ID: 07-003334as

ID: 1985-01.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Philip Yale Simons, Esq. -- Freeman, Wasserman and Schneider

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Philip Yale Simons, Esq. Freeman, Wasserman & Schneider 90 John Street New York, New York 10038

I am responding to your January 24, 1985, request for confirmation that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is not subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. As you describe the Bv 206, it is an all-terrain vehicle consisting of front and rear cabs, which travels on rubber tracks. You further state that the vehicle is neither designed nor intended for use on public streets, roads, and highways.

The safety standards and regulations that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues are applicable only to "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Based on your description and the specification sheets you enclosed, the Bv 206 does not appear to be suitable for use on public roads. It therefore is not considered a "motor vehicle" and is not subject to our safety regulations.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

January 24, 1985

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Subject: Ruling Request: All-Terrain Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, ASEA Hagglunds Inc., The Woodlands, Texas ("Hagglunds"), and constitutes a request for a ruling to exclude Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicles from the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S1381 et. seq., hereinafter the "Act"). Hagglunds purchases the all-terrain vehicles from its Swedish manufacturer and imports them into the United States.

For the reasons stated below, we respectfully submit that the vehicles in question are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)), and are, therefore, exempt from the requirements of the Act.

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEHICLE

The Hagglunds all-terrain vehicle is designed specifically for off the street and off the highway use. The Bv 206 vehicle is designed to traverse rocky surfaces, snow-covered surfaces, forests, mountains and similar harsh or "adverse" terrain over which "ordinary" vehicles cannot travel. The vehicle is comprised of front and rear cabs which are joined by an articulated steering unit. The front cab is powered by a 125 horsepower diesel engine. The back cab does not contain a motor and is mechanically linked to the front cab.

The all-terrain carrier travels on tracks of molded rubber which enhance the mobility and load bearing ability of the Bv 206 in two significant ways. First, the broad (620 millimeters) rubber tracks provide a low ground contact pressure (1.7 pounds/square inch) which allows the Bv 206 to maneuver over snow-covered surfaces, marshlands and other soft terrain, without sinking. Secondly, the molded rubber tracks are designed to grip the surface to enhance the carrier's hill climbing ability. (The attached brochure provides a description of the vehicles and technical data pertaining to them.)

The Hagglunds Bv 206 all-terrain vehicle is utilized for a variety of applications, all of which involve off-road uses: forestry, transmission line installation, construction work at remote sites, forest firefighting, rescue and relief work, and crew transport to remote sites. In fact, Hagglunds has, in the past, sold all-terrain vehicles to United States purchasers for use in geophysical exploration, in national parks, for the construction of the Alaskan pipeline, and ski operations. The United States government has also purchased Hagglunds vehicles for military use.

No ordinary motor vehicle can operate over the terrains that the Hagglunds Bv 206 is designed to traverse. It is clear that the Bv 206 is not designed, nor is it suitable for operation on public streets, roads, and highways.

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS

Section 12.80 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. S12.80) provides that motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 which are offered for entry into the United States Customs territory shall be denied entry under the importer or consignee files documents which indicate that the vehicles conform to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. SS1392, 1407), and set forth in Part 571 of the Department of Transportation ("DOT") Regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 571).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 6

vehicle has a maximum speed of 60 kilometers/hour and the Bv 206 has a maximum speed oF 50 kilometers/hour; (ii) the CROCO vehicle and the Bv 206 are used for the same civil uses (e.g. construction, forestry, ambulance duty, etc.); (iii) both vehicles have been purchased for military use; and (iv) both vehicles are amphibious.

In addition, the Bv 206 has several unique features which render its use on streets or highways more "impractical" or "unlikely" than the CROCO vehicles. The Bv 206 travels on tracks whereas the CROCO vehicle is equipped with tires. Also, the CROCO vehicle is comprised of a single unit whereas the Bv 206 consists of two sections. If the NHTSA considers a vehicle with tires and a single cab not to be a "motor vehicle", then it is obvious that a substantially similar vehicle which has tracked road contact means and is comprised of two sections is also not a "motor vehicle."

Another NHTSA ruling also indicates that the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act. In a ruling dated March 25, 1982, the NHTSA held that a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is (i) readily usable on public roads and (ii) is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of the vehicle owners. The Bv 206 is not designed for use on public

5 Letter to Leonard A. Fink dated March 25, 1982.

roads nor is it is fact used for such purposes. The Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" as set forth in the March 25, 1982 ruling because: (i) it does not have the power (its maximum speed is approximately 50 kilometers/hour) and maneuverability (it consists of two cars) to make it effective under virtually any highway condition, (ii) it is advertised specifically for offroad use, (iii) the vehicle's manufacturer does not assist and will not assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents, and (iv) it is not marketed by dealers also selling vehicles which are indisputably classified as motor vehicles.

Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" because the manufacturer did not intend the vehicle to be used on the public highway part of the time and the manufacturer has no reason to expect the vehicle will be used in that way.

