ID: nht81-3.35

DATE: 11/10/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Taiyo Trading USA Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1981, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a manually operated door opener that you are considering importing. The door opener is designed for passenger cars and taxis and allows the driver to open the rear door by shifting a lever located by the driver's side.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering manually operated door openers. However, installation of such a device may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. If any standard would be affected, it would probably be Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of that standard, which includes performance requirements for a vehicle's latch and striker assembly, door hinges, and door locks. However, based on the limited drawings included with your letter, it is not possible for us to determine whether a vehicle's compliance with that standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 206 to make that determination.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. You may also wish to check with state and local authorities to determine whether the use of your device is affected by their regulations.

ENC.

June 17, 1981

Chief Council DOT-NHTSA

Dear sir:

We wish to import the enclosed diagramed zerox copied manually operated door opener from Japan to the United States markets.

The door opener is installed on the driver's side. The door opener is independently installed and is not operated by a motor, hydraulic units, nor attached to the engine of the car. All operation is operated and controlled manually. It is highly recommended for passenger cars and taxis, where the driver does not have to get out of the cars each time to open the door.

Before proceeding with the importation of the item to the United States, we are anxious to gather and learn all the regulations and involvements, we may face. We will gladly submit a sample, for your inspection.

We certainly will appreciate it very much, if you will forward us all the necessary application forms and informations.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration you have afforded us. We will be looking forward to your early response.

T. FUMIMA, PRESIDENT TAIYO TRADING USA INC.

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht91-7.26

DATE: December 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Matthew J. Plache -- Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 10-17-91 from Matthew J. Plache to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6577)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an opinion of whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)), if it were to sell Daihatsu HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications contained in a recent Request for Bid issued by the City of Los Angeles. According to your letter, HIJETS are general purpose off-road utility vehicles that are not intended for use on the public roads, streets or highways and, as such, do not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The City of Los Angeles Request for Bid, among other things, specifically required vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and required the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that it would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. A Request for Bid containing provisions similar to those set forth by the City of Los Angeles would indicate that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

By way of background information, the issue of whether vehicles such as HIJETs are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act was addressed by NHTSA in an October 31, 1988 interpretation letter addressed to Mr. Hiroshi Kato of Mitsubishi. That letter addressed the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight industrial truck, which we understand, and you state, is very similar to the Daihatsu HIJET. At that time, Mitsubishi was considering whether to import the SH27.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as "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." The agency has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. NHTSA has also concluded that vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary

and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that the vehicle was not easily classified under these groupings. On the one hand, it has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can obtain a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph, and could be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries. These factors suggested that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, Mitsubishi stated that the vehicle was intended to be used only for off-road applications, that it would be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only, and that it would contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggested that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

Based on the representations in Mitsubishi's letter, NHTSA concluded that the SH27 did not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. In addition to the other factors noted above which suggested that the SH27 should not be considered a motor vehicle, Mitsubishi had stated that its dealers would be instructed that the vehicle was to be used solely for off-road purposes-and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. NHTSA stated, however, that it would reexamine its conclusion if it learned,

for example, that the vehicle was in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

With this background information in mind, I will now address your question whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act, if it were to sell HIJET vehicles in Accordance with City of Los Angeles bid specifications that require vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and require the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them. Section 108(a)(1)(A) reads as follows:

No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 . . . .

It is our opinion that it would be a violation of this section for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle (which does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards) to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. The reason for this is that the only possible argument that a HIJET vehicle is not a motor vehicle is that it is intended solely for off-road use. The knowing sale to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would nullify this possible argument. Moreover, a Request for Bid containing provisions requiring vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them demonstrates that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

Further, such action by Daihatsu or its dealers would demonstrate that HIJETs should be considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act and subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I note that NHTSA's October 31, 1988 opinion that the similar Mitsubishi SH27 would not be considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act was premised on certain representations by Mitsubishi. The knowing sale of such a vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would be inconsistent with the representation that the vehicle was intended solely for off-road use. I also note that the provision in the City of Los Angeles Request for Bid requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicle and obtain license plates for them is inconsistent with one of the specific understandings set forth in that opinion.

