ID: nht68-1.21

DATE: 04/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 19, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, requesting a clarification of paragraphs S3.4.4 and S3.4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In your letter you listed possible brake combinations as follows:

1. A vacuum over dual hydraulic brake system and a hand operated mechanical brake are provided.

2. A full air brake system and a hand operated mechanical brake are provided.

3. A full air brake system with a spring loaded emergency stopping system which is actuated at a pre-determined low air pressure level and a hand operated mechanical brake are provided.

In accordance with the interpretation issued February 27, 1967 (32 F.R. 3390, copy enclosed), on "emergency brakes," the supplementary brake systems included in the above brake combinations are not emergency brakes. Therefore, paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamp be actuated upon application of these supplementary brakes.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht79-2.35

DATE: 09/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo, Director Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your August 27, 1979, letter asking how the agency tests a floor joint for compliance with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You enclosed a sketch and sample floor joint with your letter and asked in which direction the forces would be applied for test purposes. You suggested that the forces be applied in a perpendicular direction to the floor.

The floor joint that you manufacture is welded in three locations. One weld is located on top of the floor surface and joins the two panels together. The agency concludes that this joint should be tested by applying force in a direction that is parallel to the floor surface, not perpendicular to it. This is the procedure that is specified in section S6 of the standard for testing joints that are constructed in a manner similar to the floor joint in your vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Roger Tilton

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain an interpretation of the testing procedure that will be used to check the underbody joints shown in proposal number 2.

It is our interpretation of FMVSS 221 that both joints, floor panel to crossmember and floor panel to floor panel, would be tested in the direction of the arrows shown on the enclosed proposal.

An early reply will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo, Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosure

ID: nht81-2.12

DATE: 04/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Auto Meter Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 3 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Rolan 'Jeep' Worthan National Sales Manager Auto Meter Products, Inc. 413 W. Elm Street Sycamore, IL 60178

Dear Mr. Worthan:

This responds to your letter of January 12, 1981, regarding the applicability section of Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You asked whether this standard applies to the speedometers you build, which are produced in low volume and primarily for manufacturers of show automobiles, off-road use vehicles and professional race cars. You interpret section S3 of the standard to apply only to "original equipment manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors or those who manufacture speedometers for them."

Your interpretation is not quite correct. As you note in your letter, the application section (S3) of Standard No. 127 states that:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses, and to speedometers and odometers for use in vehicles to which this standard applies...

"Passenger car" is defined in S 571.3 of 49 CFR Part 571 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.

Thus, the word "passenger car" in Standard No. 127 encompasses more than those vehicles mass-produced by Ford, General Motors and Chrysler that we traditionally view as passenger cars. Any motor vehicle that (1) has motive power, (2) is designed to carry 10 persons or less (including the driver), and (3) that is not a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), motorcycle, or trailer is a "passenger car."

Therefore, a professional racing car would be considered a "passenger car" if it is a "motor vehicle." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) defines "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.

A motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to be used on the public highways part of the time or has reason to expect will be so used. Vehicles intended and used solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles. Thus, a professional race car or show car that was built and is used solely for off-road purposes is not considered to be a motor vehicle under the Act. Vehicles which use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are classified as motor vehicles. However, in Koehring Co. v. Adams, 452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wisc. 1978), aff'd., 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that mobile construction equipment that is used on the highways in such fashion does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle. The agency construes the opinion to apply only to the specific equipment at issue in Koehring Co., i.e., mobile cranes, mobile excavators, and mobile well drills.

Thus, the vehicles that you supply with speedometers may be considered "passenger cars" as the term is used in Safety Standard No. 127. We cannot make a definite determination on the basis of the information you have provided (you state that you supply speedometers primarily for off-road vehicles). However, the guidelines set forth above should enable you to reach your own decision. You should contact this office if you have questions about a specific vehicle. If the vehicles for which you are manufacturing speedometers are considered "passenger cars," Standard No. 127 would apply. However, since the speedometer provisions of this standard became effective on September 1, 1979, only speedometers (both original equipment and replacement) manufactured for passenger cars built on or after that date would have to comply. The speed indicator scale on such a speedometer would have to be limited to 85 mph. The Act does not give this agency the power to grant manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment exemptions from applicable safety standards on the grounds of low volume.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 12, 1981 Office of the Chief Counsel NOA-30 N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Auto Meter Products Inc. is an aftermarket manufacturer of specialty and hi-performance instruments. Among the instruments that we manufacture and for which I am concerned at this time, are speedometers. We have become aware of recent regulations limiting standard speedometers to 85 MPH maximum and are interested in your confirmation of our interpretation of this regulation.

