of flat glass mounted firmly on each side of a Van Type vehicle in such a manner that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA.

In the interest of Safety, the mirror system should minimize the obstruction of the forward view to the driver--NO more than you need and NO less than you need. The driver and children riding scbool buses should not be subjected to the hazards involved with separately adjustable flat and convex mirrors and/or mirrors reflection rearward that may reflect false and/or mis-leading information to the driver.

I cannot agree this Design Standard is in accord with the intent of The Congress. I believe it was the intent of The Congress to make a contribution to the Prevention of Accidents as clearly defined in Section 102(2) of the Transportation Act.

Please advise the position of the NHTSA as to permitting the use of items Superior in Safety Performance when a Design Standard of this type has been issued.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEW, INC.

M. W. Urban

MWU/h1 Encl.

cc: Congressman Dan Glickman 1507 Longworth Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515

February 4, 1982

Reference: 070-36-1D

M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 North Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Gentlemen:

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1982 about rearview mirrors and Your sample mirror model number 3004.

We are familiar with the revision of section 393.80 issued on April 13, 1979 and published in the Federal Register May 1, 1979. This revision amends the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and not FMVSS 111. In addition, this revision speaks to the number of rearview mirrors required and not their dimensions. The language in section 393.80 clearly requires conformance with FMVSS 111.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors on both sides of all school buses and these mirrors must contain 50 square inches of flat reflective surface.

He are therefore required to withdraw approval of your 3000 series mirrors for use on Texas buses.

Please advise what disposition you wish made of the sample mirror you sent.

Yours truly,

Don Miller, Specification Technician Specification Section (512)475-2231

DM/dh cc: Max Walton

ID: nht90-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: DECORATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING DEVICES NOT SPECIFIED BY STANDARD 108 (MOTORCYCLES)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-21-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. ATTACHED; [OCC-3190]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rec tangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately 11 1/2 inches) . Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum i ntensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the

standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not ap pear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental dev ices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A sto p signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indic ate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. 108, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediate ly flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensi ty of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensi ty greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an a uxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this

would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: Ocean_imports_scooter_03-9045.2version2

Mr. Brian Lambert
Panalpina Inc. / Ocean Imports
18600 Lee Rd.
Humble, TX 77338

Dear Mr. Lambert:

This responds to your letter asking whether several models of scooters you are considering importing into the United States are "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the two models with a maximum speed greater than 20 mph are motor vehicles.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" (Emphasis added.) "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) as:

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

In a November 26, 2003, letter addressed to Mr. Amir Ambar, we addressed the issue of whether a scooter that he wished to import into the United States was considered a motor vehicle under this definition. We will consider the points we made in that letter in responding to your request.

In responding to Mr. Ambar, we noted that when determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency first looks to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

We also noted that in an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for

the purpose of our standards (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed). At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter at issue in our November 2003 letter was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranged between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter was shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warned against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we concluded that the "scooter" at issue was properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore was not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. We explained that the scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This was reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters were comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice.

We also stated that while the scooter at issue in that letter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipated that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways would be comparatively rare. We recognized that the scooter was equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. We noted that while this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, such equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

Finally, we stated that while we had concluded at that time that the scooter was not a motor vehicle, we might re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

We will now turn to the scooters you asked about. In your e-mail, you stated that the three scooter models you are considering importing are intended for off-road-use only. The JC 50 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 49 cc, a maximum speed of 15 mph, and a height of 32.6 inches. The JC 70 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 72 cc, a maximum speed of 37 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. The JC 90 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 85.7 cc, a maximum speed of 50 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. Your e-mail stated that all three models are marked for off-road use and all three models have VINs. You further stated that sales of these scooters would be primarily through the internet. As advertised on the internet, the scooters are shown with headlights and mirrors.

ID: 2349y

AIR MAIL

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Decorative Supplemental Lighting Devices Not Specified by Standard l08 (Motorcycles)

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rectangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately ll 1/2 inches). Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum intensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not appear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental devices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A stop signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indicate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. l08, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediately flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensity of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensity greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an auxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:3/20/90

ID: 7968

Mr. Mike Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P. O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request that NHTSA determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Porsche 911 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The change is proposed to be made on only one model in the 911 line and to be effective beginning with the 1994 model year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1990 Porsche 911 car line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking. Subsequently, by letter dated May 31, 1990, the agency concluded that proposed changes to the antitheft device in the MY 1991 Porsche 911 car line were de minimis changes. The primary change for the 1991 model year was that the interior light control units were to be integrated with the alarm control unit and central locking system. The latter two components were already integrated.

