ID: aiam0107

>>>Your Ref: Direz. O.O. gb<<< Gentlemen: This is in response to your letter of August 8 with reference t compliance of the Maserati automobile with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; You have asked first of all whether, as a manufacturer of 620 vehicle in 1967, Maserati may be excused from compliance with some of the Federal standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which Federal standards are issued, was recently amended to authorize a procedure whereby manufacturers of limited production vehicles might petition for exemption from the Federal standards. But this procedure is not available to a manufacturer of more than 500 vehicles a year, no matter how few vehicles of that manufacturer are exported to the United States. Consequently Maserati cannot be exempted from any of the Federal standards.; You have also mentioned the difficulties that a small manufacturer fac in crash-testing vehicles, and have asked whether the photographs you submitted showing several Maserati automobiles which have been involved in front end collisions are acceptable as proof of compliance with Federal standard No. 204 (Steering Control Rear-ward Displacement - Passenger Cars). I hope the following explanation will be of assistance to you. The Federal standards do not require crash-testing of vehicles, nor the submission of any data to the Federal Highway Administration for 'approval'. What is required is that a manufacturer attach a certification plate to his vehicle stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal standards on the date of the vehicle's manufacture. How the manufacturer satisfies himself that the vehicle conforms in his own affair, he may have non-crash data or other information which indicates conformance. The Federal Highway Administration, however, may request this data if through its own investigation it appears that a certification is false or misleading, and that a vehicle does not actually conform to a standard.; I enclose a copy of the latest Federal standards for your guidance. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

ID: aiam3394

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981, asking whethe the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions) *Sealed Beam Headlam Assembly* is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of the standard as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Paragraph 5.2 of J580 states that, 'When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens.'; The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584 *Motorcycle Headlamps*. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles. We therefore view the prohibition of J580 as applicable to use of any sealed beam headlamp, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is installed.; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation o additional equipment 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required' by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.; The agency therefore has concluded that no motorcycle headlamp may hav a glass shield in front of it when in use.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2585

Dear Mr. Elliott: This responds to your April 1, 1977, question whether your company' wheel mounted portable air compressors qualify as motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et. seq*.).; The answer to your question is yes. Section 102(3) of the Act define motor vehicle as:; >>>any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects wil use the public highways as part of its intended function. Vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. Since your portable air compressors are used in this manner they qualify as motor vehicles. For purposes of regulating motor vehicles, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established vehicle catagories (sic) within that class. Your portable air compressors meet the definition of one of those catagories (sic), trailers.; The following safety standards are applicable to the manufacture o trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, and Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (in the case of trailers equipped with air brakes), and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; You will have to certify the compliance of your trailers to thes safety standards. Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment that are regulated by our safety standards. Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567, (sic) specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3063

Dear Mr. Riccardo: This responds to your letter about Chrysler's general need for relie from Federal regulations and the denial of its petition for a one-year exemption from the automatic restraint requirements for Chrysler 1982-model full- size cars. There are several statements by Chrysler regarding the petition denial that you wish placed in the public record. Accordingly, your letter has been placed in the public docket on occupant crash protection (74-14, General Reference).; This agency is fully appreciative of the significance of Chrysler' circumstances and needs. Where relief can be considered consistent with the spirit and provisions of the laws we administer, we will do so. This willingness was amply demonstrated by my recent action in reducing the 1981 fuel economy standard for light trucks. Chrysler's automatic restraint petition presented us with a substantially different situation. Under our statutory authority, the only way we could have exempted Chrysler's large-size 1982 model from compliance with the automatic restraint requirements would have been to classify that vehicle as a unique type of car under our existing authority. Clearly, such a classification would have been challenged in court, and we believe it would not have been sustained. Indeed, such an action would severely strain our credibility with the court which just recently reviewed that very issued. (sic); Regarding your statements about the safety issues associated with th denial, the agency agrees that some safety belt reminder systems can be effective in encouraging belt use. We do not believe, however, that most simple warning systems can equal the life-saving potential of automatic restraints. Further, the NHTSA has no authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require ignition interlock systems, which are probably the most effective systems for encouraging use of manual belts.; In this particular matter, the law precludes us from granting th relief you seek. I regret that we are unable to assist you under these circumstances.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: aiam2650

Dear Mr. Sapp: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether a deale who assembles a 'kit-car' on a chassis would be considered a manufacturer of a motor vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards.; Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381) as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment....' Therefore, a dealer who assembles 'kit-cars' would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of the Act since he is assembling motor vehicles. However, if the chassis on which the kit-car is assembled is from another used vehicle, the completed kit-car vehicle would be considered used and its assembler would not be considered a manufacturer under the Act.; The Act prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction int interstate commerce of any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle the dealer assembles is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.; Part 567.4(g)(1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides th producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.; For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2631