On page 40593 in Standard No. 127 of the Federal Register volume 45, covering speedometers and odometers, the application of this regulation, (S-3) states, "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses, and to speedometers and odometers for use in vehicles to which this standard applies." In reading over regulation 127, I interpret the standard to be referring to original equipment manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors or those who manufacture speedometers for them. That these standard OEM speedometers are limited to go no higher than 85 MPH.

Since Auto Meter Products Inc. speedomters are produced in low volume and are used primarily in show automobiles, off road use, professional race cars etc. rather than street applications, it is our uderstanding that the 85 MPH limit of the standard No. 127 does not apply. Please advise.

Sincerely,

Rolan 'Jeep' Worthan National Sales Manager

RJW/ap cc: B. Owens

ID: nht87-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: J. C. Glasgow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. C. Glasgow 777 Royal Palm Drive Kissimmee, FL 32743

Dear Mr. Glasgow:

This responds to your November 10, 1986 letter seeking information concerning federal regulations and standards for custom made automotive and van bodies.

Your letter indicates that you plan to design and make fiberglass automobile and van bodies for sale to the public. Although there are no specific safety regulations concerning fiberglass bodies, you should be aware of the federal regulation; and standar ds that may apply to your business.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et. seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicle; and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification "process under which each manufacturer is re sponsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

If there is a safety-related direct or noncompliance, you would be obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subj ect to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. That penalty is separate from and in addition to the one for the noncompliance itself. (A general information sheet describing the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

It is unclear from your letter whether you plan to alter finished automobiles and vans or whether you plan to perform manufacturing operations on incomplete vehicles. If it is your plan to alter finished vehicles, then you would be considered an "alterer " and subject to the requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

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 the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no lon ger valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all app licable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and also stating the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Further, you must make sure that any conversions you make to certified vehicles do not harm the vehicles' safety features. Under S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowi ngly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Commercial businesses tha t violate this section are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.

If you are performing manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 568.3 so that it becomes a completed vehicle, then, you must meet the requirements in Part 563, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages . Under Part 568.3, if you are a "final-stage manufacturer" you would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner so that it conforms to all applicable safety standards. Also, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with th e certification requirements set forth in Part 567.5, Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Your letter does not indicate the nature of the work that you expect to do on the vehicles. Therefore, this agency cannot adequately identify which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 C.F.R. 571 will apply. I suggest tha t you examine the safety standards to decide how each could apply to your fiberglass design for automotive and van bodies. You should make special note of the following safety standards which may apply toward your design. Safety Standard No. 107, Reflect ing Surfaces; Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials: Safety Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components; Safety Standard No. 214, Side door strength; Safety Standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance-passenger cars; Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion. You should be aware that additional federal safety standards may apply.

If you have any questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact this office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. JC Glasgow 777 Royal Palm Drive Kissimmee, FL 32743

November 10, 1986

Dept. of Transportation Washington D.C.

Re: Regulations and Standards for the Performance of Auto and Van Bodies.

Subject: Custom Made Auto and Van Bodies for sale to the general public.

I am currently designing a fiberglass auto van body foe sale to the public. I need to know what federal regulations govern fiberglass auto and van bodies for public safety. When one of my vehicle bodies is in an accident I want to have followed existing federal regulations so that I cannot be sued for not doing so. Please rush. Thank you.

Sincerely,

JC Glasgow

ID: nht91-6.18

DATE: October 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gordon W. Didier -- Butzel Long

TITLE: Re ASC, Inc. - Petition for Low Volume Exemption from Average Fuel Economy Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-25-91 from Gordon W. Didier to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

In a letter dated September 25, 1991, you indicated that General Motors Corporation has agreed to accept the transfer from ASC, Inc. to General Motors of responsibility under the CAFE law for model year 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles, provided that NHTSA does not object to this transfer of CAFE responsibility. You enclosed a copy of a letter from General Motors confirming this agreement. You indicated that ASC and General Motors are communicating directly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to arrange for the EPA to amend its data base and include ASC's production in the calculations for General Motors for model years 1989 and 1990. You requested written confirmation that NHTSA does not have any objection to this arrangement, in order that you can provide EPA with a copy.

This letter is to confirm that NHTSA does not have any objection to General Motors taking CAFE responsibility for the model year 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles. The reasons underlying this opinion are set forth in the July 29, 1991, Federal Register notice (56 FR 35834) denying ASC's petition for a low volume exemption for these vehicles. In particular, the vehicles have two manufacturers, GM and ASC, and since 49 CFR Part 529 does not cover the manufacturing arrangements of GM/ASC, the manufacturers can, under a past NHTSA interpretation, determine by agreement which of them will count a vehicle as its own.

ID: nht72-6.17

DATE: 03/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: CaraVan Custom Conversions

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1972, in which you request information on how to comply with the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You state that your company converts vans into campers and other specialized uses, that some of your work is minor in nature, such as installing paneling, floors, or windows, and vents, and ask how to determine when you have developed a "model" for reporting purposes under the regulations.

