ID: nht87-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John R. Niemela -- President, Ranger International Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John R. Niemela, President Ranger International Inc. P.O. BOX 311 Peterborough, NH 03458

This responds to your letter asking whether a "Mototractor" you may import into the United States would be considered a motor vehicle. The vehicle looks like a conventional motorcycle, except tractor tires are mounted on wheels that enclose auxiliary fue l storage tanks. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Based on the information provided with, your letter, it appears that your Mototractor would not be a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(31) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, ex cept any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

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

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to a motorcycle and a top speed that would allow it to keep up with the flow of traffic on low speed roads. The se factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you state repeatedly that this vehicle is intended to be used as a two-wheeled tractor, it comes equipped with tires and wheels that are suited to off-road us e, your advertising shows it pulling and powering a number of off-road attachments, and there is no evidence that it has been or will be substantially used on-road in this country. This suggests that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicl e. In past instances where the agency was asked whether a vehicle Has a motor vehicle when it had 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, we have appli ed five factors in offering our advice.

These factors Here:

1. whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The vehicle shown in your brochures does not have lights, mirrors, or a speedometer. we are not aware of any State that would license a vehicle without this equipment for on-road use. Further, the Canadian Tax Court has ruled that the vehicle should be c lassified as a tractor, which presumably means that the vehicle will not be licensed for use on public roads. Hence, this factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

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.

Your brochure shows that one of the functions the Mototractor can perform is "road and trail maintenance." Additionally, your advertising shows an attachment that is described "ATT Transport, On/Off Road" (Part No. 1043301. We generally consider such adv ertising to be evidence that the vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle, since purchasers have reason to believe the vehicle is intended to be used on the public roads.

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

You stated that the Chinese manufacturer will provide a certificate of origin/title document. However, this is not the sort of action to which we were referring. Assuming that neither your company nor the Chinese manufacturer assist purchasers in registe ring Mototractors. for on-road use, this would tend to indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

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

You did not provide any information on U.S. dealers for this vehicle. However, you stated that the foreign dealers of Mototractors are agricultural equipment dealers. Assuming this is also true in the United States, this fact would indicate that the vehi cle is not a motor vehicle.

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

You stated in your letter that a label limiting the vehicle's use will be placed on the Mototractors. Assuming that this label states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads, this would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

At this time and after considering the available information, he believe that the Mototractor does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 23, 1987

FROM: CHARLEY ERICKSON -- PRESIDENT - CHARLEY'S OFF ROAD CENTER, INC.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-24-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO CHARLEY ERICKSON, STD 302

TEXT: Please accept this letter as our request for an interpretation of SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302.

Our company wishes to manufacture a product know as a Bikini sun shade. This product has been on the market for many years by other manufacturers.

We wish to use a material known as "Sunbrella", manufactured by Glen Raven (sample enclosed).

As you can see, the material is non-fire retardent. We don't feel that this particular product would be applicable under S3A of Standard NO. 302.

As you can imagine this product would only be used by the consumer during warm days on vehicles such as Jeeps, Suzuki and Toyota Landcrusiers. Its purpose is to give some shade, but yet allow the vehicle to have an "open" feeling.

Our material comes in many different colors and patterns. We wish to market it under the name of CALIFORNIA STRIPER.

I have enclosed a few pictures to help you understand the products application.

Please respond as soon as possible as spring is just around the corner.

ID: nht87-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Assistant General Counsel Fruehauf Corporation, Law Department 10900 Harper Avenue P.O. Box 238 Detroit, MI 18232

Dear Mr. Bourbeau:

This letter responds to your earlier inquiry where you ask whether NHTSA would object to your Company's changing "its model year designation from September 1 to July 1." I apologize for the delay in responding.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs vehicle manufacturers to place a discrete identifying number (VIN) on each vehicle. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN- Content Requirements, states that a VIN must include a character indi cating the manufacturer's designated model year. Neither Standard 115 nor Part 565 prohibits your company from changing the model year in the manner you-suggest. Therefore, such a change does not violate our-regulations.

We note that this change apparently concerns model year as a marketing concept. The Federal Trade Commission has published guidelines concerning model year as a commercial concept, and you may wish to contact the Commission for whatever assistance it may provide. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590 ATTEN:Ms. Joan Tillman

Dear Ms. Jones & Ms. Tillman:

As indicated in my telephone conversation with Joan Tillman on April 29, 1987, Fruehauf Corporation desires to change its model year designation from September 1 to July 1.