Dear Mr. Shimoguchi: This responds to your April 30, 1977, comments concerning Standard No 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Your comments question the advisability of requiring the rim size designation to be stated in the order of diameter by width. This designation would be the reverse of existing Japanese and European practices.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examine this issue in its response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 120 (42 FR 7140). The agency determined that the rim size designation should be expressed on the label in the manner proposed in the standard (diameter by width) to avoid confusion with the tire size designation which is measured in terms of width by diameter. Since publication of our response to petitions for reconsideration (which included your petition), we have received no information presenting new reasons to alter the chosen format. Therefore, the NHTSA will continue to implement the standard as published in the February 7 Notice.; In a second question, you ask whether the NHTSA requires that th information specified in S5.2 of the standard be listed in any particular order. Although the agency has not specified the order in which the information required in S5.2 should be listed, the NHTSA expects that for purposes of clarity the information in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would be grouped together as would the information in paragraphs (d) and (e).; Finally, you note that the symbol 'JIS' must be marked on the rim i accordance with requirements od the Japanese Industrial Standard while NHTSA requires only the letter 'J.' For purposes of uniformity the agency will continue to require the letter 'J' even though this may result in the double marking situation to which you refer.; I trust that this responds fully to your comments. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3051

Dear Mr. Hiribarren: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the tw vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) define motor-driven cycle (moped) as 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.; The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, woul not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.; All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.; The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has ha serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2729

Dear General Richardson: This is in response to your letter of December 12, 1977, concerning th preemption of State bumper standards by the Federal bumper standard (49 CFR Part 581, *Bumper Standard*).; Section 110 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub L. 92-513) states that, until a Federal bumper standard takes effect, State bumper standards which were either in effect or promulgated prior to the effective date of the Act, shall be permitted to remain in force. Once the Federal bumper standard (Part 581) becomes effective, however, all State bumper standards applicable to the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard will be preempted.; Currently, the mandatory date for implementation of Part 581 i September 1, 1978. However, on June 20, 1977, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a Federal Register notice (42 FR 31162) giving manufacturers the discretion to begin meeting the provisions of Part 581 prior to September 1, 1978. Once a manufacturer makes a decision to meet Part 581, it no longer has a responsibility to meet the currently effective bumper requirements of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*. For such a manufacturer Part 581 would have taken effect and it would be obliged to meet the performance level the standard prescribes.; For purposes of preemption, once a manufacturer elects to meet th requirements of Part 581, that standard is in effect as to that manufacturer, and any State bumper standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as Part 581 is preempted as it applies to the vehicles he manufacturers.; Part 581 would not, however, be considered effective as to vehicle which continue to meet only the requirements of Standard 215. State bumper standards, thus, would not be preempted for purposes of application to those vehicles. Of course, all State bumper standards applicable to the same aspect of performance as Part 581 will be totally preempted after September 1, 1978, since at that time Part 581 becomes effective for all passenger cars.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 12582.mls

Mr. Michael C. Horan
833 Hawks Hollow
Delafield, WI 53018

Dear Mr. Horan:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether there were Federal safety laws in 1968 or 1969 pertinent to side-mounted exhaust systems known as "heat shields" on passenger cars. You state that a Wisconsin State trooper ticketed you for not having the original-equipment heat shield.

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to regulate the safety of newly manufactured motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, it has never issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard or other regulation applicable to heat shields. Thus, Federal regulations neither require nor prohibit them.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:mis

d.11/21/96

ID: 11526DRN

Michael A. Tonelli, Esq.
Barr, Murman, Tonelli, Herzfeld & Rubin
First of America Plaza
201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 901
Tampa, FL 33672-0118

Dear Mr. Tonelli:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Gauthier, formerly of this agency, asking whether multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) must meet Federal standards for passenger cars. We have addressed this question in a December 26, 1995 letter to Jane Thorntorn Mastrucci, Esq. A copy of our letter to Ms. Mastrucci is enclosed.

You also asked for the current "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards [FMVSSs] regarding student transportation" and a copy of the current Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17 "Pupil Transportation Safety." Due to the volume of the material, we are unable to provide copies of the school bus FMVSSs. However, they are readily available at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571. For your reference, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes ways to obtain the material. Enclosed is a copy of Guideline No. 17, which is set forth at 23 CFR '1204.4.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:vsa#571.3 d:3/4/96