ID: nht87-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES R. THOMPSON -- VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, DUTCHER MOTORS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry concerning classifying a vehicle, the "TransiTaxi," which your company manufactures. You inform us that although in 1985 you classified this vehicle as a bus, you now have a question whether this is a proper classifi cation. You state that you use Ford truck components in your vehicle design, and describe your vehicle as larger than the Ford Bronco.

You state further that if you must classify this vehicle as a "passenger car," you would find it "financially impossible to go through the crash-testing procedures required." You ask us to consider issuing either an interpretation or an exemption, cite y our maximum annual production of only 500 units as a factor, and offer to bring a "demonstrator" vehicle to Washington. You enclose specifications with your correspondence that say the standard "TransiTaxi" seats a maximum of seven passengers.

First, please understand that under our certification requirements (49 CFR 567) for the vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer initially determines a vehicle's type using the definitions set out in 49 CFR @ 571.3, and certifies that the motor vehicle c omplies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. However, a manufacturer's classification does not bind the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Under @ 571.3, a "'Bus' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Since your vehicle is designed to carry a maximum of seven passengers, it appears that your vehicle is not a bus.

Your specifications indicate your use of design elements associated with a truck chassis. For example, the front twin I-beam suspension (coil springs) is designed for trucks, and the ground clearances and curb weight more nearly match truck specificatio ns than for other types of

motor vehicles. NHTSA concludes, therefore, that you are building your "Transitaxi" on a truck chassis.

Because you build this vehicle on a truck chassis and design it to carry 10 persons or less, it appears that your vehicle is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as that term is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3, Definitions. Once a proper classification for your vehicle has been determined, it is your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and agency regulations, to certify that each vehicle you manufacture meets any standard applicable to it on the date of manufacture. A multip urpose passenger vehicle must meet crash tests under some applicable standards.

If in the past you have sold motor vehicles without certifying that they meet the standards that apply to that type, or if your certification is improper because your vehicles fail to meet applicable standards, the law would require you to conduct a vehi cle notice-and-recall campaign and make your vehicles comply.

A manufacturer of 10,000 vehicles or less per year may petition the agency for a temporary exemption from any safety standard if complying with the standard would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship. If NHTSA were to grant a petition su ch as this, the manufacturer must make a good faith effort during the exemption period to bring the vehicle into compliance. However, if the agency were to grant an exemption, that grant would not cure past failures to comply. Given your production vol ume, you may wish to consider petitioning for an exemption. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets out the exemption procedures.

Sending NHTSA the information that Part 555 requires to support an exemption petition will give the agency what it needs to make an informed judgment of the petition's merits. Therefore, it is unnecessary for you to bring the vehicle here for a demonstr ation.

Although it appears from the attachments to your letter that you are purchasing separate components instead of incomplete vehicles (See 49 CFR @ 568.3) from Ford, we note that many small manufacturers producing special vehicles use incomplete vehicles pu rchased from a large manufacturer like Ford. To facilitate certification by the small manufacturer (called a "final stage manufacturer" by Part 568) of the completed vehicles, Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to supply a document wi th each incomplete vehicle. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer can be particularly helpful by stating either that the vehicle, when completed, will conform to a safety standard if no alterations are made to identified components, or that the vehicle, w hen completed, will conform if the final stage manufacturer meets specific conditions regarding the completion process.

The final stage manufacturer would still have to certify compliance with any applicable standard not listed in the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's document. Whether Ford, who apparently sells you components instead of incomplete vehicles, may assist i n the certification process is a matter which our regulations do not address. You may wish to take up the matter with that company.

Finally, if you wish to certify your Transitaxi as a bus, you may wish to consider using a larger chassis suitable for completion with the requisite seating capacity.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87

FROM: TERRY B. QUINN -- HEHR INTERNATIONAL, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY

TO: ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY E QUINN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO EDWARD T. FENNELL

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are hereby requesting a letter ruling regarding the matter of proper identification of safety glazing materials to be used in over-the-road vehicles.

Hehr International Inc. is a prime glazing material manufacturer in that we temper glazing material used in vehicular windows produced by our (and other) companies.