The Defect Reports regulations apply to "manufacturers." As a general rule, a person who converts an already complete vehicle will be considered a manufacturer of the converted vehicle if he modifies it in such a way that the vehicle's structure or function is affected, to a significant extent. For example, a person who takes a basic van-type truck and makes extensive interior modifications to provide eating, sleeping, and bathroom facilities -- producing what might be called a motor home, although nomenclature is not determinative -- would be considered a manufacturer by the NHTSA. By contrast, a person who only added a window or some paneling at a customer's request would not be so considered. We recognize that a precise and universal line between these two polar examples is difficult to draw. For purposes of compliance with Part 573, we will accept a reasonable judgment on your part as to where the line should be drawn in your case.

Since your work is done a custom basis, you may consider the "make" and "model" language of the regulation as inapplicable to your production.

ID: nht76-3.18

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning your previous suggestion for an amendment to the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. Your July 18, 1975, letter suggested that brake hose end fittings attached by means of a dimensional interference fit be considered, along with those attached by heat shrinking, to be permanently attached for purposes of the standard. Please forgive our oversight regarding that letter. We have identified it as a petition for rulemaking and now find it to have merit. Accordingly, the petition is granted and a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

January 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74

A reply to our letter dated July 18, 1975 concerning the above subject has not yet been received. A copy of this original request for standard amendment is enclosed for your review.

Response at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: HYUNDAI.CRS

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Government Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in response to your letter of September 9, 1996, to Coleman Sachs of my staff, concerning an error in the certification labels placed on certain 1997 Hyundai Tiburons. As described in your letter, these labels contain a misspelling of the word "passenger," which appears as "passbnger" in the vehicle type classification that was inserted on the label under the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7). You state that Hyundai implemented a running change to current production after it discovered this error, but that the company has no plans to institute a recall or other campaign to correct the error on vehicles already produced. The company has requested our comments if we do not agree with its decision in this matter.

Because the nature of the misspelling could cause no confusion with respect to the vehicle's classification, we agree that Hyundai is not obliged to correct the labels on vehicles already produced.

If you have any further questions concerning vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:568

d:9/25/96

ID: nht88-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/88

FROM: RICHARD R. LENDER -- PRESIDENT COACHLAND INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY STANDARDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO RICHARD R. LENDER, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Sir:

In June of 1985 we imported some windshields from Mexico for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. These windshields fit only these buses and no others. At that time we conferred with Francis Armstrong of the U.S. Department of Transportation. We were given permission for this import because they were for buses built prior to 1-1-68.

We now have another shipment at the border ready to be imported. The same windshields that were imported in 1985 Since they do not have the DOT stamp but do meet all other regulations and since Mr. Armstrong is no longer with the department Mr. George S hifflett requested that we write to you for an interpretation of the law regarding these windshields. These windshields have the following markings on them:

GET Glass

NOM - 1015 -1

Clas Made in Mexico

I would like to reemphasize that these windshields only fit buses built from 1955 to 1962.

These windshields are now at the border and to prevent a large storage bill your expedite in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Should you have any questions in this regard please do not hesitate to call me collect.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht68-3.15

DATE: 05/15/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Hadden, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes Benz of America, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your telegram of May 3, 1968, concerning the use of tabular-type bulbs to back the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S3.1 and Tables I and III of Standard No. 108, as amended (32 F.D. 13933, December 10, 1967), specify that certain lamp assemblies such as license plate lamps, backup lamps and tail lamps, shall conform to the basic SAE Standards for the lamp assemblies. These basic standards in turn refer to SAE Standard 7573 on bulbs and to SAE Standard 3567 on bulb sockets. This relationship between the basically referenced standards and subreferenced standards has been the subject of prior communications with the industry and appears to be in need of clarification.

The basically referenced SAE Standards also refer to SAE Standard J575, "Test for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components." Paragraph "C" of SAE Standard J575 states in part as follows: "Where special bulbs are specified, they should be submitted with the devices and the same or similar bulbs used in the tests and operated at their rated mean epherical candlepower." This provision of SAE Standard J575 permits the use of special bulbs, including tubular-type bulbs, which do not conform to the detailed requirements of Table I of SAE Standard J573. It also follows that the sockets for these special bulbs need not conform to SAE Standard J567. I must emphasize, however, that these provisions for special bulbs in no way except the lamp assemblies from testing all performance requirements specified in Standard No. 108, including those specified in the basically referenced SAE Standards and in subreferences SAE Standard J575.

In view of the several inquiries we have resolved on this particular(Illegible Word) of the requirements of Standard No. 108, we anticipate that an official interpretation, providing the clarification presented in this letter, will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

Thank you for your continued interest in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.