For the following reasons, NHTSA concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device for the 1994 model year is not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the anti-theft system on which the exemption was originally based. Under the original system, locking one door would automatically lock all doors, as well as arm the alarm system. Under the proposed change, locking one door with the key would no longer automatically lock all doors, but would still arm the alarm system.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Nor does the change involve adding a feature making an exempted antitheft device even more effective. The change in question lessens the likelihood that all doors of a car will be locked, thus easing a thief's access to the passenger compartment. A thief may easily open the unlocked door, providing an opportunity to attempt to shut off the alarm system (since both the alarm control unit and the power lines from the battery to the alarm system are inside the vehicle) and to circumvent the engine disabling system. If the thief successfully overcomes these systems, theft of the entire vehicle or its parts is facilitated.

Once inside the vehicle, a thief may open the hood by a release in the vehicle interior, thereby gaining access to the storage space under the hood. Since the battery for the Porsche 911 is also located in the front hood compartment of the vehicle, access to the battery also makes it easier for a thief to attempt to shut off the alarm system and engine disabling system, again facilitating theft of the entire vehicle or its parts.

Because the same aspects of performance (i.e., the central door locking system that automatically locked all doors, making access to the vehicle interior and hood release more difficult), are not provided in the proposed device, resulting in the possibility of the vehicle's increased vulnerability to being stolen in whole, or to have its parts stolen, this agency concludes that Porsche's proposed modification to the antitheft device in one model in the MY 1994 911 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Porsche wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 911 car line, it must formally file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for a modification must provide the same information for the modified 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.

Since the modification planned by Porsche would result in one model within the car line lacking a feature found on the anti- theft systems of other models, the agency would determine in the following manner whether the car line continued to merit exemption. It would regard the system of the one model as the system of the car line as a whole and assess whether that system would be as effective in preventing theft as parts marking. The additional feature on the other models within the car line, i.e., the central locking system, would be regarded as an addition to the standard equipment system and would not have any bearing upon the exemptability of the car line. NHTSA notes that this same approach would not be taken if the system to be installed on a single model within a car line could not be regarded as a stripped down version of the system on the other models. In that case, there would be no standard equipment version of the system and the car line would not be eligible for an exemption.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Chief, Motor Vehicle Theft Division, Office of Market Incentives, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-1740.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d.12/1/92

ID: nht76-2.19

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1976, in which you ask several questions concerning Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Your first question asks whether a California regulation requiring 20-inch minimum seat spacing in school buses would be preempted by the requirement for 20-inch maximum seat spacing in Standard No. 222.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in section 103(d) that any state or local law or regulation on an aspect of motor vehicle performance covered by a Federal standard must be identical to that Federal standard. Although the NHTSA requirement is phrased in terms of maximum spacing while the California standard concerns minimum spacing, the aspect of performance in question is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that a California standard on seat spacing regulates the same aspect of performance and to the degree it is not identical to the Federal standard, it would be preempted.

Your second question asks whether the seating reference point, as specified in relation to the "H" Point used in SAE Standard J826b, varies with the size of different individuals. The seating reference point, as defined by the NHTSA in Part 571.3 allows the manufacturer some discretion in selecting a point that approximates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh. While the NHTSA definition does refer to the SAE procedures for "H" point location that includes the specific measurements you cite, the manufacturer retains discretion to vary this point slightly as long as he can show that the point selected continues to simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh of the passengers for whom the seat is designed.

Finally, you note in your letter that compliance with the seat spacing required in Standard No. 222 might entail relocation of the side emergency exit, because Standard No. 217 requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." The seat spacing requirement arguably could occasion the realignment of the side emergency door, but this does not have to be the case. The manufacturer is free to adjust seat spacing to be properly aligned with the emergency exit. The NHTSA's intent in this requirement is to provide an emergency exit opening extending at least 2 feet rearward of a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back. The agency would not prohibit the use of doors wider than 2 feet as long as a minimum 2-foot opening is provided rearward of the reference plane and the latch mechanism is operated by a device located within the required 2-foot opening.

SINCERELY, Crown COACH CORPORATION

October 7, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Programs Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Federal Standard 222-School Bus Seating and Crash Protection

We are presently trying to establish a seating floor plan to conform to your standards. So far, we know of only one manufacturer that may produce a seat meeting your requirements, namely American Seating Company.

The point in question is the establishment of some manufacturing tolerance between seats. Standard 222 states the maximum spacing from the seats, Seating Reference Point (SAE "H" Point), is 20 inches. This distance is equal to the minimum California standard of 25 inches from seat back to the back of the seat in front. This would leave no manufacturing tolerance. We know that Federal Standards take precedence, but the State could put a limitation on minimum spacing. American Seating has told us that they are using 20 inches +/- 1/2 inch. as a target. They will also have a tolerance on the thickness of their seat, which would affect seat spacing.

Another question on the "H" Point as specified in SAE Standard J826 - the distance up from the seat to the "H" Point is 3.84 Inches and from the "H" Point to the seat back is 5.28 Inches. Would not these dimensions change with respect to different percentile figures?

The location of the seats and tolerances create another problem which cannot be solved until something has been firmed up; that is, the location of the side emergency exit.