You stated that Daihatsu is concerned about this matter because it has recently received a number of similar solicitations for HIJET-like vehicles which could be interpreted as solicitations for on-road vehicles. You stated that because of its concerns about potential violations of Federal law, Daihatsu has refrained from submitting a bid in accordance with the City of Los Angeles request. You also expressed concern that

other suppliers of similar vehicles apparently do not share Daihatsu's concern and indicated that the Los Angeles contract was recently awarded to a supplier of the Mitsubishi SH27. Please be advised that we are referring your allegations to our Office of Enforcement to determine whether there has been a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act.

With respect to Daihatsu, I note that the receipt of a number of such solicitations may suggest a general perception that the HIJET is appropriate for on-road use. NHTSA has determined that a vehicle is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding appropriate use. Thus, if Daihatsu wishes to continue to classify the HIJET as a non-motor-vehicle, it should ensure that its customers do not plan to use them for on-road use.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 86-5.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinz Huentemann

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Heinz Huentemann Vice-President Spartan Transit Supply Corp. 325 Fairlane Drive Spartanburg, SC 29302

Dear Mr. Huentemann:

This responds to your letter dated June 17, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a convex outside mirror manufactured by your company. In your letter, you state that this convex mirror has a reflective surface of 92.5 square inches, and would be used on the curb side of a transit bus. You also state that this convex mirror has a radius of curvature of 94.5 inches. You specifically asked whether this mirror could be used on the curb side of a transit bus.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, a copy of which is enclosed, sets different requirements for buses depending on whether the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is above 10,000 pounds. I believe that the GVWR of a transit bus would exceed 10,000 pounds.

Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet S7.1, which requires buses, other than school buses, to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 square inches of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. These mirrors must also be located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. Although the surface, due to the 94.5-inch radius of curvature, it is not a unit magnification or plane mirror. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for rearview mirrors on new buses.

A manufacturer of new transit buses could use your convex mirror on the curb side of the bus in addition to a unit magnification mirror which ? all applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. However, a commercial business could not substitute your mirror for a complying mirror. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety ? prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business could not remove a unit magnification rearview mirror, installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard, and replace that mirror with a convex mirror.

The sample of your rearview mirror, #STS-0-253, is being returned to you under separate cover.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Legal Council - NHPSA - NHTSA Room 5219 US-Department of Transportation 407th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Re: Authorization for use of convex outside mirrors with convexity of approximately 94.5" radius for installation on curb side of 130 Transit Buses for SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA

We are supplying the inside- and outside mirrors for a number of 130 AD8? Transit Buses to be built by Neoplan USA Corporation, Lamar, CO for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transport Authority, Philadelphia, PA.

On the curb side, these buses will be equipped with a mirror 14 x 6.6" having a mirror surface of 92.5 sq. inch. The convexity is abt.94.5" in mirror radius.

With this petition we enclose a sample of this mirror, #STS-0.253, and which we please may ask you to return to us after inspection.

Having contacted by phone the National Highway Safety Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Harrisburg, PA, we have been advised, that in accordance with FMVSS 1011 and 49 CFR Standard 111 a convex mirror on the curb side can have a convexity between 35" minimum to 65" maximum. Since our mirror has convexity of 94.5" radius it is meeting the required standard.

As this matter is of urgency, may we please, ask to have your written authorization at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Spartan Transit Supply Corp.

Heinz Huentemann Vice-President

Encl. - 1 Sample mirror - # STS - 0.253

ID: nht80-2.18

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stewart-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. W. Strauss Stewart-Warner Corporation Washington Offices 425 - 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Mr. Strauss:

This responds to your letter of January 24, 1980, which requested approval of an odometer design developed by Stewart-Warner in order to comply with section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. Based on our understanding of the information that you have supplied, it appears that Stewart-Warner's design, which incorporates either a seventh wheel or a sixth wheel (for odometers which do not register tenths of a mile) printed with a series of the numeral 1 to indicate that the vehicle has traveled in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers, would comply with section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127.

Section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127 requires that each odometer other than a motorcycle odometer:

"clearly indicate to the vehicle driver by a sixth wheel or digit registering whole miles or kilometers or by a permanent means such as inking, when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers, as appropriate, has exceeded either at the manufacturer's option 89,999 or 99,999."

