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: nht88-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C. S. ALLEN -- COMMANDER-DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 20, 1988 LETTER FROM ALLEN TO WOOD

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. That standard requires vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions have a starter in terlock. You stated that you believe that a vehicle would not meet the standard if it was also equipped with a starter interlock bypass switch. As discussed below, we agree with your position.

According to your letter, the California Highway Patrol has become aware that a school bus manufacturer "has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, although equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3, are a lso equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch." If the driver uses one hand to operate the bypass switch and the other hand to operate the reg ular starter key-type switch, the bus can be started with the transmission shift lever in a forward or reverse drive position.

You noted that the manufacturer stated its belief that the bypass switch complies with Standard No. 102 since the switch is regarded as "an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts." You stated that it is your position that "t he bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS 102" and that the manufacturer "appears to be interpreting FMVSS 102 as meaning that the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position w ith the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that." Emphasis in original.

Section S3.1.3, which applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, reads as follows:

S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

It is our opinion that a vehicle would not meet this requirement if it can be started, when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position, by means of the regular starter key-type switch and a starter interlock bypass switch. In this instance, the engine starter would not be "inoperative." This opinion is not changed by the fact that the manufacturer may intend the bypass switch as an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. The intention of the ma nufacturer does not change the fact that the engine starter would not be "inoperative," and Standard No. 102 does not provide for any exceptions to this requirement (for covered vehicles).

We are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

ID: nht88-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, 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 SA FETY 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: This responds to your letter concerning the siping of tires. You asked whether "there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires," under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is respond ed to below, to the extent that it concerns regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We note that your letter indicates that you have also discussed this issue with officials of the Federal Highway Administration.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that it s motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

As noted by your letter, the term "siping" should be distinguished from "grooving." You stated that grooving is a "process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release." You stated that siping is "a process of cross c utting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, 1/32" or less, with a fine knife -- either four or five cuts to the inch -- that does not remove rubber."

Section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale, introducting or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States, any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The prohibitions of section 108 (a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. (Section 108(b)(1).)

NHTSA has issued several safety standards for tires. Standard No. 109 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; Standard No. 117 specifies performance and

labeling requirements for retreaded pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; and Standard No. 119 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The siping of new tires (including retreaded tires) is permissible only if that operation does not adversely affect the compliance of the tire with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable. If a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires (including ne w retreaded tires) that have been siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable, the dealer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each tire that did not comply.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in an item of motor vehicle equipment in compli ance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, any persons or businesses within the above categories that perform siping should ensure that the siping does not render inoperative the compliance of tires with applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standards.

You should also be aware that the agency's regulation on regrooved tires (49 CFR Part 569) specifies requirements concerning regrooved tires and regroovable tires which have been siped. See section 569.7(a)(2)(vii) and 569.7(b).

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-4.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C. I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SALES MANAGER, WESBAR CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-11-88, TO ERIKA 2. JONES, FROM C.I. NIELSEN III -- WESBAR, OCC-2789.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1988, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you find unclear the "minimum square inches required of a turn signal lens for a trailer/vehicle, 80" or more in o verall with, using a single compartment lamp assembly".

As you stated, the applicable standard is SAE J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970. This standard does not set minimum area requirements per se for turn signal lenses, but it does specify minimum requirements for "effective projected luminous areas" o f turn signal lamps. With respect to a single compartment turn signal lamp, section 3.2 of J588e requires this area, when measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, to be at least 8 square inches for a rear lamp, and at least 3.5 squar e inches for a front lamp.

As you are probably aware, on September 9 of this year the agency proposed adopting SAE J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032mm or More in Overall Width. Its section 5.3.2 requires "the functional lighted lens area of a single lam p" to be at least 75 square centimeters (12 square inches). The agency is currently reviewing the comments received on the proposal.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht88-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANK J. TRECY -- GENERAL MANAGER - MANUFACTURING MILLER STRUCTURES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/14/88 FROM F. J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC 2811; LETTER DATED 10/04/88 FROM FRANK J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trecy:

I am writing in response to your request for an interpretation of whether Standard No. 115; Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR @ 571.115) would apply to your company's portable commercial use structures. In your letter to me, you stated that Miller Structures, Inc. manufactures offices, storage buildings, classrooms, laboratories, branch banks, medical clinics, and other related commercial buildings on axles. This allows the structures to be transported to the desired location by attaching them to a truck tractor and moving them over the roads. You state that a "considerable" amount of your units go to a location and are placed there permanently. You inform us that other buildings are placed on a location "for varying length s of time" and are then relocated.

