ID: nht76-2.50

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gillig Brothers School Bus Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for information concerning methods of ensuring the compliance of school buses with the barrier crash test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

Standard No. 301-75, while establishing minimum performance levels, does not specify any particular design requirements for school bus fuel systems. A manufacturer is free to design his vehicles in the manner that he believes most appropriate to ensure compliance. To this end, you may find helpful information in a study by Dynamic Science entitled School Bus Safety Improvement Program. The NHTSA cannot assure you, however, that following the suggestions contained in the study will guarantee that your school buses will comply with the standard.

The study is filed in the NHTSA's public docket as document number 75-03-GR1. Copies may be obtained by writing to:

Technical Reference Branch National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5108 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

You should refer to the following publication numbers: HS 801-615, -616, and -617.

ID: nht94-4.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1994

FROM: G. Brandt Taylor -- President, Day-Night Mirrors, Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Code of Federal Regulation Title 49 Section 571.111 Chapter V Standard 111: Rear-view Mirror Paragraph S11. Mirror Construction

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO G. BRANDT TAYLOR (A43; STD. 111)

TEXT: We at Day-Night Mirrors have developed a rear-view mirror that changes reflectivity. Please see figure A. We have a question in regard to the above referenced regulation. Our mirror is a mechanical device that is operated by rotating a shaft. For rem ote actuation an electric motor and worn gear assembly could be used. The regulation requires that electrically actuated mirrors have means to override the electrical actuator in the event of an electric malfunction. Ours could be manually overriden wi th a knob as in figure B. Could this override be removable? Figure C. In particular could the override actuator be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owners manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the even t of some electrical failure? Would this removable mechanical actuator be acceptable for west coast mirrors on trailer trucks?

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht88-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: M. IWASE -- TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. - KOITO MFG. CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March 16, 1988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for mo torcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement."

In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in you r letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply w ith Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 21, 1984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail.

Enclosure

ID: 9808

Mr. Gerald J. Gannon
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
N Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Gannon:

This responds to your letter asking whether NHTSA intended, in a recent final rule, "to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a 'park' provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device?" You stated that the final rule might be interpreted to produce that result, but argued, based on the preamble, that a more limited result was intended. You suggested that a clarifying amendment would be appropriate. We apologize for the delay in our response.

After reviewing your letter, we have concluded that the issue you raise should be addressed in rulemaking. We anticipate that a notice addressing this issue will be issued shortly.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#114 d:9/16/94

ID: 21896.ztv

Mr. Daryl R. Nelson
Fleet Golf and Industrial Vehicles, Inc.
2534 North Blackstone, Suite 100
Fresno, CA 93703





Dear Mr. Nelson:





This is in reply to your letter of July 13, 2000, asking for an interpretation that small utility trucks and vans you wish to import from Korea are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. These are the "Fleet Cargo Plus" for "cargo or people," the "Fleet Traveler," described as a "7 person people mover," and the "Fleet Porter," a small pickup with cargo bed.

You enclosed a copy of our letter of January 25, 1999, to Metro Motors in which we gave our opinion that small vans and trucks manufactured in Korea by Asia Motors were not "motor vehicles" subject to our regulations. You represented that "these are the exact same vehicle models . . . and they are manufactured by the same Korean company who provided the units that Metro Motors applied for." Your vehicles differ only in "having the addition of a low speed gear ratio in the rear end."

In our letter to Metro, we presented the five factors we use to answer the question of whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" and applied them to the facts as Metro had stated them. You have repeated these factors together with the facts appropriate to your situation. These are:

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

You stated that "we advertise these vehicles as off-road vehicles and void the warrant if the vehicle is used other than as intended to be used . . . ." This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

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

You addressed this factor by stating that "these vehicles will not be sold by any 'car dealers,' as we do not want to imply any association to on-road use.. It is also clearly stated on the instrument lens, owners book, sales literature, and on the rear body that this vehicle is for off-road usage." These remarks are more appropriate for inclusion under the first factor. Although you do not specifically say that your company will not assist vehicle purchasers in registering the vehicles for on-road use, we believe that it is implicit in your remarks that the company will not do so. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

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

You replied that "we are definitely not going to sell our vehicles through car dealers . . . ." Your intent is to provide usage "on any surface where golf carts go (golf cart paths, schools and hall ways, construction sites, etc.)." Although your state, California, permits golf carts to be used on the public roads under certain conditions, these are exceptions to the primary usage of golf carts which is on golf courses. While construction sites and schools may have roadways, these are generally not roads used by the general public. This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

4.   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.

You have informed us that the vehicles you wish to import will have a 2-inch by 7-inch yellow label on the rear headed "WARNING" and which states that "This vehicle is for off road use only! The use of this vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet DOT regulations for on-road usage. It is illegal for use as a licensable vehicle!" This factor would indicate that the vehicles are not motor vehicles.