Stewart-Warner's design, as described in your letter, would register whole miles or kilometers from 100,000 to 199,999. Once the vehicle in which the odometer was installed had traveled 200,000 miles or kilometers, or more, the additional wheel on the Stewart-Warner design would no longer register whole miles or kilometers but it would indicate that the vehicle mileage had exceeded 99,999. Thus, the Stewart- Warner design, as we understand it, would apparently comply with section 4.2.3's requirement that each odometer indicate that such mileage has been exceeded.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and the model that you provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on any vehicle design or design for vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment in accordance with that determination.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have pot been greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 24, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street, S. W., Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request approval of the design approach of the Stewart-Warner Corporation to comply with Section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127--Speedometers and Odometers.

The design approach represents the outgrowth of a 100,000-mile odometer concept originally presented on December 12, 1979, to NHTSA personnel by representatives of Stewart-Warner. At the time of this meeting, our approach to satisfying the requirements of the standard to have odometers indicate when they have exceeded 99,999 whole miles or kilometers was to add a sixth pinion gear to the assembly. This pinion gear was to have two-thirds of its circumference coated with a fire orange fluorescent color, thereby serving as an indication to the operator that the mileage on the vehicle was in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers. It was to be installed in such a way that an area of approximately .125 x .375 inches would be visible on the left hand side of the odometer when the vehicle would be operating between 100,000 and 299,000 miles or kilometers.

The aforementioned approach to meeting the FMVSS 127 requirements was discarded when the NHTSA personnel indicated some doubt as to whether this approach would clearly indicate to the operator when the vehicle had exceeded 99,999 miles or kilometers. After some discussion of other approaches to resolving this problem, it was agreed by all parties that the digit "1" must appear on the left hand side of the odometer if it was to clearly indicate having reached the 100,000 mile or kilometer distance.

Based on the above, the Stewart-Warner design has been changed to incorporate a seventh odometer wheel, or a sixth wheel if the odometer does not register tenths of a mile, printed with a series of number "1" on the outside periphery of the wheel. Thus, the odometer will indicate an excess of 100,000 miles or kilometers after the vehicle has traveled over 99,999 miles or kilometers.

Your prompt approval of the aforementioned design approach as a means of meeting the requirements of Section 4.2.3 of FMVSS 127 will be appreciated. A prototype mechanism equipped with a 100,000-mile odometer assembly is available for your inspection if it will assist in your review of this request.

Yours sincerely,

R. W. Strauss

RWS/jp

ID: 2843o

Mr. M. Iwase
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure l" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on motorcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure l a chamber containing a tail/stop lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure l, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with separate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section '1' which are specified in Figure 11b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section '2' which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11."

Figure lb specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sections used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 3/16/88

ID: 2861o

Mr. Charley Erickson
Charley's Off Road Center, Inc.
14190 E. Firestone Blvd.
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Dear Mr. Erickson:

This responds to your letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the "bikini sun shade," an accessory you wish to sell for both new and used open-body type passenger vehicles. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302 and the bikini shade may be sold to vehicle owners for their installation in their own vehicles without regard to the product's conformance with the standard. However, as explained below, Federal law places limits on the installation of the bikini shade by some commercial businesses.

Standard No. 302 establishes flammability requirements that must be met by new motor vehicles. The requirements apply to particular components within these vehicles, including shades. However, the requirements of the standard apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. They do not apply to shades manufactured for aftermarket sale and installation in a a vehicle after its first purchase. It would not violate Standard No. 302 for you to sell aftermarket bikini sun shades that do not comply with the standard.

However, the installation of the shades by certain parties other than vehicle owners could violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (copy enclosed) specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. That element of design would be rendered inoperative in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed a bikini sun shade in a new vehicle and thereby caused that vehicle to fail to comply with Standard No. 302. There would also be a rendering inoperative when one of these parties installed the shade in a used vehicle if the shade would have caused the vehicle, when new, to fail to comply with the standard. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

You should be aware also of an additional aspect of the Act. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that the bikini shade had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you as the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either repair the shade so that the defect is removed, or replace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

To summarize, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to vehicle equipment such as the bikini sun shade, depending on the identity of the person installing the shade in new and used motor vehicles. If the shade does not afford at least as good a level of flammability resistance as that specified by Standard No. 302, the shade cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Shades that do not meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. However, NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles. To repeat, you as the shade manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:302 d:6/24/88

ID: 86-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Terry W. Wagar

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau Division of Vehicle Safety Services Department of Motor Vehicles State of New York Albany, NY 12228 Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1985, with reference to the "Pulse" and "Litestar" motor vehicles. You have asked several questions regarding the registration category and highway safety records of these vehicles. I hope the following information will be helpful.