This change means that a trailer manufactured by Fruehauf on or after July 1, 1987 would be considered a 1988 model trailer. Thereafter, each successive model year would begin July 1.

This proposed change would in no way effect the Fruehauf Vehicle Identification Numbering scheme currently used and on file with your office.

Would you please respond, by way of a letter, indicating that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to this change.

Your prompt reply would greatly be appreciated.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Lawrence C. Bourbeau,Jr. Assistant General Counsel

ID: nht87-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: JKJ Chevrolet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert B. Dix, Jr. Fleet Manager JKJ Chevrolet Koons Plaza 2000 Chain Bridge Road Vienna, VA 2218O

Dear Mr. Dix:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning "aftermarket upfittings". You indicate that you intend to bid on Federal, State or County motor vehicle solicitations and it appears that a number of these solicitations contain specification s that would require "after market upfittings". You asked how our regulation would affect those "after market upfittings".

As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards. NHTSA does not have authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to a manufacturer's motor vehicles of motor vehicle equipment. R ather, the Safety Act established a "self-certification" process, in which each manufacturer is responsible before certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

It is not clear from your letter whether "after market upfittings" means that you will be altering motor vehicles while they are still new, i.e., before they have been sold to a consumer for the first time or that you will be making modifications to used vehicles, i.e., ones that have been purchased already. The requirements applicable to the "after market upfittings" vary, depending on whether the alteration is performed before or after the vehicle has been sold to a consumer for the first time.

I will discuss first the requirements that would apply if you modify vehicles that are new. As modified, the vehicles must continue to comply with all applicable standards, since section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any vehicle th at does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, the agency's certification requirements in Part 567 of the Code of Federal Regulations applies to any person who changes 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 weight ratings assigned to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an "alterer" for purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). The person performing the modifications set forth in your letter (installing a bench seat or adding auxiliary springs) would be considered an alterer, because seats and springs are not readily attachable components.

In this situation, 49 CFR 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 name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in SS567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see S567.7(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 notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Safety Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non compliance Reports.

With respect to your first point, i.e., that you believe you should "(o)btain from the company doing the work a certification that the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards," the alterer is required to certify that the altered ne w vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

I am not sure that I understand your second point, i.e., that if a bench seat is installed in a cargo van, the van must have a side door that can be opened from the inside. If you are speaking of an obligation to make some modification to an existing sid e door, the door would be governed by Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention system (See 49 CFR 571.206). S4 of Standard 206 provides that the standard's requirements apply to "any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" and specifies different strength and lock requirements for different types of doors. The addition of a bench seat to what was formerly the cargo compartment would convert that compartment into one subject to S4. The safety standard does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative.

If your second point refers to an obligation to install a side door because you install a bench seat, that is not correct. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not impose an obligation that there be a side door in a van. With all of the precedin g statements, however, you should note that section 108(c) of the Safety Act provides that compliance with our standards does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Accordingly, you may wish to consult with a private attorney regardin g any product liability concerns you may have about the operability of the door.

Your third point is that you believe that you must place "a decal, label, or some form of paperwork in the vehicle indicating the results of the upfitting." If the "after market upfittings" to which you refer are made to a new vehicle, S567.7 requires th e alterer to permanently affix to the vehicle a label setting forth the information specified in that section.

Having discussed the requirements applicable to new vehicles, I now turn to discussing those applicable to used vehicles. If the "after market upfittings" are modifications to used vehicles (in this case, vehicles sold and delivered to a public authority ), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act applies. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, neither your dealership nor any company that is a repair business or manufacturer can alter legally any vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when you receive it (as certified on the mo tor vehicle by the original manufacturer), in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with the applicable safety standards.

If the vehicles in question are used vehicles at the time of their modification, the company performing the modifications is not required to provide a separate certification, as discussed in your points 1 and 3. Since you, as the dealer, may be held resp onsible under section 1081a)(2)(A) for any rendering inoperative by a company acting as your agent, you may wish to get written assurances from the modifier that it has made the modifications in a manner which will not take the vehicle out of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, that matter is left for your dealership and the modifier to resolve.

