ID: nht88-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan Rt. 1, Box 3 Jackson, NC 27845

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1987, to this agency asking for Information on Federal safety and pollution requirements for kit cars.

We are unable to advise you on emission control regulations, and you should address this inquiry to the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

You have given us, as an example of the type of vehicle you would manufacture for resale, "a '76 year drivetrain on a modified or not original frame/chassis" and asked whether it will have to meet 1976 model or new model standards. You have also asked wh ether you can relocate the engine and transmission, and whether it is would have an effect upon the standards you must meet.

New model Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles built upon the chassis of a vehicle previously in use. However, under certain circumstances the 1976 safety standards could apply. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if a manufacturer re moves a body from a chassis and installs a new one, he must ensure that the resulting vehicle continues to comply with the Federal safety standards with which the vehicle originally complied. A "Manufacturer" is defined in part as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles. This definition would seem to encompass your planned activities. Accordingly, if you removed the 1976 body from its chassis, there is no restriction against your relocation of the engine or transmission, but upon installation o f a new body you are required to ensure that the new vehicle meets 1976 Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

On the other hand, if you purchase the chassis after the body has been removed by another person, there would be no Federal safety standards applicable to it upon installation of the body. However, the vehicle would have to meet State standards necessary for its registration and operation.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald P. Green

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/14/94 From Donald Green To U.S. Department Of Transportation (OCC-9679)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether there is a State or Federal regulation prohibiting the use of passenger radial tires on recreational "pull type" trailers. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you were told by various tire dealers that radial tires should not be used on trailers because the soft sidewalls of radial tires could cause an uncontrollable swaying that could result in a serious accident. You then state that while t owing a trailer mounted with four radial tires, you were caught in a crosswind which caused the trailer to jackknife, resulting in a serious accident.

To begin, I am sorry to hear about your accident but am thankful that no one was hurt. The tire safety standards and regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require tires to be able to safely carry the load on a vehicle and to be labeled with important safety information, such as tire size, construction, and inflation pressure. There is nothing in our standards or regulations that prohibits the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers. In fact, Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars," expressly permits the use of passenger car tires on vehicles like trailers, provided that adjustment is made to the tire's load-carrying capacity .

NHTSA also issues consumer advisories to alert consumers to certain practices that should be avoided, such as mixing radial and non-radial tires. However, we have never issued a consumer advisory on the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers, and we are not aware of any widespread hazard due to the use of such tires on trailers.

2

Your State could have requirements for the use of tires on trailers. We suggest that you check with the California Highway Patrol for information on that issue.

We regret we are unable to be more helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: Charles T. Thomas -- Prestige Travel

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-3-90 to Charles T. Thomas from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591) TEXT:

In September, 1988, I returned to the United States after working in Saudi Arabia for a period of approximately twelve (12) years. While in Saudi Arabia and during November 1987, I purchased a 1985 Jaguar from a Saudi national with the intent to ship th e car to the United States for my own personal use when I decided to return to the United States.

When I was preparing to return, I was advised by the American Consulate in Dhahran that I would not be able to ship the car to the States because of the EPA pollution restrictions and because there were no agencies approved by the EPA to convert the car to U.S. pollution safeguard standards. As I did not want to give up the car, I shipped it to Germany to have it held until I could arrange to have it shipped to the States. On arrival in the United States in September 1988, I contacted the EPA and was t old that there were no agencies approved to convert the car. The car is still in Germany.

During March 1990, I was told that the EPA had changed their requirements that required mandatory conversion of imported vehicles if certain conditions were met regarding the purchase of the vehicle. I applied for a waiver for having to have the car con verted to EPA standards and my application was approved.

When preparing to have the car shipped, I was informed that the DOT has set forth certain requirements for importing cars. I have received a copy of DECLARATION OMB 2127-0002 and, under Section 10 of the Declaration, I find that my "assigned place of em ployment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, 1988 and the Custom entry date listed". This is the only condition I cannot meet and I request a formal waiver of this requirement for my circumstance.

I need my car for my own personal use and I cannot afford to purchase a car at this time. Also, I am a professional engineer and have spent approximately 30 years of my career in resident in foreign countries. I have already made arrangements to have m y car converted to DOT safety standards at my expense. I feel that a consideration to waiver the above requirement is warranted.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your prompt decision regarding my request.

ID: nht76-5.36

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: VETTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to inform you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will, for a limited time, refrain from enforcing one portion of 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations.

Subpart B of Part 575 specifies certain items of consumer information that apply to motor vehicles and their tires. Section 575.6 in Subpart A requires this information to be delivered to first purchasers (paragraphs (a) and (b)), made available to prospective purchasers (paragraph (c)) and submitted to the NHTSA (paragraph (d)). In particular, @ 575.6(d) requires that:

Each manufacturer of motor vehicles . . . shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Part B of this part that is applicable to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before that information is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

I understand that the strike by the United Rubber Workers has, by cutting off the supply of new tires, created an emergency situation within the motor vehicle industry, making it difficult for a manufacturer to know more than several days before it completes a vehicle which tires will be available for installation on the vehicle. I understand further that the provision of such information to the NHTSA 30 days before it is made available to prospective purchasers has become virtually impossible.