There are no Federal categories for vehicle registration. Each State is free to define vehicles as it wishes for registration purposes. The State definition need not conform to the Federal categorization assigned for purposes of the safety standards. However, regardless of how a State defines a vehicle, under the preemption clause of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)) a State may not require compliance of that vehicle with a State standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of conformance. Such a State standard must be identical with the Federal one. For example, a State could require a horn as a prerequisite to registration since there is no corresponding Federal requirement, but it could not require a motorcycle to be equipped with two headlamps, since Federal Standard No. 108 allows a manufacturer a choice of one or two headlamps.

With reference to the Litestar and Pulse vehicles, we understand that both vehicles have small outrigger wheels, which support the vehicles at rest. For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motorcycle" is a motor vehicle that is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. If the outrigger wheels are used only to provide stabilization in turns while the vehicle is in motion, then we would view the vehicle as a "motorcycle' since it is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. However, if this type of vehicle is designed to travel on all four wheels, or capable of it according to outrigger adjustment, the vehicle would not be a motorcycle, but would be a "passenger car" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (See definition of "motorcycle" at 49 CFR Sec. 571.3(b)). We have not formally investigated these vehicles for compliance, nor do we have any information regarding their highway safety records.

You also asked whether the "Litestar" had been brought to our attention previously, The answer is yes, James Bede, the apparent originator of this type of vehicle, brought one to the headquarters of the Department some years ago and obtained our informal concurrence that it could be classified as a "motorcycle."

I hope that this is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 27, 1985

Ms. Erika C. Jones Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The subject of my inquiry is a vehicle recognized by the trade names "Pulse" or "Litestar". Our concerns are:

1. How to register; Motorcycle or Motor Vehicle?

2. What if any are the highway safety records of this vehicle?

3. What is the opinion of the NHTSA regarding registration category and compliance with federal safety standards?

I understand that the "Litestar" has been brought to the attention of the Chief Council in the past. Is this correct?

I have enclosed some information on both the "Pulse" and "Litestar" for your reference.

Thank you for any assistance you may give us.

Sincerely, Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau

TWW:nl Encs.

ID: 7535

Ms. Becky Plank
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
909 East Skagway Avenue
Tampa, FL 33604

Dear Ms. Plank:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that your association consists of dealers that modify vehicles for the disabled, and that one modification that they perform is lowering a floor on a full size van. You noted that wheelchair drivers sit higher than other drivers and that this modification is made to provide them a clear view through the windshield. According to your letter, a problem has arisen in making this modification in certain new Ford vans because their fuel tank is larger and mounted mid-ship. You stated, however, that upon realizing this situation, Ford designed an aftermarket fuel system that it believes complies with Standard No. 301. Noting that the OEM fuel fill line needs to be changed, along with the mounting brackets, as well as other fuel lines, you asked whether this lowered system must be crash tested due to the original system being changed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and 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-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Assuming they are done prior to the first consumer purchase, the operations your members anticipate conducting to lower a Ford van's floor would make these companies alterers, and the operations would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 301.

An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to a Standard like Standard No. 301 that specifies dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may also be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body builder's guide."

In the situation at hand, if one of your members made the modifications recommended by Ford (the original vehicle manufacturer), then that member could base its certification of continuing compliance on Ford's representations that the van, with the modified fuel system, would comply with the applicable standards. If one of your members made modifications that differ from those recommended by Ford, then that member would need to base its certification of continuing compliance on some other facts that lead it to conclude that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with the standard.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301 d:9/l5/92

ID: nht92-4.3

DATE: September 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Becky Plank -- Executive Director, National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/26/92 from Becky Plant to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7535)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that your association consists of dealers that modify vehicles for the disabled, and that one modification that they perform is lowering a floor on a full size van. You noted that wheelchair drivers sit higher than other drivers and that this modification is made to provide them a clear view through the windshield. According to your letter, a problem has arisen in making this modification in certain new Ford vans because their fuel tank is larger and mounted mid-ship. You stated, however, that upon realizing this situation, Ford designed an aftermarket fuel system that it believes complies with Standard No. 301. Noting that the OEM fuel fill line needs to be changed, along with the mounting brackets, as well as other fuel lines, you asked whether this lowered system must be crash tested due to the original system being changed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and 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-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Assuming they are done prior to the first consumer purchase, the operations your members anticipate conducting to lower a Ford van's floor would make these companies alterers, and the operations would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 301.