As an aid to helping you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles, I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I also h ave enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again i f we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 400 - 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Erika:

We have made a management decision to bid on Federal, State and County motor vehicle solicitations. A number of these solicitations contain specifications that require after market upfittings, because the option is not available from production. In an ef fort to assure that we would be complying with existing regulations we contacted the Department of Transportation. We were referred to Jim Birtill and Steve Oesch and discussed the following items: Installing a bench seat in a cargo van, adding auxillary springs to vehicles and after market installations in general. The following is our interpretation of what we were told:

1. Obtain from the company doing the work a certification that

the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards.

2. If installing a bench seat in a vehicle and after complying with item 1 it must have a side door that can be opened from the inside.

3. Place a decal, label or some form of paperwork in the vehicle

indicating the results of the upfitting. Example: Installed a bench seat in a cargo van which changes the certification from truck to a multi-passenger vehicle.

We request that after reviewing our interpretation you inform us if we would be in compliance with existing National Highway Safety Regulations following the above steps.

We would appreciate you recommending any regulations that we should purchase and keep for reference material. Thank you for your assistance concerning this matter and await your response.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Dix, Jr. Fleet Manager

ID: nht87-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ellen A. Lockwood -- Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Guam

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ellen A. Lockwood, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB 238 O'Hara Street Agana, Guam 96910

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1987, to Jim Marquez, the former General Counsel of this Department. You have asked about the applicability to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) of 15 U.S.C. 1381, and 19 C.F.R. 12.80. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., as you have noted, applies to the CNMI through Section 502(a)(2) of the "Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States," and is a "State" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1391. This means that it is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A) to import into the CNMI any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (3), the Departments of Tranportation and Treasury issued joint regulations to enforce the importation prohibition of 1397 (a) (1) (A). As the authority of the Customs Service is limited to the Customs Territory of the United States, these regulations apply only to "States" within this Territory. They do not apply to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the CNMI, "States" that lie without the Customs Territory of the United States. It is our understanding tha t each of these "States" enforces 1397 (a) (1) (A) within its borders through an Executive Order issued by the Governor, designating an appropriate local agency for this task. In the Virgin Islands, for example, the Department of Public Safety will not r egister any vehicle that lacks the label required by 49 C.F.R. Part 567 Certification certifying compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose representative copies of correspondence that the National Highway Traffic Sa fety Administration has had with the Virgin Islands and the CNMI on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

September 24, 1987 Jim J. Marquez General Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Marquez:

I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. We were recently asked by local officials if Title 15, U.S.C. Section 1397, which prohibits the manufacture, sale or delivery into the United States of ve hicles which do not conform to DOT safety standards, applies to the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Northern Mariana Islands, formerly part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, became a Commonwealth in Political Union with the United States on November 3, 1986. The relationship of the United States with the Commonwealth of the Northern Ma riana Islands (CNMI) is defined in the "Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States", (the Covenant), which was approved by Congress in 1976 and placed into effect by Presidential procl amation on November 3, 1986. Article V of the Covenant concerns the applicability of federal laws to the CNMI. Section 502(a)(2) provides that all federal laws, in existence on January 9, 1978, which are applicable to Guam and of general application to t he several states, also apply in the CNMI. This legislation was originally enacted in 1966. Therefore, it was in existence prior to January 9, 1978. The term "state", as it is used in Subchapter I, is defined in Section 1391 to include Guam. Therefore, it appears that the law applies to Guam and is of general application to the several states. Based on this analysis, we have concluded that the law applies both to Guam and the CNMI. J. J. Marquez Sept. 24, 1987 Page 2

In our review of provisions of the C.F.R., however, we note that 19C.F.R. 12.80 prohibits the importation of non-conforming vehicles or equipment into the customs territory of the United States. (emphasis added). Neither Guam nor the CMNI are in the cust oms territory of the United States. Therefore, although the law seems to apply to both, the scope of the law has, it appears, been limited by the C.F.R.

We would very much appreciate your views on the applicability of this law to the CNMI and Guam and whether any enforcement actions are contemplated. This is a very important issue in the CNMI at this time. A prompt response would be greatly appreciated. I can be reached at 671 (country code) 472-7332 or FTS 550-7332. My home number, for your convenience, is 362-4218. We are 14 hours ahead of Washington, D.C. time. Thanks for your help.