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

Your state that you have no knowledge whether these vehicles are or are not registered for on-road use elsewhere. For purposes of this interpretation, we assume that they are, and that they are operated there without the 25 mph-speed governor that you will install on the ones that it imports. Since the vehicles closely resemble small trucks and vans used on the public roads, we believe it is likely that states would permit them to be registered for highway use. Therefore, this factor suggests that the vehicles should be considered motor vehicles.

Based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.8/11/00

ID: nht70-2.43

DATE: 12/24/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Peugeot Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1970 in which you asked whether it would be permissible to add the words "and Canadian" to your certification label.

With reference to a telephone conversation between you and Mr. Dyson of this office, I understand that the Canadian authorities will accept the certification statement that we presently require as long as the expression "U.S." does not appear on the label. Since use of the "U.S." is optional with the manufacturer under 49 CFR @ 367.4(g)(3), this appears to solve your problem in this regard.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht79-3.20

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to Mr. Eckhold's letter of September 28, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for our concurrence in Ford's wish to sell 60 1978 model Ford Fiestas on the American market.

According to Mr. Eckhold's letter 56 of the cars did not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time they entered the United States for use by Ford in testing and training programs. Ford represents that all these have now been brought into compliance. The four remaining Fiestas conformed at the time of entry but presumably, because of the execution of the HS-7 importation form, were not certified.

We concur with Ford's opinion that all conforming vehicles may now be sold in the United States. However, since such sales are to first purchasers for purposes other than resale, a certification label must be attached to each that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.

ID: nht73-5.42

DATE: 11/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 2, 1973, to Mr. James Hofferberth of my staff, inquiring if a particular safety belt system which is illustrated in your enclosures meets the criteria for a passive restraint system.

The interpretation of a passive restraint system published in the Federal Register on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296) was:

"The concept of an occupant protection system that requires 'no action by vehicle occupants' as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle."

With respect to your belt system, a requirement for placing the belt in the storage holder when leaving the car would be considered "action" and not permitted under the above interpretation of a passive system. However, if the belt system could be entered and exited with essentially no action, in the event the storage holder was not used, automatically releasing "convenience" holder would not compromise the belt's qualification as a passive system.

SINCERELY,

Jim Hofferberth NHTSA

9/2/73

Dear Mr Hofferberth.

This is in ref. to our tel. conversation of last week re passive restraint system. The picture are self explanatory, and show the sequence of locking and unlocking. Would you please let me know if this meets the standard or if any changes are needed.

Very truly yours Kurt Meier

ID: 16666-3.ztv

Mr. Peter Stroosma
Small Business Development Center
Skagit Valley College
2405 East College Way
Mount Vernon, WA 98273-5899

Dear Mr. Stroosma:

This is in reply to your fax of December 10, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office re "VW Beetle Restoration/Regulations." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You write that your client Stephen Callero "is considering [sending] the chassis of an original Beetle to Mexico where it will be equipped with a new body and an engine (that is really a new engine but billed out as a used engine)." You ask whether this would create "a new vehicle," and, if so, what modifications "would qualify the vehicle to be registered under its original model year?"

This is a complicated area. We have addressed a similar issue in a letter of July 28, 1997, to Miguel Padres. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. I note that your client's plan differs in that a new engine would be installed as well as a new body. In our view, this would result in the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that would have to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be admitted into the United States. Furthermore, as a condition of its importation into this country, the vehicle would have to be certified by its Mexican assembler as conforming to the Federal standards.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263) will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:591
d.5/22/98

ID: 21899.ztv

Mr. Noburu Fujii
Director, Technical Affairs
Nissan North America, Inc.
Government Affairs Office
196 Van Buren Street, Suite 450
Herndon, VA 20170-5337





Dear Mr. Fujii:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 2000, with respect to "whether a sliding door system for use in a passenger motor vehicle meets certain requirements of FMVSS 108." Specifically, you ask "whether the potential obstruction of the rear sidemarker lamp, rear side reflex reflector, and rearward signals/markers when the sliding door is fully opened would violate any provisions of FMVSS 108." You have referred to our letter of April 8, 1998, to Pat Riebalkin, informing him that "compliance is judged with a motor vehicle in its normal operating configuration (e.g., doors and decklid closed.)"

We are pleased to inform you that the Riebalkin interpretation applies to Nissan as well. The lighting equipment in question will not be obstructed when the Nissan vehicle is in its normal on-road operating configuration (e.g., sliding door closed.) There is no need to provide auxiliary lighting equipment under FMVSS 108. However, this interpretation does not apply in Canada. We believe that Canada has a different interpretation, and recommend that Nissan consult Transport Canada for its views.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/19/01