Standard 217, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 4, states "A vertical transverse plane tanget to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." This means the door has to float with the seat locations. Also suppose the door is larger in size than the Standard states, this would penalize the manufacturer of the bus body, having to redesign side walls to accept different door and window locations.

We have been in contact with Mr. Tim Hoyt of your Docket Writer Section, who has been very helpful, but cannot answer our specific questions, and recommends we contact your Department for clarification of the Standard and specific answers to our problems.

If you need any clarification on our questions please phone and we will try to explain more fully.

Ray Hartman Vice President-Engineering

ID: nht80-3.12

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kansas Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 2, 1980, letter asking whether a school bus that is to be sold to a school district in your State will meet the Federal minimum requirements applicable to gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) and gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR).

To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government has no minimum specifications for GAWR or GVWR. Certainly, this agency does not specify minimum weight ratings. Our only requirement is that the GAWR and GVWR be appropriate for the size and weight of a vehicle taking into consideration the type of equipment installed on it. From the information that you have provided us, we cannot say that the vehicle in question would or would not comply with that requirement. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the Federal safety standards. No school bus manufacturer can sell you a school bus that they know will not comply with the requirements.

ID: 10-001800drn_risner

ID: nht94-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

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

TO: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from Gerald Plante to Barbara Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Plante:

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 Saab 900 car line is a de minimis change to the device. The proposed mo dification is to be placed on the Saab 900 line beginning with the 1995 model year. As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device are not de minimis.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of July 26, 1993 (58 FR 39853), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1994 Saab 900 line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

For the following reason, NHTSA concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device for the 1995 model year are not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the antitheft device on which the exemption was originally based. For the MY 1994 device, locking the driver's door with the ignition key automatically locks all doors, arms the alarm system and activates the starter interrupt-relay. For the MY 1995 device, Saab plans to add a remote control device. The remote contr ol is separate from the ignition key that locks/unlocks the driver's door. Locking the driver's door with the remote locks all other doors, arms the alarm, and activates the starter interrupt-relay. While locking the driver's door with the ignition key will lock all other doors as before, it will no longer arm the alarm system or activate the starter interrupt-relay.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Further, the change does not simply involve adding a feature making the original device even more effective. With the existin g device, a single means (the ignition key) for locking the driver's door locked all other doors, armed

2

the alarm and activated the interrupt-relay. With the planned new device, the remote does not supplant the ignition key as the means for locking the driver's door; it supplements the key. Thus, there will be less certainty with the new device that lock ing the driver's door will arm the alarm and activate the interrupt-relay.

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that Saab's proposed modification to the antitheft device in the MY 1995 Saab 900 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Saab wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 900 car line for MY 1995, it must file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information for the modified 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 vehicles in the line for which an exemption is sought.

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

ID: Braun_0001630v2

Barry E. Wolff, Director of Risk Management
The Braun Corporation
631 West 11^th Street
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your request for the agency to refrain from taking enforcement action on account of vehicle alterations your company intends to make. You stated that certain alterations to accommodate individuals with disabilities would result in a non-compliance under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. As explained below, we have decided against providing the requested relief.

Under the Federal motor vehicle certification requirements, a business that modifies fully certified vehicles prior to first sale for purposes other than resale is classified as an alterer (49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles). An alterer must identify all of the safety standards affected by an alteration and certify that, as altered, each vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected.

In your letter you explained that Braun, as a vehicle alterer, converts new, fully certified motor vehicles to accommodate wheelchairs and then sells the newly-certified motor vehicles. You explained that a minivan conversion to provide for wheelchair access typically eliminates the second row of seating, including the compliant child restraint anchorage systems (LATCH systems) installed in that row. Under FMVSS No. 225, vehicles with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions must have in the rear seating positions a minimum of two LATCH systems and an additional tether anchorage. To bring the vehicle back into compliance with FMVSS No. 225, you stated that two LATCH systems are added to what was originally the third row of seating.

As explained by your letter and in a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, one version of the model year 2005 Chrysler minivan is presenting a problem. This is because the new "Stow and Go" seat installed in the third row of the more expensive version of the minivan utilizes a 60/40 split bench seat design. The larger portion of the seat is already equipped with a compliant LATCH system. However, according to your letter, the smaller portion of this split bench seat is too narrow to permit installation of an aftermarket LATCH system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Thus, Braun would be unable to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 225 using the existing "Stow and Go" seat. Additionally, simply replacing that seat with another seat is difficult because the "Stow and Go" seat folds into the floor pan of the vehicle.

NHTSA has established a limited exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to accommodate individuals with disabilities (49 CFR 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With Disabilities). The exemption is only available to motor vehicle repair businesses making certain vehicle modifications after first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under limited circumstances, a vehicle manufacturer, including an alterer, can qualify for the exemption as a motor vehicle repair business. However, it appears from your letter that this exemption would not be available to Braun as the vehicle modifications your company makes are completed prior to first retail sale. Accordingly, we are unable to provide the relief you request regarding this vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.6/18/04