Very truly yours,

ELLEN A. LOCKWOOD Assistant U. S. Attorney

ID: nht87-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 30, 1987

FROM: HERBERT E. STOEL

TO: KEN SIKKEMA -- STATE REPRESENTATIVE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-8-90 TO HERBERT E. STOEL FROM

STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO JOHN WOMACK FROM HERBERT E. STOEL; (OCC-4406) TEXT:

SUBJECT Greater safety on our highways is needed. There are too many accidents on our highways today and now with the new 65 M.P.H. speed limit that number could increase, so it is high time that we do something about it. CONFUSION Our present method of Red Taillights and Red Stoplights on our cars is not a good system; for example, our traffic

lights at street intersections do not have two red lights for go and then add one or more to make three red lights for stop. No we have green lights for go, and red lights for stop. But on our cars, taillights and stoplights are all Red. SOLUTION RED should only mean ONE thing, that is STOP.

EXAMPLE When driving down a busy highway (especially at night) and there is a line of cars, all you can see is RED - RED - RED from all the rear lights on cars, and so when an emergency arises and the cars up front apply the brakes and one or two more red brake lights come on there is very little noticeable change for all you see is RED - RED - RED. So there is need for a better system to alert the oncoming drivers of the danger up front. In that way they have more time to brake and avoid collisions, injuries and often death. SOLUTION RED should only mean ONE thing, that is STOP.

SUGGESTION Have the taillights on cars Green and the stoplights, Red - STOP. FINALLY Inasmuch as Michigan is an Auto Industry State, why should we not be the state to introduce a better system to the

car manufacturers of the nation. With the thousands of injuries and deaths each year, why should we wait any longer to make a much needed improvement.

ID: nht87-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1987, with reference to a newly developed lamp bulb "for automotive light-signaling devices." You state that the lamp has a bulb defined in SAE J387 and that its specifications for bulb and base meet those of SAE J573. The candlepower of the new lamp bulb is said to be 40% higher than that of a conventional bulb. You have asked whether you can "use the device with this new lamp bulb" in the United States.

For lamps other than replaceable bulb headlamps Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for photometric performance, and not for bulbs. Therefore, SAE J387 and J573 are not incorporated into Standard No. 108. Any motor vehicle turn signal or hazard warning signal device using Stanley's new high-candlepower bulb photometric specifications of Standard No. 108, and does not exceed any maximum of these specifications.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. are one of the leading manufacturers of Automotive Lamp Bulb in Japan, and would like to use the newly developed lamp bulb for Automotive Light-Signaling devices.

This new lamp is one of the lamp bulb which defined in SAE J387 and the specifications of bulb and base comply with the requirements of SAE J573.

Moreover, the most important characteristic of the new lamp bulb is candlepower. In comparison with the conventional lamp bulb under the same specification, candlepower of the new lamp bulb is approximately 408 higher.

The new lamp bulb is not popular yet in your country, and we are planning to stock them at every relative automobile dealer shop for customers convenience in advance.

We would like to have your advice whether we can use the device with this new lamp bulb in your country, or not.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect.

ID: nht87-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SIDNEY A. GARRETT -- PRESIDENT, BROWN CARGO VAN INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM SIDNEY A. GARRETT TO TAYLOR VINSON, OCC 16580

TEXT: Dear Mr. Garrett:

This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108. You state that you are a manufacturer of truck van bodies. With respect to intermediate si de market lamps and reflectors, you state that you are currently "installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lower rail". You have asked whether you are installing lights and reflectors on the front of each side that are unnecessa ry under current Federal regulations.

The requirements of Standard No. 108 come into effect only when a truck chassis is completed with the addition of the van body. Front side markets and reflectors on a truck must be located as far forward as practicable. This is generally in the front f ender area, and not on the front edge of the van body. Thus, we think you are correct in concluding that the front lights and reflectors you install are unnecessary.

You have also asked "whether compliance with Federal regulations constitutes compliance with the various States' regulations. . . ." As a practical matter, the answer is yes. Under the Act, a State may have its own requirements for the number and locati on of side marker lamps and reflectors but they must be identical to Federal requirements. Once you comply with the Federal requirements for side market lamps and reflectors you cannot be in noncompliance with any State requirement that may differ, beca use the Act prohibits States from having requirements that differ from those of Standard No. 108.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely

ID: nht87-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Kato -- Assistant Vice President, Technical, WC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous (Part 581); 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President, Technical WC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sought my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a july 2 8, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis cou ld be considered a truck chassis Has based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction Has more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.