In a subsequent television conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my office, you stated that the structures are not self-propelling but must be towed by a semi-trailer or truck. Some of these structures have removable running gears. You also stated that th e structures are constructed very much like mobile homes, and that the structures are intended to go on the public roads at least once, in order to get to their designated sites. You also stated that your structures are not regulated by the U.S. Departm ent of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because they are not homes.

Standard No. 115, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). The term "motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act as follows:

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

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles design ed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use on the public roads is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-ro ad operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact use d on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Based on the information you have provided, it appears that your mobile structures are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 115 or any other of our safety standards. This conclusion is based on our judgment that the vehicles seem analogous to mobile construction equipment -- i.e., the on-road use of the vehicles appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which the vehicles are manufactured. Please no te that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination.

Additionally, you should note that this interpretation applies only to Federal requirements. The individual States may establish their own identification requirements for vehicles that are not subject to the Federal identification requirements, such as your mobile structures. Thus, the State of South Dakota could establish identification requirements applicable to your mobile structures sold in that State.

I hope the information provided is useful. If you need further information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992 or write to me again.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/88

FROM: JAMES A. LUTES -- KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/88 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. LUTES; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 102; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 10/28/88 FROM THOMAS A. COZ TO JIM LUTES RE CALIFORNIA CITATIONS HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS

TEXT: Dear Erika,

Kentucky Manufacturing Company at the request of numerous customers, including North American Van Lines of Fort Wayne, Indiana has been installing high mount stop and turn lights in the rear doors of van-type trailers; the height of these lights is appro ximately 12'-0" above ground level.

The above lights are in addition to the standard stop, tail, and turn lights that are located within the specified dimension range of 15" to 72" above ground level, as specified by F.M.V.S.S. #108.

Our interpertation of F.M.V.S.S. #108 is that all lights that are required by law have a specified location within given dimensions; extra lights may be installed on a trailer in any location as long as the extra lights do not obscure or hinder the ident ification of the lights required by law.

We are attaching a photograph showing the extra stop and turn lights in the rear doors. We are also attaching copies of citations issued to North American Van Lines drivers by California Highway Patrol. Also enclosed is a letter addressed to myself fro m North American Van Lines dated October 28, 1988 and signed by Mr. Thomas A. Coz, Senior Attorney at North American.

As stated on the citations, stop & turn signals mounted higher than 72" above ground are in violation (24603CVC).

We would appreciate very much your interpretation and/or clarification of the above situation.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures

[PHOTOGRAPHS OMITTED]

ID: nht88-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/88

FROM: RICHARD R. LENDER -- PRESIDENT COACHLAND INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY STANDARDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO RICHARD R. LENDER, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Sir:

In June of 1985 we imported some windshields from Mexico for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. These windshields fit only these buses and no others. At that time we conferred with Francis Armstrong of the U.S. Department of Transportation. We were given permission for this import because they were for buses built prior to 1-1-68.

We now have another shipment at the border ready to be imported. The same windshields that were imported in 1985 Since they do not have the DOT stamp but do meet all other regulations and since Mr. Armstrong is no longer with the department Mr. George S hifflett requested that we write to you for an interpretation of the law regarding these windshields. These windshields have the following markings on them:

GET Glass

NOM - 1015 -1

Clas Made in Mexico

I would like to reemphasize that these windshields only fit buses built from 1955 to 1962.

These windshields are now at the border and to prevent a large storage bill your expedite in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Should you have any questions in this regard please do not hesitate to call me collect.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1988

FROM: C. I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT, WESBAR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, D.O.T., NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-30-88, TO C.I. NIELSEN, FROM ERIKA 2. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 108, REDBOOK A33

TEXT: Thank you for your November 3 letter to our A1 Cunningham clarifying the definition of single compartment and multiple compartment lamps. It is most helpful to understand these terms to assure we comply with applicable D.O.T. requirements.

We now write you to please clarify for us the minimum square inches required of a turn signal lens for a trailer/vehicle, 80" or more in overall width, using a single compartment lamp assembly. We believe the answer should lie in J588e, but we find the text not only unclear, but confusing.

Your response on this clarification will be most appreciated.