ID: nht92-5.17

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Josefina McCarty

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation which you made in telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of my staff. Specifically, you asked if there are requirements for seat belts or any other occupant protection requirements, to protect persons who ride in the cargo beds of pick-up trucks. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our occupant protection requirements for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 sets forth occupant crash protection requirements for occupants in vehicles ranging from small cars all the way up to the largest trucks.

In every case, however, the occupant crash protection requirements are directed toward occupants of "designated seating positions." Pickup trucks, for example, are required to be equipped with a seat belt at each and every "designated seating position." The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

There are instances where a vehicle manufacturer installs seats in the cargo bed of a pickup truck. For instance, Subaru once made a pickup it called the "Brat," that had two rearward-facing seats installed in the cargo bed of the truck, just behind the passenger compartment. Since these were actually seats, and their design was such that the position was likely to be used as seating while the vehicle was in motion, Subaru was required to install seat belts and comply with other occupant crash protection requirements at such seating positions.

However, the overwhelming majority of pickup trucks do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed. When there are no seats installed in the cargo bed, there are no designated seating positions in the cargo bed. As noted above, the occupant crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208 apply only to seating positions that are "designated seating positions." Since there are no "designated seating positions" in the cargo bed of pickups that do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed, persons that ride in the cargo bed of those pick-ups would not be protected by any of the occupant crash protection features.

ID: cox.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
President
Monte Carlo Minis Limited Inc.
2011 Pleasant Hill Church Road
Shelby, NC 28152

Dear Mr. Cox:

On August 31, 1998, we received your faxed manufacturer identification information sheet sent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, and your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions.

You informed us that Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc., wants to build "Mk 1 and Mk II Minis." These vehicles "will have all new parts except for the chassis or subframes." You comment that "if we replace the chassis, we know we would have to meet all the DOT and EPA regs." You ask whether you can "retain the old VIN number if we use the pre 1969 donor cars and chassis." You also state that "if we only exported the Minis to Japan I assume we would have to use the new VIN numbers as described in CFR 49."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other agency regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured for export, and which are so labeled between the completion of their manufacture and shipment from the United States. Therefore, the VIN on vehicles intended to export for Japan should conform with the requirements of that country, if any, for VINs, rather than those of 49 CFR Part 565 for vehicles intended for sale in the United States.

You incorrectly assume that retention of the old chassis alone is sufficient to excuse a vehicle from compliance with the FMVSS. The agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS . The agency did not intend the word chassis to be interpreted narrowly but meant the term to indicate an assemblage that retained the original frame and all vehicle components other than the body, including the power train, brake system, suspension, and tires and wheels.

The vehicles you intend to build would have "all new parts except for the chassis or subframes, including "the new [body] shell," "new suspension," and "new engine and transmission," while "the old chassis, sub frame is retained after being sandblasted." In our view, vehicles assembled using equipment as you have described it to us would be new motor vehicles which must comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect as of the date of assembly, and be certified as complying if they are to be sold for use in the United States. Among other things, such vehicles must have a VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Liz Severe
c/o Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc.
ref:571
d.9/29/98

ID: Ellerltr

Ms. Penny Eller
1006 South Road
High Point, NC 27262-7944

Dear Ms. Eller:

This responds to your telephone inquiry asking if a repair business or dealership is obligated to restore an automatic shoulder belt which is no longer functioning to its original condition or if it is permissible for the belt to be repaired so that it operates manually.

As discussed below, Federal law does not require that the automatic belt system be restored to its original condition. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" (49 CFR 571.208). During those model years in which automatic belt systems could be used to comply with Standard No. 208, manufacturers installed automatic belts in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such as an automatic belt, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. However, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that has ceased to function. Therefore, Federal law does not require restoration of a damaged or broken automatic belt in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require restoration of automatic belts to their original condition. You may wish to contact the State of North Carolina to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney about liability concerns, particularly if you sell the car.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA recommends the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash or has otherwise ceased to function. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.6/20/00

ID: 16-2706 (GM load limiters on buses Aug 8)_v2 incorporating circulation comments

ID: 08-006965a Acton

ID: 11857-1.PJA

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your May 6, 1996, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). You asked what position should be used to determine the driver's field of view for purposes of the standard's outside rearview mirror requirements, the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point. Your question arose from an inconsistency that you have identified in our standards. As discussed below, we plan to resolve this inconsistency in rulemaking. In the meantime, we will consider vehicles as being in compliance with the standard's outside rearview mirror requirements if they meet those requirements with the field of view determined at either the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point.