Please reference 49 CFR 571.205 S6.1: "Each prime glazing material manufacturer ... shall mark glazing materials manufactured by him in accordance with Section 6 of ANS Z26."

Please reference American National Standard Z26.1-1983 Section 6 (Sentence 2): "They shall also be marked with the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark."

Our problem is this: We have a prospective customer for our tempered glass who will use it in windows which are competitive with those we build. This prospect naturally does not wish to have his competitor's name on the glazing etch of his windows. The question is: May Hehr International Inc. sell tempered glass without the distinctive designation or trademark (The Hehr Logo) and remain in compliance with the law? All other provisions as to certification and marking will continue to be complied with , of course.

Your early response to this question would be most appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Nelson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Honorable Bill Nelson U.S. House of Representative 2404 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0912

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Glenn Gourley, who questions the effectiveness of safety belts and opposes the safety belt use law enacted by the State of Florida.

During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximat ely 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.

Numerous analyses have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities by 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt fact sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, "We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries.

In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 State and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I have also enclosed an occupant protection fact sheet. This sheet reports that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1985, and 1750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt laws. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosures

Mr. Glenn Gourley 25434 Antler Street Christmas, Florida 32709

Dear Mr. Gourley:

Thank you for your letter opposing a mandatory seatbelt law. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Department of Transportation, so that they may review and respond to your concerns. I will contact you again when I receive a reply. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Sincerely,

BN:mr

ID: nht87-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: DALLAS MCCLAIN -- PRO TOUR, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION/INTERPRETATION OF SEATING STANDARDS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM ERICK Z. JONES TO DALLAS MCCLAIN; REDBOOK A-32, STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Sir,

Upon the recommendation of your technical reference division, I have formulated my inquiries to your office for interpretation and clarification. This company is a manufacturer of bus seating (NON-School bus) and we believe we surpass all applicable Fed eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There are some points which we would like a legal opinion on for our customers as well as ourselves. Below are several questions which your office will hopefully be able to answer for us. Thank you.

A. What is the legal determination of a 'bus' as opposed to a 'multipurpose vehicle'? Is this definition based on number of passengers, or gross vehicle weight? Or both?

B. In the first paragraph of S4.2 of MVSS 207, there is reference to side-facing seats or passenger seat on a bus, which appear to be exceptions. Following this paragraph are the performance requirements. Are side-facing seats and passenger seats on a bus exempted from these performance requirements? Are these two items covered under another safety standard? If so, which one?

C. Keeping in mind we are assuming NON-School Bus applications, is perimeter seating a 'side-facing seat' such as mentioned above and does MVSS 207 testing apply to these seating configurations? Are there any existing requirements for cushions which are removeable such as perimeter seating arrangements? Or it is just the frame structure which must meet test specifications?

D. While seats not designated for use while the vehicle is moving (MVSS 207, S4.4) must be labeled, must other occupant seating subject to MVSS 207 and MVSS 302 be labeled with a 'law label' indicating the seat has met these standards?

Thank you very much for your help in resolving these questions. If further information is needed to render a finding, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht87-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987

FROM: JAN PETER KRYGER -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUICKWHEEL

TO: DEIRDE HOM -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/22/87 (EST) LETTER TO JAN PETER KRYGER, FROM ERIKA 2. JONES

TEXT: The information you gave me over the phone, on September 18th, was very helpful.

Let me give you some information about Quickwheel. Imagine it as a "roller skate", that can be placed under a flat tire in just a few seconds. The driver can go on to the nearest service station or even go home. Since it takes just a few seconds, Quic kwheel promotes traffic safety.

Quickwheel has been thoroughly tested by T.U.V. (THE authority in Germany) on the road and in traffic. In a letter to the "Bundesminister fur Verkehr" (the Secretary of Transportation in Germany) T.U.V. makes the following statement: the car equiped wit h Quickwheel handled speeds up to 45 miles flawlessly, even if the car had to come to a sudden stop or swerve to avoid an object.

Quickwheel, INC, has taken out a patent and is going to market Quickwheel in the U.S.A.

I have the following questions:

-What safety standards do apply to Quickwheel and its three little wheels?

-Do we need approval from the Department of Transportation and if so, what is the procedure?