In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation by have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van into the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.

My previous interpretation Has based on the fact that the mini-van you will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis has based on the facts that the chas sis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 3, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is a letter to confirm your response dated July 28, 1987 (attached II) to our letter seeking an interpretation (attached I) as to whether a new mini van will be classified as a "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" for the purposes of the FMVSS and the bumper standards. Because it seems to me that you may misunderstand our statement, I will illustrate our statement and ask your interpretation again as soon as possible.

The component reinforced for commercial vehicle

o rear suspension changed

o rear floorpan and longitudinal members are changed o GM + 300kg

o the flat cargo floor

o the roof raised for cargo

o the end of the cargo floor, no stepped up cross rail

MMC is going to launch Vehicle 3 in U.S. market as MPV. Vehicle 3 & 1 have been sold in Japan as passenger car and Vehicle 2 as van. MMC is asking that, although Vehicle 3 has been sold as wagon in Japan, Vehicle 3 should be classified to be MPV. Because Vehicle 3 has the same chassis and body

(continued)

construction as Vehicle 2 (Van), and Vehicle 2 is developed to withstand the commercial use criteria changing rear suspension, rear floor pan configuration, longitudinal members, GM and roof configuration, etc. from Vehicle l (Sedan). Therefore, Vehicle 3 is considered to have truck chassis...

NHTSA' s understanding

We presume that you misunderstand our statements as follows after reading your response.

However, Vehicle 2 has the same construction as Vehicle 3 and there is no fact that vehicle 2 is substantially reinforced from Vehicle 3 as mentioned before.

MMC's request

Therefore, could you re-examine our statement and give us your interpretation on Vehicle 3's classification as soon as possible. We do believe that Vehicle 3 should be classified as an MPV because Vehicle 3 has the truck chassis although MMC is responsib le for the proof that this Vehicle 3 has a truck chassis.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 355-5444.

Sincerely yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Hiroshi Kato

HK/xsg Assistant Vice President, Technical Attached: I: MMC Services letter to NHTSA II: NHTSA's response letter

See 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous.

ID: nht87-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Deborah L. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Deborah L. Brown Office Manager Callaway Engineering 3 High Street Old Lyme, CT 06371

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation of your understanding of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as it relates to convertibles. You asked that we verify your understanding in two specific areas. These were:

1. NHTSA has decided to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements set forth in Standard No. 208 for passenger cars during the phase-in period (September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1989).

This statement is correct. In a final rule published October 17, 1986 (51 FR 37028: copy enclosed), the agency announced its decision to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements for passenger cars during the phase-in period. In a sub sequent notice terminating further rulemaking on this subject, the agency announced its decision to retain the automatic restraint requirements for convertibles manufactured on or after the first day after the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September 1, 1989 (52 FR 10122, March 30, 1987; copy enclosed). Thus, convertibles manufactured on or after that date will be subject to the same requirements as all other passenger cars.

You also asked about the exact requirements for restraints in convertibles. Prior to September 1, 1989, convertibles must comply with the requirements of section @4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. However, convertible manufacturers may, at their option, cho ose to certify that convertibles manufactured before September 1, 1989, comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in section @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. After September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 draws no distinction between convertible s and other passenger cars. Section @4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 provides that all passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1, unless section @4.1.1 is rescinded pursuant to @4.1.5.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when determining its annual production during the phase-in period.

This statement is also correct. The October 17, 1986 amended Standard No. 208 and 49 CFR Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting, to explicitly provide that manufacturers may exclude their production of convertibles that do not comply with the a utomatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208 from the calculation and reporting of annual production during the phase-in period.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 6, 1987

Passive Restrains Department of Transportation 400 7th St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject:

Passive Restraints - Verification of Legislation

Re: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 (Docket No 74-14; Notice 47)

Occupant Crash Protection and Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting.

Federal Register/Vol 51, No 201/Friday October 17, 1986. Would you kindly verify the following in writing for our records: 1. NHTSA has decided to adopt a exemption from the automatic restraint requirement for convertibles. The exemption to apply during the phase-in period.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when it is calculating its phase-in requirements.

Also, please include the exact requirements regarding restraints for convertibles, i.e. type of system required ad when the system is required.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah L. Brown Office Manager