S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111 states that the driver=s side rearview mirror shall provide the required view Awith the seat in the rearmost position.@ (Emphasis added.) That section goes on to state that "the location of the driver's eye reference points shall be those established in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 ('571.104) or a nominal location appropriate for any 95th percentile male driver." As you noted in your letter, Standard No. 104 specifies use of the seating reference point to establish the driver's eye reference points. The seating reference point establishes the "rearmost normal design driving or riding position," and not necessarily the absolute rearmost position. Since the rearmost seating position and the seating reference points may differ, fields of view based on these positions may differ.

As noted by your letter, this inconsistency was created as a result of recent rulemakings amending the definition of seating reference point and Standard No. 104. As a result of those rulemakings, the eye reference points in Standard No. 104 are no longer necessarily determined with the seat in the rearmost position. These rulemakings inadvertently created an inconsistency in Standard No. 111, since that standard retains the reference to rearmost position.

We plan to resolve this inconsistency in rulemaking. In the meantime, we will consider vehicles as being in compliance with the requirements of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111 if they meet the performance requirements of that section with the field of view determined at either the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:111#104 d:6/18/96

The definition of seating reference point was amended by a final rule published on August 12, 1991 (56 FR 38084). Standard No. 104 was amended by a final rule published on March 9, 1993 (58 FR 13021). 2

A:\11857-1.PJA

ID: 1982-2.14

DATE: 05/27/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Mrs. James J. Mitchell Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pleased to learn that you want to install a high-mounted stop lamp on your 1978 Buick LaSabre. The two studies that the Administration funded, one with the Essex Corporation and the other with the Allen Corporation, indicated that rear end collisions could possibly be reduced by 50 percent with the use of a single high-mounted stop lamp. We do not know whether the States of New York or New Jersey will allow the use of these lamps. Our Office of Rulemaking contacted the American Association of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (AAMVA) but the information we received was indefinite, and I would suggest that you contact your local State Police for a definitive answer. The agency has proposed that passenger cars be equipped with this system, and if the proposal is adopted, the lamps would be legal in all States.

As to where to locate these lamps on the car, our research showed that a single lamp, placed on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle and within the back window (either inside or outside) was the most effective position. Our research also included a system of two high-mounted lamps, mounted on either side of the rear window, apparently similar to the one you observed in upstate New York; however, this was not nearly as effective as the single lamp system in reducing rear end collisions.

SINCERELY,

April 2, 1982

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Based on the attached article, which appeared in the June 1981 issue of McCall's Magazine, I sent a check for $ 29.90 to Amerace Brands Division, Hilite, Ace Road, Butler, N.J. 07405 for two Slimsonite Hi Lite brake lights, to fit a 1978 Buick LaSabre sedan.

Would you please tell me which states authorize these lights and where they must be placed on the car -- I am, of course, interested in New York State. The reason I make this inquiry is that when my husband took the lights to our local service station, the mechanic suggested that my husband check with the local police regarding the legality of these lights. We border on the State of New Jersey. My husband learned that we could not affix the lights; that if we did, he would be asked to remove them by the police.

When we traveled upstate New York, I noticed a car with similar lights, affixed in the back window, on either side. I must say that they do indicate when the car ahead is stopping. As a legal secretary, I worked on many accident cases, and I personally feel that a driver should give all the warning he can when he plans to stop.

Thank you for your reply.

Mrs. James J. Mitchell, Jr.

ID: 1983-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/83

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: CHUCK HOWARD -- PRESIDENT SAFETY ALERT CO INC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 06/05/90 ON STD 108 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA; LETTER FROM HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA DATED 04/10/90 ENTITLED REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108 "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MITZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your petition for rulemaking of April 25, 1983, your letter of May 6 withdrawing it, and your letter of May 5 to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking for an interpretation. All this concerns the applicability of Standard No. 108 to your 'Vehicle Deceleration Warning System.'

As we understand it, this system was originally designed to provide a flashing light through the back-up lamp system, in which yellow bulbs were used as substitutes for the white ones required by Standard No. 108. You were informally advised by agency staff that such a system would render the vehicle noncompliant with the requirement that a back-up lamp be white, and that it be steady burning in use.