-Could you explain the Code of Federal Regulations?

I am looking forward to your answer. Should you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know.

ID: nht87-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/87

FROM: ANDREW E. WOOLNER -- GENERAL MANAGER AUSTIN ROVER

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 101, CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS, SECTION S 5.3.5.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/23/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO ANDREW E. WOLLNER -- AUSTIN ROVER, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 101; BROCHURE FROM AUSTIN ROVER, UNDATED (RE CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS)

TEXT: Austin Rover Ltd. (ARG), the mamufacturer of the Sterling passenger car seeks an interpretation of FMVSS NO 101, Controls and Displays as of September, 1989.

1. All Sterling 825 vehicles have a fuel gauge and a speedodometer/odometer located in the instrument panel immediately in front of the driver as illustrated in Fig. 1.

2. The Sterling SL has in addition to the above-mentioned displays, a trip computer fitted in the center console (Fig. 2). This trip computer is able, among other functions to display supplemental information in relation to fuel consumption, (instan taneous and average), fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance to arrival. The attachment shows the method of operation and the functions.

ARG interprets the illumination requirements of standard 101 as applicable to the trip computer display as being:

a. The illumination requirement not mandatory.

b. The illumination provided at the choice of the manufacturer is subject to the requirements of section S 5.3.5. and not section S 5.3.3.

The reasons for our interpretation are as follows:

a. The fuel section of the trip computer does not show the fuel level in the fuel tank.

b. The distance and speed functions cannot be considered as "speedodometer" because it does not indicate actual vehicle speed at any instant. Also there is no need to illuminate an odometer even if the distance function could be so considered.

Would you please confirm that ARG's interpretation for 1 and 2 above are correct. That is, that such displays contained in our trip computer which offer "supplemental information" to other gauges and displays that are clearly regulated by FMVSS NO. 101 will categorically fall under S 5.3.5 requirements for illumination.

Sincerely,

Enc.

ID: nht87-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/87

FROM: RICHARD J. STROHM

TO: CHEVROLET DIVISION

TITLE: 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE 1G1BL51HOHX163146 9000 MILES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD J. STROHM. REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 207; VSA 108 [A] [2] [4] LETTER DATED 11/09/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO EDWARD JETTNER -- NHTSA; FMVSS 207; OCC 1362

TEXT: Gentlemen:

It appears that the front bench seat in my 1987 Caprice has been mounted closer to the front of the passenger compartment than the Impales I have driven over the past 10 years. Less leg room was evident when I first drove the new car and I have been una ble to move the seat back for enough to provide the past comfort I enjoyed.

By my measurement the seat is 3/4 of an inch closer to the dash and floorboard, and the same distance farther from the back seat than in my 1983 Impale. I use this car for business travel and would like to have the seat position adjusted back, to where I feel it was for many years. The delivering dealer (Horizon Chevrolet) is unable to do anything for me and I ask that you give them direction and authorization to make the seat adjustment under warranty.

I can bring the car by for examination if it would help.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht87-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1987

FROM: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING INC.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: I have had a phone conversation with Ed Clancy concerning some problems that have arisen in reference to my product - with clarification from the National Highway Traffic Association.

I spoke, first of all, with Neil Thomas of the Federal Highway Administration and, later, with Jim Birtell, Head Engineer; they informed me that there was no problem with their department concerning siping tires in reference to the Federal Highway Admini stration. But, there was some question with a possible customer of mine with D.O.T.

For that reason, I would like to explain siping because, at this point, it is referred to in the D.O.T. Regulations in the same reference as grooving. We manufacturer and distribute both siping and grooving machines and I would like to clarify our posit ion and the difference in the two operations.

Grooving is a process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release. We sell grooving machines mainly to the metro bus companies who lease their tires and have considerable undertread.

Siping is a process of cross cutting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, 1/32" less, with a fine knife-either four of five cuts to the inch-that does not remove rubber. We have people siping tires on tru cks, buses, and passenger with excellent results. But, we have had some government agencies that want more clarification from your department.

I have enclosed for you a brochure on our siping machine and several testimonials from customers concerning their experience with siping so that you can better understand the process and the benefits derived thereform. In the cross cutting of the tread, the benefits are that it allows the tread to interact with the road and have the edges grap the road for better traction. It also allows for the tread components to open up enough to allow air to get into the tread and this helps with the increase in w ear by cooling the tread of the tire.

