ID: nht91-3.6

DATE: April 1, 1991

FROM: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A37; VSA Sec. 108(2); Part 591); Also attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

In reviewing our correspondence, we note that we apparently have not yet received a response to our December 14, 1990 request for a temporary exemption for the EVSA prototype electric minibus. Although the circumstances have changed somewhat since our letter, we would still appreciate your consideration of whether this exemption could be granted. I am attaching a copy of the letter for your convenience.

Please let us know if you need further information.

ID: aiam2281

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, an April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of school bus' as they become effective in October 1976.; Your interpretation is correct that bus passenger compartment' as use in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield.; You request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standar No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately.; You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2. of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that school bus passenger seat' as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller- Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222.; In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold fo purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of school bus' that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. S1391(14).; In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement o S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum contact area' on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The contact area' refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2521

Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, *Certification* and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (S 567.4(g)(4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire- ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle . . . shall be equippe with tires that meet specified requirements ' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that (sic) necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1376

Dear Senator Percy: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwardin to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup trucks and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.; The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation o campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed on the truck cargo area. A companion 'Consumer Information' regulation, 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.; Other NHTSA regulation (49 CFR Part 567, 'Certification') require ever motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers to be incorrectly rate vehicles, and thus be in noncompliance with the regulations, we have not found this practice to occur in the case of pickup trucks.; There are also Federal requirements requiring motor vehicle tires t carry a load rating. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires and has been in effect since January 1, 1968. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 applies to tires for all other types of motor vehicles (trucks, trailers, buses, motorcycles, and multipurpose passeng r(sic) vehicles) and will become effective September 1, 1974. This agency has conducted a study of the overloading of tires on recreational vehicles, and information regarding this study as well as copies of the safety requirements referred to above are enclosed.; We did not receive Mr. Motyka's earlier letter to us. As his question are of a general nature we have provided him with general answers. If his questions involved a particular problem we would be happy to provide further assistance.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2817

Dear Mr. Sornson: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugof requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.; With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understandin that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.; As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SA Standard J585d, *Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two- compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.; Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess o three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that 'it appears logical that the allowable candle-power for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.'; Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments o lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1516

Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0471

Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you mad several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.; >>>1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keepin regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.; 2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information o the certification label be placed 'in the order shown.' We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.; 3. You requested 'an interpretation that a multi-column label or label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567,' because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.; 4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to us up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.<<<; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator

ID: aiam3925

Dear Mr. Richard: This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safet standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by a 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials,* (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films o other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in *new* vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.; After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter thei vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.; If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair busines installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. I you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1515

Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5178

Dear Mr. Ruegg: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import 'car parts' into the United States, and would like to know 'the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations'. You assume that 'a part such as fender or other body parts do not.' You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as 'chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction. The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country. As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a 'motor vehicle'. An assemblage becomes an 'incomplete motor vehicle' subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of 'frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3).' As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a 'motor vehicle' and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS. Your letter informs us that ' t hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle.' When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS. If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;