ID: 10074yes

Mr. Forbes Howard
Goodlife Motors Corporation
Route 3, Box 250-5
Boone, North Carolina 28607

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusual configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of the man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straight sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mirror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has registered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them resemble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf car") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule published May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808)(copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 finalrule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:1/4/95

ID: nht95-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Forbes Howard -- Goodlife Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/2/94 from Forbes Howard to John Womack (OCC 10074)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusua l configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of t he man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straig ht sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mir ror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has regis tered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maxi mum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them re semble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf cars") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehi cle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule pub lished May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808) (copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 final rule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweigh t vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John K. Liu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John K. Liu President, John K. Liu Enterprises, Inc. Box 544 Valley Forge, PA 19481

Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter concerning planned modifications to a used Class 8 truck/tractor. I regret the delay in this response. The answers to your questions are provided below.

It should be noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufactu rer to ensure that it complies with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

1. If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49:

By way of background information, new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. One such standard is Safety St andard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles satisfy the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Also, if a vehicle is modified prior to first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

A person who modifies a used vehicle is not required to attach a certification label. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly renderi ng inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its G VWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 121. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of July 20, 1977, to the Truck Body and Equipment Association in which the agency discu sses in more detail how section 108(a)(2)(A) applies to the installation of additional axles in a used vehicle.

2. Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings:

Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification label to their vehicles. The label is required to specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ra ting for each axle. See S 567.4(g). In addition, Safety Standard Ho. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that specifications concerning tire and rim selection be placed on either the certification label or a separate tire information label. See S S5.3.2.

As indicated above, persons who alter certified vehicles prior to first sale are required to certify that their vehicles, as altered, conform to all applicable safety standards. Such alterers are required by Part 567 to leave the original certification l abel on the vehicle and add an additional label. See S 567.7. If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values mus t be specified. See 567.7(b).

Persons who modify used vehicles are not required to attach a certification label. However, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Sa fety Standard No. 120. We encourage you to supplement the original certification label and/or tire information label by an additional label to reflect changes in gross vehicle weight rating, axle ratings, and tire and rim specifications, to avoid confusi on on the part of vehicle users.

3. Do we have to adopt a new VIN (vehicle identification number)?

The answer to this question is no. Safety Standard No. 115 requires that manufacturers of new motor vehicles provide vehicle identification numbers. The vehicle identification number is not affected by the subsequent modification of the vehicle.

4. Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle:

NHTSA does not have any regulations requiring sellers of used vehicles to inform buyers about axle modifications.

Our answers to your questions cover the Federal regulations and laws administered by NHTSA. I have also enclosed a general information sheet which provides additional information concerning our regulations.

You should be aware that by adding an axle you are considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act and subject to its provisions concerning safety-related defects. Under the Act, manufacturers must notify purchasers of safety-related defects and r emedy such defects without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed your plans and noted that in some instances the addition of an axle to a vehicle could constitute a safety-related defect, by making the vehicle unsafe for anticipated usage. You should ca refully analyze this issue for the vehicle in question. Among other things, you should consider whether, as modified, the overall vehicle structure, including the truck's frame, will be able to adequately accommodate the load distribution resulting from the additional axle and/or the higher GVWR, throughout the truck's anticipated length of service.

You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Standards concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your planned modifications. Also, with respect to Question 4, you may wish to contact the Federal Tra de Commission concerning whether it has any applicable regulations. Finally, a local attorney can advise you concerning the state law implications of your plans.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dec. 10,1986 NHTSA Rm 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Att: Ms Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

Dear Ms Jones,

Please render an opinion in the following matter:

1) If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49?

2) Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings?

3) Do we have to adopt a new VIN(Vehicle identification number )?

4) Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle?

You may call us if you wish, since we would like your response as soon as feasible.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance. I remain

Sincerely yours,

John K. Liu. President JKL/sh

ID: nht81-1.14

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 19, 1981 Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Company 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to assemblies having dual sensitive emergency locking retractors. Your specific questions relate to the low lock-up provisions of paragraph S4.3(j) of the standard. Paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209 specifies the following requirements for emergency locking retractors on seat belt assemblies: (1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g; (2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less; (3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15o or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

At the time these requirements were included in the standard, emergency locking retractors were either vehicle sensitive or webbing sensitive. Recently, however, manufacturers have been producing dual sensitive retractors that are sensitive to both vehicle acceleration and webbing acceleration. You point out that dual sensitive retractors can be tested to the requirements of S4.3(j)(3) with no problem since the webbing sensitive aspect of the retractor does not interfere. However, you state that it is impossible to isolate the vehicle sensitive portion of a dual sensitive retractor in order to test to S4.3(j)(2). Accordingly, when the retractor is accelerated to .3g under the specification of (j)(2), the vehicle sensitive portion causes the retractor to lock before 2 inches of webbing have withdrawn, even though the webbing sensitive portion of the retractor would not have caused lock-up. You explain that this occurs because most retractors containing vehicle sensitive mechanisms are designed to lock-up at low "g" force levels (i.e., a tolerance is built into the retractor to ensure that it can meet the .7g requirement of subparagraph (1)). In light of this problem, you ask whether dual sensitive retractors must comply with S4.3(j)(2).

This same question was raised by Safety Transport Inter AB, Sweden, several years ago. In an October 30, 1978, letter of interpretation responding to that question, the NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking made the following statement:

"A retractor sensitive to webbing withdrawal (even if it is also sensitive to vehicle acceleration) may properly be tested for the 0.3 g comfort requirement by holding the retractor stationary and accelerating the webbing to the required g level."

That interpretation was incorrect. Paragraph S4.3(j)(2) specifically states that the retractor is to be accelerated, not the belt webbing. Further, the agency has stated in the past that accelerating the retractor and accelerating the webbing are not equivalent tests because of inertial forces that react upon the retractor during its acceleration that are not present when the webbing alone is accelerated.

The agency believes that a dual sensitive retractor should be treated simply as either a vehicle sensitive or a webbing sensitive retractor for the purposes of the standard. The intent of the agency was to require that either vehicle sensitive or webbing sensitive retractors be used. There was no expectation that dual sensitive retractors would be used and no intent that a retractor be required to meet the requirements for both types of retractors. The provision of webbing sensitivity in a retractor that meets the vehicle sensitivity requirements is a voluntary act and therefore is not subject to the standard. Likewise, the provision of vehicle sensitivity in a retractor that meets the webbing sensitive requirements is a voluntary act.

This approach will resolve the conflict that has arisen with the compliance envelopes established in S4.3(j)(1) and (j)(2), given the compliance tolerances which manufacturers are designing into newer retractors. Since vehicle sensitive mechanisms are being designed so that they activate before the .7g's required in (j)(1) is reached, the retractor locks before the webbing sensitive portion of the retractor is activated. Therefore, these dual sensitive retractors can not be tested for compliance with (j)(2).

Under this approach, a manufacturer wishing to treat its dual sensitive retractor as a vehicle sensitive retractor for the purposes of Standard No. 209 would have to comply with S4.3(j)(1) and (3). A manufacturer wishing to treat its dual sensitive retractor as a webbing sensitive retractor would have to comply with S4.3(j)(1) and (2).

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies Interpretation, Emergency Locking Retractor, Lock-Up Requirement

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Some questions have been raised pertaining to the requirements for Dual Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractors when tested in accordance with FMVSS No. 209. The questions pertain to the low lock-up requirements (0.3g) Paragraph S4.3 (j).

A dual-sensitive retractor is a combination of webbing sensitive and vehicle sensitive locking mechanisms. The specifications clearly states requirements for either one of the mechanisms but does not take into account the combination of both in the same retractor. Consequently, an interpretation is needed to clarify the requirements of this type of retractor.

Our interpretation of the Standard, Para. S4.3 (j) (1) (2) and (3) as it applies to a dual-sensitive retractor is as follows:

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends one (1) inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g.

Comment: Applies to all types of emergency locking retractors

(2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends two (2) inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3 g or less.

Comment: Applies only to webbing sensitive type retractors. In dual sensitive retractors there is no way of isolating the vehicle sensitive portion (without disturbing an integral part of the retractor mechanism) to check the webbing sensitivity portion at 0.3 g. There is no requirement at 0.3 g for a strictly vehicle sensitive retractor. It should also be noted that most retractors containing vehicle sensitive mechanisms are designed to lock-up at low g force levels. This is to insure user confidence in the assembly during low level loading, such as braking.

(3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15o or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

Comment: Applies to both vehicle sensitive and dual-sensitive retractors.

I would appreciate your prompt review of the above interpretation and any comments you may have pertaining to same.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division

FP:mg

ID: nht88-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: SHIMAZU, KUNIO -- TOYOTA GENERAL MANAGER

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION -- FMVSS 208 -- AUTOMATIC SAFETY BELT PLACEMENT

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SHIMAZU

TEXT: Toyota seeks NHTSA's concurrence with its interpretation of the belt placement requirement of FMVSS 208 applicable to automatic safety belts during dynamic testing.

Sec. 10.5.2, setting forth the belt path requirement, states:

S10.5.2 Automatic safety belts. Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy.

However, this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. We are concerned that test personnel may feel that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path after the door has been shut , unless the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder.

Compliance tests should not only be repeatable, but conducted under conditions which simulate as closely as possible those of

2

the real world. However, the belt path, immediately after the door has been shut, may not be appropriate for compliance testing if it differs from the real world belt path.

This difference occurs because a human occupant moves to operate controls (ignition key, transmission lever, seat adjustment, door lock, etc.) and adjusts the belt for optimum comfort after the belt has first been positioned across the torso. As show n in the video tape and Appendix attached to this letter, the initial belt path after the door closing is changed by occupant movement, and afterward the belt path remains in this new position.

NHTSA recognizes this in the note at the end of FMVSS 208 which states;

NOTE: The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but wo uld normally slightly push the seat belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort.

3

Therefore, automatic belts that need slight adjustment by the occupant upon entry or for comfort, are recognized as such under this standard. Accordingly, in the case of this type automatic belt (where slight adjustment is needed) the initial belt pa th immediately after the door is shut differs from that after it is adjusted by the occupant.

For these reasons, we believe that the belt path on the test dummy should be adjusted by test personnel in the manufacturer's and NHTSA's compliance tests to ensure that the belt path simulates that of the real world.

There may be several methods to adjust the belt on the dummy to simulate a real world position. For example, moving the upper torso by grasping the dummy's head, pulling the belt some inches forward from the dummy's chest and releasing it, etc.

However, based on our experience, the results obtained through those procedures may vary. Accordingly, in order to achieve consistency before conducting a compliance test, NHTSA could request the manufacturer to provide its belt position procedure (a s it already now does in specifying its "normal design riding position" of an adjustable seat back).

Incidentally, we believe the most appropriate objective method is to place the belt over an imaginary straight line running from the upper to lower anchorage as seen from head on.

4

To test an automatic safety belt vehicle after merely closing the door is not only not repeatable but is not representative of real world conditions and, therefore, would not accurately measure the crashworthiness of the vehicle's occupant protection system.

Enclosures

INVESTIGATION OF BELT PATH

Using a TOYOTA Cressida and a Volkswagen Golf, we investigated whether the belt path on a dummy (the Hybrid III dummy) would differ from that of a human occupant. The Cressida is equipped with a typical motorized automatic belt system, whose shoulder an chorage is motor-driven along the roof side rail. The Golf, on the other hand, is equipped with a typical non-motorized belt system whose non-movable shoulder anchorage is attached to the door frame.

The video tape which accompanies this letter shows the results of our investigation.

Golf

Dummy

The Volkswagen Golf is shown first. After the dummy has been positioned according to the standard, the door is then shut to place the belt across the dummy's torso (please note test personnel made no adjustment to the dummy or the belt after the closing of the door). As the video shows, the belt catches on the dummy's upper shoulder.

2

Human Occupant

The same test is then carried out using a human occupant, equivalent to a 50th percentile adult male. Although the belt may lie improperly across the shoulder immediately after the door is shut, when the occupant moves forward to turn the ignition key, operate heater controls, etc. the belt will then move from that position to the middle of the shoulder. Under the same conditions, using a 95th percentile adult male, the belt lies across the middle of the shoulder after the door is shut.

This demonstrates that the unadjusted belt position on the dummy does not represent the normal riding belt position on a human occupant.

Cressida

The Cressida was tested under the same conditions as the Golf.

Dummy

After door closing, the belt lies higher on the dummy than the typical position marked on the chest based on our real world experience. The belt moves more than 30mm downward and stop when test personnel move the dummy's upper torso back and forth by gr asping the head.

3

Human Occupant

In the case of the human occupants equivalent to the 50th and 95th percentile adult males, the belts initially lie on the body at high positions. However, through body movement the belt moves to a lower position.

Summary

1. The belt path on a human body right after the door has been closed is, in most cases, quickly changed by occupant movement.

2. The belt path on a test dummy right after the door has been closed differs substantially from the belt path on a human occupant after movement.

ID: nht75-3.50

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of American Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volvo of America Corporation's May 9, 1975, request for reconsideration of the NHTSA's March 31, 1975, determination that a Volvo brake system that employs air pressure modulated by the vehicle operator to provide the energy used to actuate the brake is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121, Air brake Systems.

Having reviewed all of the data submitted with your letter, it is concluded that the Volvo system is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121. In the development of separate air brake and hydraulic brake system standards, the NHTSA had to make a determination of the status of brake systems which employ both air and hydraulic fluid as a means of transmitting force to the vehicle brakes. The agency decided that use of air as a means of power and transmission of the brake force would quality the system as an air brake system. This decision permits manufacturers to determine with certainty whether a standard applies to their products.

Since the withdrawal of applicability to trucks of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, our decision has had the beneficial effect of ensuring that "air over hydraulic" systems are subject to a braking standard. If you are aware of any adverse safety consequences of our decision, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

May 9, 1975

James Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for interpretation, FMVSS 105-75 - Hydraulic Brake Systems, and FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems

This correspondence is a follow-up to our request for interpretation dated March 3, 1975, your response dated March 31, 1975, and a subsequent telephone conversation between the undersigned and Mr. Richard Dyson, Esq. of your office.

In our March 3rd request we described a somewhat unique truck service brake system employing both air and hydraulic subsystems and asked for your concurrence that the described system was in fact a "hydraulic brake system" with a "brake power unit" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of 571.121. In your March 31st response you disagreed with Volvo's proposed interpretation, stating in part that the system in question appeared to be an "air over hydraulic" system and cited an earlier interpretation contained in the preamble to 571.121 which defines the term "air brake system" as including brake configurations commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic", in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

Having reviewed your response very carefully, we are presently of the opinion that your classification of the described Volvo brake system as "air over hydraulic" may be somewhat arbitrary and it appears you may have overlooked some important characteristics of the system. This could be in part due to overly simplified technical information supplied with our original request. It is, therefore, our intention to submit more detailed technical information as well as additional arguments to support our position at this time, in hopes that you will review and revise your original interpretation.

It is Volvo's contention that the brake system in question is a "Hydraulic brake system" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 in that it uses hydraulic fluid as the primary medium for transmitting force from the service brake control to the service brake and in that it incorporates a "brake power unit" as also defined in S4. The "brake power unit" provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, with operator action consisting of only modulating the energy application level. It is our belief that the subject Volvo system, to be described more fully, is in principal identical to currently used hydraulic brake systems in all major respects, except that it is a power brake and that the energy source which the driver modulates happens to be derived from compressed air rather than vacuum or hydraulic pressure. This single factor is not, in our opinion, decisive for classifying the Volvo system as an "air brake system", inasmuch as failure of a single air or hydraulic subsystem will not result in complete loss of braking ability, as you imply is the case with "air over hydraulic" systems.

A complete set of specifications and working description of the Volvo brake system in question, including illustrations and braking performance characteristics, is provided as Attachment No. I. Additionally, we are providing as Attachment No. II a group of pictorials depicting the actual layout of the components on the truck chassis.

The subject Volvo brake system has the following major characteristics in common with other truck "hydraulic brake systems":

1. The main chassis plumbing consists of hydraulic lines connecting the master cylinders to the wheel brake cylinders.

2. The medium transmitting force between the master cylinders and the wheel brake cylinders is hydraulic brake fluid.

3. The brake shoes are activated by hydraulic wheel cylinders.

In addition to the mentioned similarities, the subject Volvo brake system offers the following features and characteristics which we believe are superior to most current truck hydraulic brake systems:

1. Volvo offers a "split service brake system" with completely independent hydraulic circuits for the front and rear axles. plus split "brake power" (air) circuits which are isolated from each other and other air powered equipment in case of leakage.

2. We are confident that Volvo trucks equipped with the subject system offer stopping performance which is superior to most competitive trucks with hydraulic system in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 393.40.

3. Volvo offers an air controlled parking brake system which can be effectively modulated and used for emergency braking.

4. The Volvo system includes a load sensitive valve which proportions hydraulic pressure to the rear axle.

The air portion of the subject Volvo brake system, as described in principal in Attachment No. I, will meet all applicable requirements of 571.121 S5.1. Additionally, the hydraulic fluid used meets the requirements of 571.116, and all brake hoses, both air and hydraulic, meet the requirements of 571.106.

We hope that the foregoing information and discussion will enable your office to revise its previous interpretation rendered to us on this topic. Before reaching a final decision, however, we would welcome an opportunity to meet with your technical and legal personnel to discuss the Volvo braking system in detail, and to further clarify our position in this matter. Due to pressing time constraints, we would appreciate your cooperation in arranging such a meeting before the end of May, 1975.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald W. Taylor Manager, Product Safety & Quality

cc: B. Klingenberg/Truck Div.

ID: 12-001952 Matheny capacity includes driver (Standard No. 217)

ID: 12391.MLS

Mr. Dick Grimsley
United States Marine Corps
Assistant Chief of Staff, Logistics
Motor Transport Department
Box 555014
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5014

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

This responds to your letter asking whether recertification is required for compressed natural gas (CNG) containers used as a vehicle fuel tank. You state that you have several CNG containers that are marked "3 year recertification" that soon must be recertified.

As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. Since NHTSA has no authority to regulate the reinspection of CNG containers, we cannot answer the other questions in your letter.

Please note that NHTSA recently issued a notice modifying the labeling requirements for CNG containers. (61 FR 47086, September 6, 1996). Containers manufactured on and after December 2, 1996 will be required to be labeled with the following statement: "This container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage and deterioration."

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:303

d:10/9/96

ID: 22539.ztv

Mr. Tomas P. Quintanilla
Fines, Fees & Forfeiture Section
Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency
Logistics & Support Division
1503 Central Ave. Tiyan
Barrigada, Guam 96913

FAX (671) 475-6219





Dear Mr. Quintanilla:

This is in reply to your fax of December 18, 2000, to this agency's "Compliance Branch" re the possible forfeiture of a vehicle that does not comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

The vehicle in question is a 1998 Volkswagen Golf from Japan whose "front windshield and light assembly did not have the required 'DOT' markings, and therefore not enterable into Guam according to U.S.D.O.T." The owner has not brought the vehicle into compliance and is willing to forfeit the vehicle rather than pay the storage fees that have accumulated in the interim. You have asked two questions with respect to this situation:

"1. Can this vehicle be forfeited to a Government of Guam Agency and relinquished to another government agency for government use?"

First of all, we want to call to your attention that the attempted importation of this vehicle was contrary to statute. Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a), before a nonconforming vehicle can be admitted for purposes of conformance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must have determined that the vehicle is capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS (See list at Appendix A, 49 CFR Part 593). We have made no such determination with respect to the 1998 Volkswagen Golf.

Further, under 49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1), an importer of a nonconforming vehicle is required to provide a bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformance. If the vehicle covered by the bond is not brought into compliance, the bond requires the vehicle "to be exported (at no cost to the United States Government) by the Secretary of the Treasury or abandoned to the Government." We interpret this as authorizing forfeiture only to the Federal Government. If the Volkswagen in question is covered by a conformance bond, the terms of the bond require the vehicle to be exported by the Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency, or that it be abandoned to an agency of the United States Government. We prefer that the vehicle be exported to ensure that it will never be sold at auction or otherwise to a private individual for use on the public roads.

If the Volkswagen is not covered by a conformance bond, the only proper disposition of it under the laws that we administer is that it be exported to a jurisdiction outside the United States (see 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10)).

"2. What authority can I cite, if any, which states that a non-conforming vehicle can be utilized as long as it is not driven on public roadways?"

There is no authority that you can cite for your proposition. The 1998 Volkswagen Golf is a passenger car manufactured for use on the public roads. The vehicle in question does not comply with applicable FMVSS and cannot be imported for use on or off the public roads.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel,
ref:591,
d.3/8/01

ID: GF005930

Mr. Greg Hayes
Benson International
PO Box 970
Mineral Wells, WV 26150

Dear Mr. Hayes:

This letter is in response to your e-mail asking whether a previous interpretation letter from this agency to Mr. Larry Strawhorn is still valid. Specifically, you ask whether it is permissible to take power from the antilock brake system (ABS) power circuit of a semi-trailer in order to power other semi-trailer devices. You also ask whether it is permissible to take power directly from the ABS module.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to ABS systems in trucks and trailers with air brakes is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems.

In a November 17, 1995, letter of interpretation addressed to Mr. Larry Strawhorn of the American Trucking Associations, the agency stated that under S5.1.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121, the ABS power circuits sole function must be to provide ABS powering, and other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit.

Subsequently, the agency published a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration of the rule that required medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with ABS (61 FR 5949, February 15, 1996). In response to the petitions, the 1996 document changed the requirements from dedicated power for trailer ABS systems to continuous power for trailer ABS systems. The relevant section of that standard now reads as follows:

S5.1.6.3  Antilock power circuit for towed vehicles.Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more electrical circuits that provide continuous power to the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position. Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable. [emphasis added]

Accordingly, the February 1996 response to the petitions for reconsideration supersedes our November 17, 1995, letter of interpretation because FMVSS No. 121 no longer requires that the ABS power circuits sole function is to provide ABS powering.

To answer your specific question, S5.1.6.3 does not prohibit taking power from the ABS power circuit or the ABS module of a semi-trailer in order to power other semi-trailer devices. We note, however,that in our February 1996 response to petitions, we recognized that powering electrical devices other than the trailer ABS from the ABS power circuit has the potential to compromise the circuits ability to power the trailer ABS. We included a lengthy discussion of this issue in our notice, including a discussion of the types of devices that would not be likely to create problems. A copy of this portion of the notice (61 FR 5949 at p. 5952) is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.10/21/04