In view of the impracticability under the current circumstances of the 30-day-notice requirement, the NHTSA has concluded that enforcement of the requirement at this time is inappropriate. Accordingly, with respect to vehicles offered for sale during the strike and the 60-day period following its settlement, the NHTSA will refrain from enforcing the 30-day-notice requirement in @ 575.6(d). Submittals of information to the agency must continue to be made, however, not later than the time the information is made available to prospective purchasers. With respect to vehicles that will be offered for sale at the expiration of the 60-day period, the NHTSA expects to begin receiving submittals after the thirtieth day following settlement of the strike.

Please note that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of @ 575.6, as well as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars, are not affected by this letter.

ID: nht75-3.12

DATE: 03/07/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: YKK Zipper (U.S.A.) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1975, in which you ask whether zippers fall under the purview of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302.

S4.1 of the standard states that the following components of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet its requirements:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

To the extent that a zipper in a part of any of these components, it would fall within the ambit of the standard while recreational vehicles are not currently covered by Standard No. 302, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued on November 15, 1974, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend the coverage of the standard to include recreational vehicles (copy enclosed).

You should also be aware that other rulemaking relevant to the coverage of the standard is underway and will soon be published in the Federal Register. For this reason, we recommend you subscribe to either the Government Printing Office Safety Standard subscription service or an equivalent commercial service as detailed in the enclosure.

SINCERELY,

YKK ZIPPER (U S A) INC

February 13, 1975

Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

We are manufacturers and suppliers of zippers and zipper chain to the Recreational Vehicle Industry and are confronted with a problem regarding Specification FMVSS-302 - Flammability Act.

We need a legal interpretation as to whether or not zippers are exempt from this 302 Spec. . No one is the R.V.I. Industry seems to have a clear concept as to the exemption or the inclusion of zippers.

The zipper industry feels that zippers are exempt from 302 as they are also exempt in the important field of Infants Wear (DOCFF 3-71).

Since time is of the essence we would appreciate a clear and concise legal interpretation immediately. Your attention to this matter will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

VICE PRESIDENT, SALES

ID: nht94-6.49

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve J. Brooks -- Program Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc. (CA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/93 from Steve J. Brooks to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9443)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the operation and classification of a commercial vehicle you wish to manufacture. The vehicle will carry fewer than 10 passengers and its GVWR will be 11,500 pounds. You were particularly interested in the type of operator's license that would be required of the driver.

Driver licensing requirements for vehicle operators are determined by state law. Since the vehicle's GVWR will be less than 26,000 lbs, and the vehicle will presumably be designed to carry fewer than 15 passengers, the driver will not be required, under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Commercial Driver Licensing (CDL) regulations, 49 CFR part 383, to qualify for a commercial driver license. However, some states require that drivers obtain a commercial driver license to drive vehicles that have lower GVWRs. The driver licensing requirements of the state in which the vehicle is registered, will apply. For more information about the CDL requirements, you can contact the FHWA Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0834.

Vehicle classification is relevant for the regulations and standards of our agency. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each FMVSS for motor vehicles applies to one or more particular types of vehicles, e.g., a standard might apply to passenger cars, buses, trucks, and/or trailers.

To determine which FMVSSs apply to their vehicles, manufacturers classify their vehicles using the definitions in 49 CFR part 571.3 of NHTSA's regulations. Under part 571.3 (copy enclosed), your vehicle, which you said is built in a bus/truck chassis, appears to be a "truck" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." Under part 567, a manufacturer must state the vehicle classification on the vehicle's certification label and certify that its motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA may take issue with a manufacturer's vehicle classification in an enforcement proceeding if the agency does not agree with the manufacturer's classification.

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

ID: nht94-2.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve J. Brooks -- Program Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc. (CA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/93 from Steve J. Brooks to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9443)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the operation and classification of a commercial vehicle you wish to manufacture. The vehicle will carry fewer than 10 passengers and its GVWR will be 11,500 pounds. You were particularly interested in the type of operator's license that would be required of the driver.

Driver licensing requirements for vehicle operators are determined by state law. Since the vehicle's GVWR will be less than 26,000 lbs, and the vehicle will presumably be designed to carry fewer than 15 passengers, the driver will not be required, under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Commercial Driver Licensing (CDL) regulations, 49 CFR part 383, to qualify for a commercial driver license. However, some states require that drivers obtain a commercial driver license to drive vehicles tha t have lower GVWRs. The driver licensing requirements of the state in which the vehicle is registered, will apply. For more information about the CDL requirements, you can contact the FHWA Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0834.

Vehicle classification is relevant for the regulations and standards of our agency. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ( FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each FMVSS for motor vehicles applies to one or more particular types of vehicles, e.g., a standard might apply to passenger cars, buses, trucks, and/or trailers.

