ID: nht88-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: SPENCER A. DARBY -- STATE-LITE MFG. CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/19/88 FROM SPENCER A. DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 125; OCC-2166; TELECOPY DATED 08/30/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE 2166

TEXT: Dear Mr. Darby:

This is a response to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). I apoligize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devi ces for vehicles that are 60 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce.

Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that "no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States" any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices.

Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to re gulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway A dministration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices.

Your questions involve the correct interpretation of @5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows:

S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display.

(a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed.

(b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device.

(c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning.

Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle.

Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies t o warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the positioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972.

As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional f igures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the require d information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions.

Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: "The instruc tions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed." This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125.

Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As note d above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/88

FROM: RAYMOND F. BRADY -- RODNEY D. MCGALLIARD

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO RAYMOND F. BRADY, REDBOOK A33, PART 571.3; LETTER DATED 02/14/89 FROM RAYMOND F. BRADY TO NHTSA, REF 2912

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

I would like to obtain your written opinion on the issue of whether a certain seat contained in a limousine constitutes a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Specific ally, I am referring to two rearward-facing passenger seats, separated by a wooden stereo/television console, inserted by O'Gara Coachworks company in a 1985 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham which was extended 46 inches into a limousine. O'Gara Coachworks re ferred to this limousine as its "Moritz" model. I have attached as Exhibit A hereto, a copy of a promotional brochure relating to the Moritz limousine. The two rearward-facing seats at issue are highlighted in yellow.

As you can see from Exhibit A, the rearward-facing seats are freestanding, and by that I mean that the seats have their own bottom and back cushions, the seats are mounted to the floor, and the seats are not attached to, nor do they fold up into, the back of any other seat. Furthermore, the bottom cushions of these seats are not spring-loaded to keep them in a retracted position, although it is possible to raise the bottom cushions manually to some extent. The seats are not labelled in any way to i ndicate that the seats are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. Finally, I would note that the rear passenger compartment of the Moritz limousine has been described by O'Gara Coachworks as having seating capacity for five perso ns.

Please let me know if you need further information in order to make this determination. Otherwise, I look forward to receiving your opinion.

Sincerely,

(PICTURES OF SINGLE SIDE CONSOLE AND CENTER CONSOLE OMITTED)

ID: nht88-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BILL WHITESIDE, SUBCONTRACT MANAGER - HARRIS CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/3/87 letter from Bill Hunt (Telex) to Erica Z. Jones

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as those regulations apply to the certification of certain trailers. Your letter follows an ea rlier request for interpretation from Telex Communications. In the letter from Telex, your company, Harris Corporation, was identified as Company XYZ. Telex's question was whether it or your company had "ultimate responsibility for DOT certification" pu rsuant to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. NHTSA responded to Telex in a letter dated March 1, 1988. Because the information provided in the incoming letter from Telex was somewhat sketchy, and we had to make certain assumptions about whether your company was the end user or intended to resell the trailer, we could not provide a definitive answer to them.

Your letter and a telephone conversation between Larry Little of Harris Corporation and Dorothy Nakama of my staff have given us the following additional information. Your company has a contract with Telex under which Telex is required to deliver traile rs to your company. According to your letter, Telex designs, integrates and/or fabricates all "transport related" features of the trailer, including structure, wheels, axles, brakes, running lights, towing package, and other parts. You state that in yo ur specifications, Telex is "required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations in the design and fabrication of the trailer." After Harris receives a trailer from Telex, other parties in a contractual relationship with Harris permanently mount hard ware, such as generators and radio equipment, onto the trailer. You asserted that this additional equipment does not result in exceeding or modifying the GAWR or GVWR of the trailer, which comes from Telex. After the vendors have mounted the hardware o nto the trailer, Harris delivers the finished trailer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to a Federal contract with that agency.

2

My answers to the questions posed in your letter are based on the above understanding of the facts. I will now address the specific questions posed in your letter.

Questions One and Two: Is Telex the complete vehicle manufacturer of this trailer? What process(es) are proper for certification of the trailer?

Response: Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the trailers delivered to Harris by Telex are "completed vehicles" within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 568.3. That section defines a "completed vehicle" as:

a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting.