You asked Mr. Vinson if there were another alternative for flashing red lights that would comply with Standard No. 108, and in your letter of the 6th, whether use of the hazard warning system was acceptable. You also inquired about retrofitting vehicles manufactured before hazard warning signals were required, so that your system would work through the rear turn signals.

In the context of Federal regulations an optional system such as yours is acceptable as original equipment, or equipment added before initial sale of the vehicle, if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In our view, it is permissible to use any rear lighting system Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes. Thus, your system could operate through the rear hazard warning system, or the rear turn signal system (red or amber) as long as the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed.

As an aftermarket device intended for installation on vehicles in use, it must not render inoperative in whole or in part Federally- mandated lighting equipment. Subject to the restrictions noted above, your system would not violate this prohibition were it installed to work through the hazard warning or turn signal systems. However, since your system involves an aspect of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, each State may regulate its use as it sees fit.

Passenger cars built since January 1, 1969, have been required to have hazard warning signal systems. Use of the turn signal system of a vehicle built before that date is not prohibited under Federal regulations but is also a matter to be determined by local law.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

ID: 14635.ztv

Mr. Mark Boykin
J&M Enterprises
1523 Grand Ave.
Spring Valley, CA 91977

Dear Mr. Boykin:

This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1997, telling us of your interest in manufacturing side marker lamps. You ask whether these lights are required to be "DOT approved". You also ask for information on state and local laws.

We are pleased to try to help you. First, the applicable laws do not provide authority for "DOT approval" of vehicles or equipment items. Under these laws, a manufacturer must satisfy itself, through testing for example, that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The manufacturer then must certify its product. No permission or approval by DOT is needed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement side marker lamps, which have been required on all new passenger cars since January 1, 1969. These requirements are those of SAE Standard J592e, July 1972. I enclose a copy for your information.

However, it is not immediately clear that these requirements would apply to you. The color photo you enclosed shows a side marker lamp installed on a contemporary Saab car, just behind the front wheelwell. The Saab also has a yellow lens before the front wheelwell that appears to be part of the front lamp assembly. We take this to be the front side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108. The second lamp which you indicate by an arrow, the lamp you are interested in manufacturing, is a side-mounted turn signal, not a side marker lamp in this photo. On this vehicle, the lamp in question flashes in phase with the required front and rear mounted turn signal lamps. Supplemental lamps, regardless of their purpose, need not meet any Federal specifications.

If you intend to sell the lamp for installation as original or replacement equipment on vehicles, trailers for example, then even this lamp would not have to meet any specifications because side-mounted turn signal lamps are not an item regulated by Standard No. 108. However, other requirements would come into play: the necessity to file a one-page manufacturer identification statement with the agency, and the obligation to notify and remedy in the event that a noncompliance or safety-related defect is found to exist in the lamp.

A state may impose its own requirements for aspects of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, in this case, with SAE Standard J914 Side Turn Signal Lamps. We are not able to advise you on state laws and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in states where you intend to market the device.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/16/97

ID: 15926.drn

Mr. Jacques Schalckens
Auto Leasing Lines, Inc., U.S.A.
2717 Seville Blvd.
Clearwater, FL 34624

Dear Mr. Schalckens:

This responds to your request for information on registering as an agent for service of process for a foreign manufacturer that wishes to import motorcycles and buses. You also wish to know about Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements for the imported vehicles. The information you seek is provided below.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the buses to be imported are designed to seat at least nineteen persons. Your letter requested information on "manufacturer status from D.O.T. under the small Volume Manufacturer program," which you explained refers to low volume manufacturers' exemptions from generally applicable CAFE standards.

NHTSA has established CAFE standards only for passenger cars and light trucks. Since there are no CAFE standards for motorcycles or for buses, manufacturers of motorcycles or buses need not meet CAFE standards.

I will now describe how to register as an agent for service of process for a foreign manufacturer. Prior to the assignment of a DOT identification number, the manufacturer must designate in writing, an agent who is a permanent resident of the United States upon whom all processes, notices, orders, decisions and requirements may be made. This designation and its acceptance must comply with 49 C.F.R. 551.45. The required designation should be mailed to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, and must include, in addition to the information already submitted, the following:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which must be a permanent resident of the United States and may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation;

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent; and

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agent.

The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath the signature.

I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 551.45 and a sample of a properly executed designation of agent for your reference. Also included is information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any questions about the requirements for the appointment of an agent, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sharon Vaughn of my staff at (202) 366-1834.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions on motor vehicle matters other than the appointment of an agent, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571# 531
d.10/30/97