What I need to know from you is if there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires, assuming the siping is done as I stated above, with D.O.T. Regulations

Enc.

ID: nht87-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: American Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Head, Administration Government Relations Department American Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 1100 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, CA 92622-1100

Dear Mr. Petler:

This letter responds to your letter of June 12, 1987, stating that your company wishes to and the following additional language to the Part 567 certification label:

"This vehicle equipped for 800 lb./360kg payload. See owner's manual for additional information.

You further state your understanding that NHTSA has permitted manufacturers to put information on the certification label beyond what Part 567 requires. You include two samples (-A- and -a-) representing certification labels, showing alternative location s on the label for your statement. The sample you designate as -A- shows your statement just above the required vehicle identification number, and just below the statement that your vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd. The sample you designate as -B- shows your statement just below all of the information 5567.4 requires a manufacturer to put on the certification label. You ask which sample the agency would find acceptable.

You are correct that the agency his permitted manufacturers to include information on the certification label beyond that which Part 567 requires. There NHTSA has acquiesced in this practice, the additional information appeared after that required under 5567.4(g). Sample B shows the placement of your additional statement after the required Part 567 information. NHTSA finds that Sample B is acceptable so long as your label otherwise complies with Part 567. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Part 561 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., of Japan, we are requesting an interpretation of Part 567-Certification, 567.1, as it applies to the placement of additional wording in the form of a statement addressing vehicle payload on the vehicle certification l abel. The additional statement reads:

"This vehicle equipped for 800 lb./360kg payload.

See owner's manual for additional information."

I have attached a drawing showing the statement placed in two different locations as illustrated in samples A and B. Suzuki's preference is sample A with the added statement being placed between the vehicle conformity statement and the VIN. If sample A p lacement is not acceptable to NHTSA. Suzuki would use sample B placement with the added statement appearing below the vehicle type description.

It is our understanding that NHTSA has permitted the use of additional wording or information on certification labels in response to requests like ours from other manufacturers. Suzuki also believes the addition of payload information for this particular vehicle would be of value to the vehicle owner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response to our request for interpretation. Sincerely,

AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

Frederick M. Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department

FMP:bf

ID: nht87-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTINE COTTLE -- OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR, CLASSIC AUTO ACCESSORIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-30-87, FROM CHRISTINE COTTLE, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of June 30, 1987, where you ask for information "regarding any federal regulation that may apply to or restrict the use of items which might be suspended from the centered rear view mirror in an automobile or truck." In your letter, you refer specifically to "decorations" such as hanging dice and air fresheners, and express your company's wish "to avoid liability for any obstruction of vision which might occur as the result of the use of such items." Your letter does not say whether you manufacture the kinds of products you list, or install these kinds of products in motor vehicles.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment, n or does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applic able standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

A product would fall under our agency's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in @102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as follows:

. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor v ehicle . . . (Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordi nary users of motor vehicles. The kinds of products you list do not fall within this framework, and therefore NHTSA does not regard them as items of motor vehicle equipment subject to our regulations.

There is one section of the Safety Act that I would call to your attention. Among other things, @108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act states that:

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

If your company is among the persons or performs the kinds of operations in @ 108 (a) (2) (A), then it may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standar d. For example, you could not install any item in a motor vehicle that would render inoperative Standard 111 (Rearview Mirrors) "field-of-view" specifications. (I enclose a copy of that Standard.)

However, @108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to vehicle owners. Therefore, owners may install items in their own cars, even if doing so involves removal, disconnection or degradation of safety equipment or designs, without violating @ 108 (a) (2) (A). Furt her, neither the manufacture of such items nor their sale to vehicle owners violates that prohibition.

Please note that a violation of @108 or of any regulation issued under it is punishable by a civil fine of up to $ 1000 per violation, subject to a maximum fine of $ 800,000 for a related series of violations.

Finally, you may wish to consult the laws of the various States to determine whether there are any limitations in their laws on the hanging of objects from inside rearview mirrors.

I hope you find this information helpful. ENCLOSURE