The determination of whether a vehicle meets this definition is made at the time it is delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the vehicles delivered to Harris by Telex are trailers which, according to your letter, already have the body structure, whe els, axles, brakes, lights, towing package, and all other components that are necessary for the trailer to be used as is without any further manufacturing operations. Assuming this is the case, these vehicles are completed vehicles because they do not r equire any further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function as trailers. Hence, Telex must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle standards, as specified in 49 CFR @ 567.4. This c ertification should appear on the trailer at the time it is delivered to Harris.

However, Telex is not the only party that must certify that the trailers conform to applicable safety standards. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the parties that permanently mount hardware to these trailers are "alterers," an d must affix their own certifications that the trailers conform to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, after they have mounted the hardware to the trailer.

Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with @ 567.7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with @ 567.4 or @ 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishin g operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, . . .

* * * * *

The parties that permanently mount hardware to the trailers delivered by Telex are altering previously certified vehicles before the first purchase of the trailer in good faith for purposes other than resale.

3

The only conditions in which these alterers would not be required to affix their own certification labels to each trailer on which they permanently mount hardware would be:

1. The hardware consisted of "readily attachable components;" or

2. Permanently mounting this hardware is only a "minor finishing operation."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply to these parties. Equipment of the sort described in your letter (generators, powerful radio antennas, communications equipment, etc.) are not "readily attachable compon ents." Similarly, the operations performed by these parties appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations."

Since the requirements set forth in 49 CFR @ 567.7 appear to apply to these parties, the parties must make the certification specified in that section. To summarize, alterers must allow the certification labels affixed by the original manufacturer (Tele x, in this case) to remain in place and affix their own certification labels in accordance with@567.7. The alterers' certification label must identify the alterer and the month and year in which the alterations were performed, and state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

The information you have provided suggests that your company simply purchases the trailers from Telex and delivers the trailers to the two parties to be altered. Assuming that your company does not itself either manufacture or alter these trailers befor e delivering them to FEMA, your company is not required to make any certification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. However, since the parties that are altering the Telex trailers are doing so under contract to Harris, Harris could, if it chooses to do so, a ssume the certification responsibilities for the parties with whom it has contracted. In that case, Harris would have to affix a certification label in accordance with @ 567.7 that identifies Harris as the alterer of the trailers.

Question Three: If you rule that Telex has certification responsibility for the trailer, do we have any recourse through your office to enforce certification of the trailer?

Assuming that the facts presented in your letter and our understanding of those facts are correct, Telex must certify that the trailers it delivers comply with all applicable safety standards and each party that has mounted hardware inside the trailer mu st certify that the trailer complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. If you believe that you have information showing that some party has failed to comply with its certification responsibilities or any other requirement in our regulations or safety standards, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to our Office of

4

Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address. That office will investigate the matter and take appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht88-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TRACY L. CLARK, JR. -- VICE PRESIDENT - COTTLE INDUSTRIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 LETTER FROM CLARK TO JONES AND COTTLE INDUSTRIES BROCHURE

TEXT: Thank you for your letter in which you requested confirmation of your company's status as an alterer of motor vehicles, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567.7. You stated that your company, Cottle Industries, takes a new Honda moped that is certified as complyin g with all applicable safety standards, removes the plastic body shell and seating components, and adapts the vehicle for the use of wheelchair riders. Now called the Chariot, the modified moped allows the wheelchair bound to gain access to public roads and highways without having to ride in vans. You assert that the Honda front end and drive train components continue to retain their integrity. You enclosed a brochure describing the Chariot.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor V ehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endors e any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on the facts set forth in your letter, it appears that Cottle Industries would be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with $ 567. 7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with @567.4 or @567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in

good faith for purposes other than resale, shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in $ 567.4, containing the following inf ormation: * * * * *

Cottle Industries does alter previously certified vehicles (the Honda mopeds)before the first purchase of the mopeds in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which Cottle would not be required to affix its own certification l abels to each moped that it modifies would be:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply in your company's case. Your company cuts the frame of the Honda moped being modified into two sections and then welds those sections to a new tubular steel frame. This new steel frame for the vehicle is not a "readily attachable component." Similarly, the operations performed by your company on the Honda mopeds appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations." Accordingly, Cottle Industries appear s to be an alterer subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.7. In this case, @567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual na me of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see @567.7(a));(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in @567.4(g) (3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle w eight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see @567.7(b)); and:

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safet y and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act, and alterers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

For the purposes of our safety standards, the Chariot would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." A "motorcycle" is defined at 49 CFR @571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to trave l on not more than three wheels in

contact with the ground." I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which indicates those standards that apply to motorcycles. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that give s a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You also indicated that your company plans to leave in place on the altered vehicles the vehicle identification number (VIN) originally assigned by Honda to the vehicles. Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR @571. 115) applies to all motorcycles. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides in part that: "Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR @567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle." Accordingly, your company as an alter er is required to leave in place the VINs originally assigned by Honda.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: AMIT REIZES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: APRIL 6, 1988 LETTER FROM REIZES TO STEED AND SEPTEMBER 1987 ISSUE OF "CONSUMER INFORMATION"

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed asking this agency to require motor vehicle manufacturers to install air bags in all cars sold in this country. You asserted that such a requirement would both further motor vehicle safety and be cost effective. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify your understanding of our requirements for automatic crash protection.

Former Secretary of Transportation Dole announced a final decision on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. Although you may be familiar with many of the elements of that decision, I believe it would be helpful to review briefly that decision. Th is decision provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as quickly as possible. In the near term, the decision asked the individual States to consider passing mandatory safety belt use laws. We believe that effectively enforced Sta te laws requiring the proper use of safety belts offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and autom atic safety belts, by requiring all new cars to be equipped with automatic occupant protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirement is phased in during the preceding three years. For example, 40 percent of all 1989 mo del year vehicles must be equipped with automatic occupant protection.

To encourage manufacturers to offer a range of automatic restraint technologies, the decision provides extra credit for cars equipped with innovative automatic protection, such as air bags. We hope to see a substantial number of air bags available by th e 1990 model year. The decision also specifies that, if States with two-thirds of the U.S. population enact effective safety belt use laws by early 1989, the requirements for automatic protection will no longer apply. In either event, motorists will be assured of substantially improved crash protection.

To address your special concerns, then, there is a requirement that all 1990 and later model year cars be equipped with automatic occupant protection. However, this requirement does not make air bags mandatory. Instead, manufacturers are permitted to i nstall any automatic occupant restraint technology that meets the occupants protection requirements. Thus, occupants may be protected by automatic safety belts (i.e., belts that require no action on the part of the occupant of be effective), air bags, o ther technologies such as "passive interiors," or any combination of these technologies.

The option for manufacturers to use any of the various forms of automatic restraints was based on the fact that these restraints have been shown to be comparably effective. Based on the currently available information, I believe that consumers who prefe r air bags, such as yourself, will have the opportunity to purchase a wide variety of 1990 model year cars equipped with air bags. Similarly, those consumers that prefer automatic safety belts will have the opportunity to purchase a variety of 1990 model year cars equipped with the type of automatic restraint system they prefer.

Presently, eleven foreign and domestic manufacturers offer driver-side and/or passenger side air bags as standard or optional equipment. By MY 1990, domestic manufacturers plan to increase the installation of air bags on selected lines. For example, by MY 1990, Ford plans to install air bags in one million cars; General Motors in 500,000 cars; and Chrysler in 700,000 to 900,000 cars. In addition, for MY 1989, Chrysler expects to equip 200,000 vehicles with driver-side air bags. Several foreign manufa cturers who do not now offer air bags have plans to do so by 1990.

I also am enclosing a consumer information brochure concerning air bags. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this topic, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht88-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: I. ROBERT EHRLICH -- ENGINEER

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-5-88, FROM I. ROBERT EHRLICH, TO RICHARD STROMBOTNE, OCC-2077

TEXT: This responds to your letter addressed to Dr. Richard Strombotne, concerning side impact protection. You requested copies of our two January 1988 proposals, and stated that you are particularly interested in whether or not the proposed standards would a pply to stretch limousines. According to your letter, these vehicles are frequently covered by light sheet steel to fill in the gap created by lengthening a conventional passenger car. You stated that this leaves a wide, unprotected gap in the center.

Enclosed are copies of the two proposals. Your question concerning whether the proposals would apply to stretch limousines is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, C ertification.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles. A defi nition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR Part 571.3.