To determine which FMVSSs apply to their vehicles, manufacturers classify their vehicles using the definitions in 49 CFR part 571.3 of NHTSA's regulations. Under part 571.3 (copy enclosed), your vehicle, which you said is built in a bus/truck chassis, ap pears to be a "truck" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." Under part 567, a manufacturer must state the vehicle classification on the vehicle's certification label and certify that its motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA may tak e issue with a manufacturer's vehicle classification in an enforcement proceeding if the agency does not agree with the manufacturer's classification.

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

ID: nht73-5.17

DATE: 04/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1973, asking whether a towbar dolly must be included in determining the overall length of semitrailers for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The answer is no. Standard No. 108 is a manufacturing standard, and semitrailers are not manufactured with dollies attached. 49 CFR @ 390.7, to which you refer, is a definition of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety which regulates the operation of certain motor vehicles, and since trailers often use converter dollies, it is understandable that that agency would deem a trailer with a dolly a "full trailer."

TRIAD SERVICES INC.

March 10, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel

This letter is to formally request your review and interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 as it relates to the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp. The attached drawings demonstrate the specific concept in question.

Information contained in SAE standards referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 indicates that a specific prohibition exists regarding a headlamp lens cover for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and busses. The SAE Motorcycle Headlamp Standard (SAE J584) contains no such prohibition. It is our understanding that a component configuration such as the one illustrated would not conflict with SAE referenced requirements.

Another section of FMVSS 108 which could relate to this issue is Paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . . automotive equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." If, when the secondary lens in question is in place, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 can be met or exceeded, the lens cover would then be compatible with the standard.

2

Detailed review of FMVSS 108 and the other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have revealed no other requirements germane to this issue.

Your review of our analysis will be most appreciated. We feel that the proposed concept is in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Hopefully your review will confirm our opinion. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Stephen W. Matson

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: nht91-1.22

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kotaro Yakushiji -- Vice President, Emissions & Safety Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-30-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Kotaro Yakushiji (OCC-5508)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 30, 1990 in which you request an interpretation of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars. Mazda requests an interpretation of the proper application and orientation of the test block when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories. Specifically, Mazda asks about a vehicle with a sunroof wind deflector. The deflector is constructed of plastic material and is mounted at the wind screen header. You state that, for practical purposes, the wind deflector is not removable during use but can be removed for testing. You further state that the wind deflector neither contributes to nor detracts from roof strength.

You believe that there are three possible test conditions. The first condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector in place. The second condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector removed and with the contact point greater than ten inches from the forward most point of the longitudinal centerline. The third condition would conduct the test with the wind deflector removed and with the contact point positioned according to section S6.2(d) of Standard No. 216.

We have concluded that it is appropriate to conduct the roof crush test with the wind deflector removed. We have reached this conclusion because the purpose of the test is to measure the strength of the roof, not the strength of roof mounted accessories. Further, conducting the test with the wind deflector in place could influence the positioning of the test device.

We have concluded that the third condition, rather than the second condition, is appropriate because the contact point in the third condition is positioned according to section S6.2(d) of the standard. As we stated in a prior interpretation letter (letter of October 3, 1980 to William Blythe), the agency intends to adhere to the ten inch dimension specified in section S6.2(d) regardless of roof configuration.

I hope that this has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.5

DATE: 09/15/92

FROM: WILBUR D. OWENS, III -- BOUHAN, WILLIAMS AND LEVY

TO: OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: ROY E. PAUL, ESQ.

TITLE: RE: JOSEPH L. PHELPS, JR. VS. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND GRUMMAN OLSON, A DIVISION OF GRUMMAN ALLIED INDUSTRIES, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIVISION, CASE NO. CV 492-115

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE (SIGNED BY JOHN WOMACK) TO WILBER D. OWENS, III (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Please note that we are the attorneys for Grumman Olson in the above-referenced lawsuit. Grumman Olson and General Motors have been sued by Mr. Phelps as a result of injuries he received in an accident while driving a 14-foot Kurbmaster, manufactured in 1977, and generally consisting of Chevy and Grumman Olson parts.

The Plaintiff has centered his case upon allegations that the vehicle had too great a tendency to roll over, that there was no three-point seat belt restraint system, and that the steering column and wheel were allowed to intrude into the space of the driver. We have looked at the current regulations concerning vehicles and would request your assistance in interpreting same and in carrying some of these regulations back to 1977.

We are interested in the current regulations covering these "step-vans" and, in particular, those which concern areas covered by the Plaintiff's theories of liability. Thus, some of our main areas of interest are from 49 CFR 571.20 through 49 CFR 571.220. We note that most of these regulations in @ S2 set forth the vehicles to which said regulation applies. Most apply to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and busses. However, there are a number of exceptions for "walk-in vans". The first question we have is whether a 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or sometimes both.

We would appreciate your assistance in informing us of how we can receive corresponding regulations for 1977. In particular, if you have someone who works for you with knowledge in the area of step-vans, we would like to be able to speak to them on the telephone to obtain a clearer understanding of the current regulations and the past regulations.

We sincerely appreciate your assistance concerning the above and look forward to speaking to you in the near future.

With best wishes, I am very truly yours.