An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to a Standard like Standard No. 301 that specifies dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may also be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body builder's guide."

In the situation at hand, if one of your members made the modifications recommended by Ford (the original vehicle manufacturer), then that member could base its certification of continuing compliance on Ford's representations that the van, with the modified fuel system, would comply with the applicable standards. If one of your members made modifications that differ from those recommended by Ford, then that member would need to base its certification of continuing compliance on some other facts that lead it to conclude that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with the standard.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John K. Liu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John K. Liu President, John K. Liu Enterprises, Inc. Box 544 Valley Forge, PA 19481

Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter concerning planned modifications to a used Class 8 truck/tractor. I regret the delay in this response. The answers to your questions are provided below.

It should be noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufactu rer to ensure that it complies with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

1. If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49:

By way of background information, new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. One such standard is Safety St andard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles satisfy the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Also, if a vehicle is modified prior to first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

A person who modifies a used vehicle is not required to attach a certification label. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly renderi ng inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its G VWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 121. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of July 20, 1977, to the Truck Body and Equipment Association in which the agency discu sses in more detail how section 108(a)(2)(A) applies to the installation of additional axles in a used vehicle.

2. Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings:

Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification label to their vehicles. The label is required to specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ra ting for each axle. See S 567.4(g). In addition, Safety Standard Ho. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that specifications concerning tire and rim selection be placed on either the certification label or a separate tire information label. See S S5.3.2.

As indicated above, persons who alter certified vehicles prior to first sale are required to certify that their vehicles, as altered, conform to all applicable safety standards. Such alterers are required by Part 567 to leave the original certification l abel on the vehicle and add an additional label. See S 567.7. If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values mus t be specified. See 567.7(b).

Persons who modify used vehicles are not required to attach a certification label. However, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Sa fety Standard No. 120. We encourage you to supplement the original certification label and/or tire information label by an additional label to reflect changes in gross vehicle weight rating, axle ratings, and tire and rim specifications, to avoid confusi on on the part of vehicle users.

3. Do we have to adopt a new VIN (vehicle identification number)?

The answer to this question is no. Safety Standard No. 115 requires that manufacturers of new motor vehicles provide vehicle identification numbers. The vehicle identification number is not affected by the subsequent modification of the vehicle.

4. Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle:

NHTSA does not have any regulations requiring sellers of used vehicles to inform buyers about axle modifications.

Our answers to your questions cover the Federal regulations and laws administered by NHTSA. I have also enclosed a general information sheet which provides additional information concerning our regulations.

You should be aware that by adding an axle you are considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act and subject to its provisions concerning safety-related defects. Under the Act, manufacturers must notify purchasers of safety-related defects and r emedy such defects without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed your plans and noted that in some instances the addition of an axle to a vehicle could constitute a safety-related defect, by making the vehicle unsafe for anticipated usage. You should ca refully analyze this issue for the vehicle in question. Among other things, you should consider whether, as modified, the overall vehicle structure, including the truck's frame, will be able to adequately accommodate the load distribution resulting from the additional axle and/or the higher GVWR, throughout the truck's anticipated length of service.

You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Standards concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your planned modifications. Also, with respect to Question 4, you may wish to contact the Federal Tra de Commission concerning whether it has any applicable regulations. Finally, a local attorney can advise you concerning the state law implications of your plans.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dec. 10,1986 NHTSA Rm 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Att: Ms Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

Dear Ms Jones,

Please render an opinion in the following matter:

1) If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49?

2) Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings?

3) Do we have to adopt a new VIN(Vehicle identification number )?

4) Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle?

You may call us if you wish, since we would like your response as soon as feasible.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance. I remain

Sincerely yours,

John K. Liu. President JKL/sh