The two January 1988 notices propose to amend Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, to upgrade its test procedures and performance requirements. Those amendments, like the current version of Standard No. 214, apply only to passenger cars.

A person who stretches a completed passenger car prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. One issue which sometimes arises when a vehicle is altered is whether it remains the same "type" of vehicle after the alteration, and thus subject to the same standards. We w ould assume ordinarily that the "stretching" of a passenger car would not change the vehicle's classification. Under this assumption, an alterer who stretches a passenger car would be required to certify that the stretched vehicle continues to meet all standards applicable to passenger cars, including Standard No. 214. Thus, in this situation, the proposed amendments would apply to stretch limousines.

I note that it is conceivable that an alterer may be able to demonstrate, depending on the nature of the overall alterations, including alterations other than stretching, that a passenger car which is stretched has changed classification and is considere d a multipurpose passenger vehicle or bus instead of a passenger car. If this were the case, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all standards applicable to the vehicle type for which it is now classified. This would not include Standard No. 214, since, as indicated above, that standard applies only to passenger cars.

A person who stretches a used passenger car is not considered a vehicle alterer and is not required to certify that the modified vehicle continues to meet applicable safety standards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repai r businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with an applicable F ederal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88

FROM: ROBBIE FOLINO-NAZDA -- ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FRITZ COMPANIES, INC.

TO: FRANK E. YOUNG, -- COMMISSIONER FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: ANIMAL WARNING DEVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBBIE FOLINO NAZDA, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 102

TEXT: PRODUCT: Animal Warning Device FUNCTION: Whistle sound warns animals of oncoming car MANUFACTURE NAME: Kiang Niao Traffic Material Co., LTD No. 23, Lane 87, Yung Kang Hsiang, Tainan Hsien, Taiwan, R.O.C. EPA ESTABLISHMENT NO: 60144-TW-1 IMPORTER NAME AND ADDRESS: Menard Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, WI 54703

Enclosed please find samples of animal warning devices. Menard Inc. is proposing to import this product in the future and we are requesting on their behalf, whether there are any restrictions in your agency which would prevent lawful importation of the devices.

Please advise in writing any restrictions or requirements which need to be complied with in order to legally import this product.

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DANA STRAHAN -- CITY OF ORANGE WATER DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: REQUEST FROM STRAHAN TO HITCHCOCK, DATED APRIL 8, 1988

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry earlier this year to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of our Rulemaking Division, in which you asked for information about Federal regulations that apply to the labeling of a vehicle that has been modified to increase its gross veh icle weight rating (GVWR) above that on the original label. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our certification regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-c ertification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

For the purposes of this response, I have assumed that you were concerned about modifying vehicles that are already owned by the City of Orange Water Department. If this is incorrect, and you plan to modify new vehicles before their first sale or your d epartment is in the business of modifying other persons' vehicles, please let me know because different requirements would apply.

Neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Therefore, as a local government agency, the city of Orange, using in-house resources, can perform whatever modi fications it desires to its own vehicles. Similarly, our certification regulation does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle. As a word of caution, however, we suggest that any modific ation made to a vehicle that changes the GVWR assigned by the vehicle's original manufacturer should only be done after the modifier

has made a thorough engineering analysis of the entire vehicle. We would suggest that you contact the original vehicle manufacturer for help in making such an analysis.

You also indicated that you were concerned about potential liability that could arise if no additional label were affixed to show the modified vehicle's new GVWR. As explained above, a person modifying his or her own vehicle after its first purchase wou ld not be subject to any potential liability under Federal law. If you are asking for information about potential liability under the laws of the State of California, this agency does not comment on such potential liability. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of California or a local attorney for an opinion about potential liability under California law.

I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht88-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 28, 1988 LETTER FROM BALL TO JONES

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

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

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

2

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

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

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

ID: nht88-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/88

FROM: HOWARD WOLPE -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: JAMES BURNLEY -- SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED TO HOWARD WOLPE, REDBOOK A33, SECTION 103(D), FMVSS 222; HSPG 17; LETTER DATED 12/12/88 FROM DENNIS D. FURR TO HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS

TEXT: Dear Secretary Burnley:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Dennis Furr.

Your consideration of his questions and concerns would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE