ID: nht75-1.25

DATE: 09/19/75

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

TO: The Weatherhead Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1975, concerning the banding requirements of Standard No. 106-74. You asked whether the requirement for a band may be avoided in the situation where a hose manufacturer makes a hose assembly to a vehicle manufacturer's "specified requirements," under the exception for hoses "assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer."

The exception in the standard for assemblies made by a vehicle manufacturer cannot be interpreted to apply to those made by a hose manufacturer, as you suggested, so the answer to your question must be no. It is the intent of the standard to distinguish between the two situations you described.

We are presently reviewing the labeling requirements of the brake hose standard in light of your letter and other information. If you wish to present further data and arguments toward the revocation of the banding requirement, the appropriate form in which to do so would be a petition for rulemaking under Part 552.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 9, 1975

Reference: MUE-561

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Applicability Ruling FMVSS 571.106 Para. S5.2.4

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer need not be labeled by means of a band around the assembly. Elimination of this labeling band saves at least 3% on the cost of most hydraulic brake hose assemblies. The Weatherhead Company is not a vehicle manufacturer, therefore, the many millions of new vehicle hydraulic brake hose assemblies that we make are now costing 3% more than those assembled and installed by vehicle manufacturers. The resultant cost differential may cause The Weatherhead Company a substantial loss of business or a severe economic hardship. The vehicle manufacturers that are presently our customers may choose to assemble their own hydraulic brake hose to achieve reduced costs. Obviously, orders competitively bid with vehicle manufacturers will be lost or profits jeopardized due to the 3% cost differential.

Relief from this unnecessary burden can be obtained without regulatory effect by a favorable ruling on the applicability of Para. S5.2.4 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Counsel.

Question: Can "except for those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him" (from Para. S5.2.4) be interpreted to include assemblies that are assembled by anyone (such as Weatherhead) so long as they are assembled to the vehicle manufacturer's specified requirements and are then installed in vehicles manufactured by him?

This ruling is considered appropriate by Weatherhead since new vehicle assemblies are certified by the vehicle manufacturer's certification of the complete vehicle and the assemblies are normally made to his specified requirements. In addition, absolute traceability of these new vehicle assemblies is already there without the labeling band. After-market assemblies would still have to be banded since they would not be installed by the vehicle manufacturer.

Your prompt response to our question of interpretation of applicability of the labeling rule for hydraulic brake hose assemblies would be appreciated.

Yours very truly,

THE WEATHERHEAD COMPANY

John H. Mueler, Manager, Engineering Standards

ID: nht75-4.27

DATE: 10/17/75

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter dated May 7, 1975, regarding an apparent conflict between the inertia load requirement of Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, (49 CFR 571.206, S4.1.1.3) and the test procedure incorporated by S5.1.1.2, Paragraph 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b. I regret the delay in responding; your letter was mistakenly routed to our Docket Section and only recently came to our attention.

The answer to your question is that the requirement of S4.1.1.3 controls. It is sufficient that the door latch system withstand a 30g load only in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The system is not required to withstand this load in "any direction."

You asked further about the acceptability of centrifuge testing to demonstrate compliance with the inertia load requirement of Standard 206. Although S5.1.1.2 mentions "approved tests," NHTSA has consistently refused to approve or supervise the methods manufacturers use to test to the standards. Any government inertia load compliance testing will be done in accordance with paragraph 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b. Mercedes-Benz, of course, may employ any method it chooses to ensure compliance with this and other safety standards, as long as the product complies. We recognize that centrifuge testing may be highly useful in a variety of applications, and I do not by any means want to discourage innovations in developmental or compliance testing.

Yours Truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

May 7, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Clarification; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components

Paragraph 4.1.1.3 (Inertia Loading) in the above Standard requires that the door lock may not disengage when a longitudinal or transverse load of 30g is applied to the door lock system.

SAE Standard J839b, May 1965, referenced in paragraph 5.1.1.2 requires that compliance with the previous paragraph be demonstrated by approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 5 of the SAE Standard. SAE J839b, paragraph 5.2 requires that the door lock system must withstand a 30g inertia loading in any direction.

Clarification is hereby requested on the directional loading requirements of FMVSS 206. Specifically, shall the loading be applied in any direction as specified in the SAE Standard, or in only the longitudinal and transversal directions as specified in the subject Standard.

We would also appreciate being advised as to the acceptability of loading the lock mechanism in a centrifuge for demonstration of compliance as opposed to dynamic inertial loading of the lock. Dynamic loading on a lock, as it occurs in an accident, would last only approximately one-tenth of a second, whereas centrifugal load testing subjects the test samples to the requirements for approximately one minute.

Should you require additional information concerning this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President

ID: nht75-4.30

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Takata Kojyo's July 29, 1975, question whether Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, or Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, prohibits on a "continuous loop" three-point belt system the use of a clip between the outboard attachment point of the lap belt portion and the sliding buckle tongue which engages the inboard attachment hardware. The clip is used to prevent the sliding buckle tongue from falling to the floor when the belt system is retracted after use.

Standard No. 209 contains no provision which prohibits use of the clip. Section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of seat belts "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." In continuous loop systems, the single retractor must meet this adjustment requirement as well as that for the upper torso portion. At this time, the NHTSA has interpreted S7.1.1 to permit the use of clips which restrict movement of the webbing, but a proposal is outstanding that would restrict the use of certain clips to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable" lap belt. The language of that proposal is intended to strictly limit the use of clips which restrict webbing movement. In any case, Standard No. 208 does not at this time prevent use of the clip you describe.

It is noted that the clip could be misadjusted so that slack is introduced in the lap belt, permitting submarining in the event of a crash. This problem could be avoided by permanently attaching the clip at a low enough position so that the belt would be automatically adjustable even for a 50th percentile 6 year old child without possibility of misadjustment. This permanent location could presumably still be high enough on the belt to provide for convenient stowage of the belt tongue after use.

SINCERELY,

July 29, 1975

James Gregory Administrator National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: Question of a part especially assemblied in a safety seat belt

May we ask your permission directly to ask a underneath question?

Regarding a model of Type II of safety seat belt sketched in an enclosed sheet -- a looped type with a jointless webbing --, as you see in it, there is a "CLIP" provided on the harnessing side of webbing of the seat belt, the CLIP of which is for preventing slipperily falling of "THROUGH TONGUE" along the webbing in unused case of the belt.

The present rules FMVSS 208 & 209 have both no inspections or descriptions concerning the CLIP. So we would ask you if providing or using such a clip on a seat belt is out of the Rule or the Spec, or is regarded being allowed.

We are sincerely looking forward your kind instruction.

Mitsuru Masada Chief of Development & Control Department for Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

SASH GUIDE

THROUGH TONGUE

WEBBING

CLIP

RETRACTOR

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-5.33

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry/Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Request for Interpretation for 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S.4.2.5.6.2 and 49 CFR Part 585; Ref: W-491-H

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-28-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Satoshi Nishibori (A38; Std. 208; Part 585)

TEXT:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., with specific authority from Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan ("Nissan"), formally requests interpretation regarding the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, "Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less produced by more than one manufacturer" and 49 CFR Part 585, "Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting Requirements".

Nissan intends to produce a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) in a joint program with another automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "Company A") beginning in the 1992 calender year. Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide an interpretation regarding the applicability of the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S4.2.5.6.2, and 49 CFR Part 585.5(c)(3)(i) with regards to calculations of percentages of vehicles within its composite fleet for the purposes of complying with the passive restraint phase-in requirements set forth in FMVSS 208, as recently amended to include light duty trucks and MPV classified vehicles.

Company A will assemble the MPV in a domestic (U.S.) assembly plant. Nissan has undertaken the majority of design and development tasks and will supply the major powertrain components to Company A for the purposes of assembly. Nissan believes that this activity meets the substantive requirements such that Nissan may be considered a "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Nissan and Company A have mutually agreed upon the terms of a supplemental exhibit to the governing Design and Development contract that stipulates that Company A is the "manufacturer of the vehicle and will inscribe its name on the certification label." Additionally, the contract supplemental exhibit apportions among the two automakers the responsibility for defect investigations, safety noncompliances and statutory mandated submissions to the NHTSA.

Upon mutual consent by both manufacturers, company A will count Company A badged vehicles in its total fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages, while Nissan will count Nissan badged vehicles in its composite fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages. A separate document that acknowledges this agreement will be prepared and ratified by representatives of both Company A and Nissan.

Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide Nissan with an interpretation to the following issues:

1) Is Nissan considered a "Manufacturer", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, of the jointly produced MPV?

2) Can Nissan use the Nissan badged vehicles in its calculations in demonstrating compliance regarding the phase-in schedule for the passive restraint devices as amended for light trucks and MPV in FMVSS 208?

Please inform Nissan Research & Development, Inc. of your interpretation regarding these features at your earliest possible convenience. If you have any questions or require further information regarding this request for interpretation or related matters, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: nht71-5.57

DATE: 05/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1971, regarding an interpretation for seat belt assemblies required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

It is our intent that an integral (3-point) lap and shoulder belt system, with a sliding attachment, could meet the requirements of the subject standard. Since paragraph S7.1.1 requires automatic adjustment by means of an emergency-locking retractor for this type of integral system (see S7.1.1.3), the sliding attachment friction could not unduly restrict adjusting movements of the belt, however, a nominal friction is permissible and is expected.

The seat belt assembly which you submitted to Mr. Clue Ferguson's Office of Crash Worthiness has been placed in Docket 69-7. This system would appear to have a nominal friction at the sliding adjustment, however, an actual vehicle installation is necessary to enable a full evaluation.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

April 20, 1971

Doug W. Toms, Director National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration

Subject: Seat Belt Assemblies According to FMVSS 208

The Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 which will be effective January 1, 1972, requires that seat belt assemblies shall adjust to fit the occupant by means of an automatic or emergency locking retractor. The seat belt assembly being considered for installation in our vehicles has been designed to comply with the subject Safety Standard. We would, however, appreciate receiving your confirmation that the design complies with the aspect of performance described in S7.1.1 of the Standard prior to equipping our vehicles.

The subject assembly consists of a single piece of webbing permanently attached at the outboard floor anchorage, with the release/fastening mechanism at the inboard anchorage forming the pelvic restraining loop and a third anchorage behind the shoulder forming the upper torso restraint. The webbing is fed during extension by an emergency locking retractor through the upper shoulder restraint anchorage to provide freedom of movement for the occupant.

Application of this assembly around the occupant is achieved by pulling the "tongue" portion of the attachment hardware from its fully retracted position at the "3" pillar, across the occupant down to the fixed buckle or receptable at the inboard anchorage. The webbing passes loosely through a slot in the tongue to provide a sliding adjustment during this application.

We are requesting your confirmation that this sliding adjustment specifically, will not be considered in non-compliance with your requirement for adjustment by the retractor because of the small amount of friction occuring at the webbing and tongue. It is our opinion that the friction is adequately overcome by the retractor force to provide proper adjustment. Additionally, the assembly when extended for use, will be drawn across the occupant, thus a snug fit across the pelvic region will be provided upon application thereby minimizing the need for further automatic adjustment by the retractor.

A sample of an assembly incorporating this design has been left at Mr. C. Ferguson's office for further evaluation by your staff. Upon receipt of your evaluation of this design we will advise our parent company accordingly.

H. W. Gerth General Manager Product Engineering and Service

cc: Mr. Wilfert Dr. Reidelbach

ID: nht87-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAK FUJITANI -- PROGRAM MANAGER, INSPECTION SERVICES OFFICE OF FLEET ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fujitani:

This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of my staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champio n is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor Vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.

As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First, you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicles as a "chassis" rather than as a "chassis cab" means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer 's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a "chassis" is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehi cles.

Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14, suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated sea ting capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.

The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question.

In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 and 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as "mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers ( who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for

2

certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load." As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance sta tus. This document is not a certification.

If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stage manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of "chassis cab." The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the "sole certification" of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one c ertification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).

Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis cab manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of e ither conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis can manufacturer; or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for hims elf. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.

While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document the agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of "chassis cab," the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.

Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stage manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufa cturer changes the GVWR for the vehicles, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Pass enger Cars might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise "due care" when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance has asked the

3

[Illegible Word] stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.

Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation.

Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing a certification label or tag to a motor vehicles. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:

". . . shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120."

In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the two Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicated that according to your $ 567.4(g)( 3) calculation, the same are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilghman:

This letter is in reference to our telephone conversation on February 6, 1981, concerning the interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statutes, regulations and standards. Particularly in 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c), ( iii), labeling and certification requirements for final stage manufacturers who complete certain incomplete vehicles. and 49 CFR 568.4 which requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document that contains:

(1) Name and mailing address of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer,

(2) Month and year during which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer performed his last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.

(3) Identification of the incomplete vehicle to which the document applies.

(4) Gross vehicle weight rating of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended.

(5) Gross axle weight rating for each axle of the completed vehicle.

(6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured.

(7) Listing by number of each standard, in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, that applies to any of the vehicle types listed in this paragraph (a)(6) of this section, followed in eaxch case by one of the following three types o f statement, as applicable:

(i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehcile will conform to the standard.

(iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In referencing 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c)(iii), we interpret the regulation to mean that the RV Cutaway chassis rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR by the incomplete vehicle, manufacturer, is not classfied as a chassis-cab, therefore, no allowance is made to perm it alterations as they do for chassis-cabs.

In the Federal Register, 42 FR 47816. July 25, 1977, NHTSA denied the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association's (RVIA) request to change the definition of chassis-cab to include certain incomplete vehicles that are completed as motor homes and cutaway ch assis, etc. RVIA requested this rule change possibly because chassis-cabs may be altered and new GAWR and GVWR ratings may be certified by the final stage manufacturer.

The provisions in part 56B - vehicles manufactured in two or more stages - prescribes methods by which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages ensure conformity of those vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and ot her regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We interpret the regulations, 567.5(c)(iii). and 568.4(4) (5). to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter the gross vehicle weight ratings imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capacities without altering axle components to handle the extra load.

The types of vehicles in question are;

Incomplete vehicle, Ford RV Cutaway chassis, 176" wheel base, rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR.

The completed vehicles may be:

- 16 passenger bus with two (2) wheelchair stations and chair lift. - 22 passenger bus with a drive line Telma electric retarder. - 24 passenger bus.

The new gross vehicle weight ratings may be:

- 11,550 lbs. GVWR

- 11,900 lbs. GVWR

The buses being questioned are manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division; however, there are other manufacturers following similar guidelines.

We are holding up three purchases which we feel may be overloaded when maximum passengers are being carried.

Please advise us of you legal opinion on this matter at your earliest convenience. This issue is safety related and I believe that manufacturers are not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

cc: George Williams

California Highway patrol Motor Carrier Section Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-1526

April 14, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilgman:

This is supplemental letter following my letter of request for interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(c)(iii) and 49 CFR 568.4 dated February 17, 1987, and telephone discussions held during the past week.

As I have mentioned in my letter of February 17, 1987, be interpret the regulations 567.5(c)(iii), and 568.4(4)(5), to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle height ratings imposed by i ncomplete vehicle manufacturers, particularly, on GVWR cutaway chassis which are rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR

The factor affecting the 11,000 lbs. limitation is based on the least rated component, which is the rating of 7,400 lbs. imposed on the rear axle, Adding additional springs on the rear axle will not increase the load carrying ability of the completed veh icle. We have confirmed this through Ford Light Truck Applications and Dana Axle Applications Engineers; both have stated that the application of the completed vehicle remain; at 11,000 lbs. GVWR in RV cutaway chassis.

Champion Home Builders Company rates the completed vehicle at 12,000 lbs. GM, which is not consistent with the incomplete vehicle manufacturers instructions, and it is misleading to owner/operators to have two load ratings.

Three buses manufactured or Champion Home Builders Company and ordered for the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation at Angle Island State Park were inspected on April 1 and again on April 7 for compliance with the State specifications at TW Bus Sales in West Sacramento.

Two of these buses are 25 passenger perimeter seating tour buses, and the other is a 21 passenger forward seating bus with rear storage compartment 33 inches deep. All three buses are equipped with a Telma electric brake retarder system, CD 30, or equal. One 25 passenger bus and one 21 passenger bus were weighed to calculate the loaded weight of the buses. Following are the weighmaster readings with load calculations: 21 passenger bus 25 passenger bus forward facing seats perimeter seating rear luggage compartment seats front axle, unladen weight 3,520 lbs. 3,660 lbs. rear axle, unladen weight 5,180 lbs. 4,920 lbs. total 8,700 lbs, 8,580 lbs. 21 passengers and 25 pass engers and driver at 150 lbs. 3,300 lbs. driver at 150 lbs. 3,900 lbs. luggage-day packs or small picnic baskets 7 lbs. atx 21 people 147 lbs. 4 bicycles & rack 100 lbs total 12,147 lbs 12,500 lbs.

Certification labels on the buses are:

* Ford Incomplete Vehicle label * Champion Home Builders Co. label 11,000 lbs. GVWR Date of Mfg 11-86 type bus 12,000 lbs. GVWR WB Type Body Trans Axle Sp Inc Veh Mftg by Ford 176" E303 AK G 52 OL Dste of Mfg 9-85

* Incomplete Vehicle Manual

GVWR 11,000 lbs. F GAWR R GAWR F GAWR R GAWR 4,200 lbs 7,400 lbs. 4,200 lbs. 8,200 lbs. LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/75R16D 16X6K 16K6K 16X6K 16X6K dual 58p Champion Ser No. 5573241F1984

May be completed as: Multi Pur Pass Veh Truck

The Office of Fleet Administration has rejected the three buses delivered to the State by Champion Home Builders Company on grounds of noncompliance with State and Federal Regulations. * California Vehicle code, Division 12, Equipment of Vehicles Section 24002: Vehicle not Equipped or Unsafe

Section 24011: Federal Safety Standards

* Code of Federal Regulation, Title 69, Transportation 49 CFR 567.5(c) (s)(iii), Certification Label

49 CFR 578.4(4) 95). Requirements for Incomplete Vehicle Manufactur4r's

* Gross Vehicle Weight Rate in. Final stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages are required to affix a label to each vehicle which contains, among other statements, Gross Vehicle height Rating or GVWR" followed by the appropriat e value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds time the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

The gross vehicle weight rating posted on the certification label is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, the incomplete Vehicle Manufacturers rating of 11,000 pounds should be applied, however, it is also out of compliance with Champion's GVWR of 12,000 pounds.

We believe that the final stage manufacturer is not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete Vehicle manufacturer.

Please advise us or your legal opinion and interpretation of the regulations we have discussed

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

Attachments

cc: George William

California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Section

Tom McCauley Office of procurement

ID: 86-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Davis C. Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waiver from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.

No federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.

Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufactured for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 23, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

SUBJECT: Waiver FMVSS1O8

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles both commerical and military. We have recently developed a new vehicle - our model Z-1838. This will be used as a military cargo transport truck. These trucks have their head- lights located higher than the maximum allowable of 54 inches (FMVSS1O8). This is to protect the lamps from the brush and other objects during cross- country runs. Although we do not have a supply contract for the specific vehicles from the U.S. military at this time, we have built a few prototypes for tests, etc. We would, therefore, request you to exempt these vehicles, both the prototypes and any future production vehicles for the U.S. Government, under the Z-1838 configuration, from the headlight height requirements per FMVSS1O8.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DCT:lh

ID: nht78-3.35

DATE: 11/29/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please excuse the long delay in responding to your letter about materials incorporated by reference in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your primary concern is the correct version of the referenced materials to be used in conducting compliance tests if the materials are subject to change.

As you noted, Part 571.5 (49 CFR 571.5) of our regulations provides, in pertinent part, "Materials subject to change are incorporated as they are in effect on the date of adoption of this part, unless the reference to them provides otherwise." Almost all safety standards incorporating materials by reference specifically refer by month and year to a particular version of the referenced material. Therefore, the specified version should be used for compliance test purposes, even if the organization that adopted the reference material has published an updated version. If the reference does not identify a specific version, the version in effect when the safety standard was issued should be used for compliance testing.

As you pointed out, many of the voluntary industry standards do not have an "effective date." To determine which version was "in effect" on the date the Federal safety standard incorporating the material was issued, the agency looks to the version adopted by the organization that developed the material as of that date. For example, the Society of Automotive Engineers Standards do not have an effective date, but they do have an identifying month and year which indicates when the latest version was approved by the appropriate SAE approval body. The agency would look at that identifying month and year to determine which version was in effect on the issuance date of the safety standard or amendment.

Regarding your request for a list of the effective dates of the Federal safety standards, please be aware that the standards are being continually amended and the new provisions have their own effective dates. Thus, there is no single effective date for each standard. The enclosed computer printout provides a listing of the effective dates of the safety standards and their amendments as of July 1978. You are correct in your assumption that the safety standards only apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of relevant standard.

Finally, the effective date of a safety standard does not have any bearing on which edition of materials incorporated by reference is applicable. The version used for compliance testing is the version specifically refered to in the standard by date or, if there is no date specification, the version which was in effect on the date of issuance of the safety standard.

If you have any further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

SINCERELY, British Standards Institution

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel U S Department of Transportation

Date: February 7, 1978

Dear Sirs

MATTER INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

A number of FMVSS's in Sub-part B of 49 CFR 571 make direct reference to one or more published specifications (such as those published by ANSI, SAE, ASTM, etc.); some of these specifications, which are sometimes termed "primary reference standards", make reference to further published specifications. Most of these specifications ae subject to periodic review and either amendment of re-confirmation; many of them (particularly those published by the SAE) have in fact been amended since the effective date of the relevant FMVSS.

We would greatly appreciate your guidance on the ground rules for determining the edition of a referenced specification (whether "primary" or otherwise) that is applicable for conformity testing purposes.

We have studied 49 CFR 571.5 and note the statement that" . . . materials subject to change are incorporated as they are in effect on the date of adoption of this part, unless the reference to them provides otherwise". However, we need to know:

(a) the "date of adoption" of 49 CFR 571, and

(b) whether the words "as they are in effect" has a precise meaning, bearing in mind that voluntary standards - unlike regulatory standards - do not normally have an "effective date".

There is a related problem on which we would also request your guidance. Section 103(c) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that an effective date shall be specified for each FMVSS. But, on studying individual FMVSS's, we cannot see where the effective date is specified - at least, not in the CFR-published texts (although the date does appear in the FR-published texts).

Unfortunately, we discard the FR-published version once it is incorporated in the CFR volume, so we are not able to make a retrospective analysis of all FMVSS's to determine their effective dates. Do you have a list of effective dates that you could let us have, and can you confirm that vehicles or equipment manufactured on or after the relevant effective date must comply with the requirements? And does the effective date of an FMVSS have any bearing on the edition of a referenced specification that is applicable?

We apologise for troubling you on this matter but would be most grateful for your guidance.

G I WHISTON Coordinator - International Information

ID: nht75-3.44

DATE: 09/11/75

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

TO: Lear Siegler, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I appreciate your letter of August 13, 1975, forwarding a copy of Neway's publication on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The efforts of companies like Neway to assist final-stage manufacturers in their certification responsibility has been an important part of the implementation of the air brake systems standard.

You asked for review of the booklet, which consists mainly of instructions to manufacturers concerning systems that must be tested and how to establish a basis for certification. This is an area which our statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturer, and in which, aside from discussions of general principles, this agency declined to issue statements of approval. While we appreciate the usefulness of the advice contained in your booklet, we regret that we can not judge the adequacy of a certification program in the abstract.

YOURS TRULY,

LEAR SIEGLER, INC.

NEWAY DIVISION

August 13, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

I thought you would be interested in reviewing the enclosed copy of our FMVSS-121 booklet. If you wish additional copies, they are available.

This represents our interpretation of the Safety Standard and our recommendations to the industry in order to guide them in compliance with FMVSS-121.

We would appreciate your critical review of this booklet and any comments that you may have.

Ed Young

LEAR SIEGLER, INC.

NEWAY DIVISION

July 21, 1975

GENTLEMEN: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS-121) is a Department of Transportation Safety Standard defining brake system equipment and braking performance to be met by nearly all vehicles with air brake systems. Its purpose is to insure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions and is applicable to trucks, tractors, trailers and buses equiped with air brakes. Most trailers manufactured after December 31, 1974, and most trucks, tractors and buses manufactured after March 1, 1975, must meet the requirements of FMVSS-121. FMVSS-121 is in fact a law within which we must abide and conduct our business. Confusing? - complicated? - cumbersome? - Costly? YES! Impossible to deal with and comply? No! Difficult? Maybe at first but it too will come to pass and fall within our experteise and we shall take it in our stride.

FMVSS-121 is to be reckoned with so let us jointly accept it as reality and do everything in our power to comply with the law. Our heavy duty trucking customers are still going to rely on us to supply them with completed, road-ready vehicles, properly certified and meeting all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations and standards. And it can be done. It is in this spirit that we offer this manual to be used as a guide in installing add-on, non-powered axles to new truck and tractors.

Edward L. J. Young

Director of Engineering

ID: 8458

Mr. Larry Bluthardt
Director of Pupil Transportation
Kansas Department of Transportation
Docking State Office Building
Topeka, KS 66612-1568

Dear Mr. Bluthardt:

This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993, concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

1. Is there a violation of the FMCSR's in conjunction with the FMVSS concerning the modification of a school bus foot operated throttle control or other equipment modifications that may relate to the physical accommodation of a commercially licensed driver to perform his or her duties behind the wheel?

My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790

The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.)

If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

2. If we can modify the foot operated throttle control to the vehicle (school bus), does the modification require specific registration, certification, or inspection prior to the installation?

FOR EXAMPLE: Can the modification be made and installed locally, or should the modification be purchased and installed by a certified commercial vendor ie., manufacturer.

NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles, and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS.

State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Office of Motor Carrier Standards

ref:124 d:4/22/93