C. Legislative History

The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 clearly indicates that a vehicle such as the Hagglunds Bv 206 was not the type of vehicle targeted by the legislation. In Senate Report No. 1301 the Commerce Committee stated that the subject legislation is an attempt to stem the soaring rate of death in our country's

6 Pub. L. No. 89-563, 80 Stat. 71. (1966).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation January 24, 1985 Page 8

highways.7 The legislation is not intended for off-road vehicles, especially those which are intended for use in the backwoods. Accordingly, the Bv 206 is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act.

IV. CONCLUSION

We respectfully request that the NHTSA issue a ruling which excludes the all-terrain vehicles imported by Hagglunds from the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Should you contemplate issuing a ruling which is adverse to our position, we request the opportunity to discuss the matter with you prior to any final action.

We appreciate your cooperation in expediting this matter.

Very truly yours,

Philip Yale Simons

PYS/JJR/hcu Enclosure

[Brochure Omitted]

ID: 23663Tunick_seat_bolster_DENIED_df

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078





Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about the pitch, roll, and yaw requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). I apologize for the delay in responding. We have restated your questions below, followed by our answers. As discussed, we do not agree with your suggestion that the seat cushion can be removed to meet the standard's requirements.

BACKGROUND

Standard No. 225 requires each vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, to have a child restraint anchorage system at each of two forward-facing rear designated seating positions (see S4.4(a) and (b)). The anchorage system must meet certain configuration, strength and location requirements. S15.1.2.2 of Standard No. 225 specifies use of a "child restraint fixture (CRF)" to locate the lower bars of an anchorage system. That paragraph specifies that, with the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat cushion, the bottom surface of the CRF must have attitude angles within certain limits (with angles measured relative to the vehicle horizontal, longitudinal and transverse reference planes). (Pitch must be 15 10, roll 0 5, and yaw 0 10.) Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004, are permitted to meet the requirements of S15 of Standard No. 225 instead of the requirements of S9. We stated in a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration that these pitch, roll and yaw requirements will be incorporated into the requirements of S9. 65 FR 46628.

S9.3 of Standard No. 225 requires that each vehicle and each child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable seats adjusted in a specified manner.

You state that it is difficult to fit the CRF and/or actual child restraints in the rear seats of some sports cars. You ask about the permissibility of installing a lower anchorage beneath each rear seat cushion. You state:

The child restraint anchorage system would be used by the vehicle owner by first removing the seat bottom cushion and storing it in the vehicle's luggage compartment. The CRF, during testing, and the child seat, during real-world operation, would then be installed so as to rest stably on the metal tub (floor) of the vehicle. The location of each anchorage would be labeled as required by FMVSS 225 and the method and need of removing the seat bottom would also be labeled (the seat bottom would most probably be attached by Velcro). * * *

DISCUSSION

Question 1: Is the Proposed System permissible if removal of the seat bottom cushion is necessary in order for the CRF to fit in the vehicle and/or to meet pitch, roll and yaw criteria?

We do not interpret Standard No. 225 in a manner that would permit removal of the seat cushion. S15.1.2.2(a) of Standard No. 225 specifies that the bottom surface of the CRF shall have specified attitude angles "[w]ith the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat cushion." (Emphasis added.) Under this provision, the seat cushion is not removed when measuring attitude angles.

In addition, S9.3 of Standard No. 225 specifies that each vehicle and each child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable seats adjusted as described in S9.3(a) and (b). S9.3(a) and (b) state:

(a) Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer; and

(b) Place adjustable seats in the full rearward and full downward position.

Neither of these provisions contemplate removing the seat cushion. Accordingly, we conclude that the seat cushion is not removed when measuring pitch, roll and yaw of the CRF. If your vehicle cannot meet the requirements with the seat cushion in place, the vehicle cannot be certified as meeting Standard No. 225.

Question 2: Is the Proposed System permissible if the CRF fits in the vehicle and meets the pitch, roll and yaw requirements with the seat bottom in place (i.e., not removed), but--

• The child seat itself, when installed, is unacceptably unstable (e.g., as regards pitch, roll, and yaw), and
• The lower anchorages must be located behind the middle of the seat back and thus potentially dangerous?

Our answer to the first part of your question is that we will evaluate the vehicle's compliance with the pitch, roll and yaw requirements using the CRF with the seat bottom in place. If all child restraints are "unacceptably unstable" despite the CRF fitting the seat, then that would suggest a design problem with the rear seat, and/or a problem with the CRF, since the device is intended to be representative of a child restraint. We would appreciate learning about any situation where the standard might permit vehicle seats and anchorage systems to be designed such that child restraints can be attached in an unacceptably unstable manner. Detailed sketches would be helpful, with vehicle dimensions included.

Our answer to the second part of this question is that an anchorage system would not be found to non-comply with the standard notwithstanding the location of the lower anchorages relative to an adult passenger's back. It should be noted, however, that you provided little information about any scenario under which the anchorages would be located "behind the middle of the seat back." With regard to passenger discomfort and safety in rear impacts, the vehicle manufacturer might want to consider using foldable or stowable anchorages, which are now permitted under Standard No. 225.

Question 3a: If the answer to either question 1 or question 2 is "no," could the vehicle manufacturer receive an exemption under S5(e)? If an exemption is available and is obtained, could the vehicle manufacturer still install the Proposed System on a voluntary basis?

S5(e) excludes certain rear designated seating positions from the requirement to provide a child restraint anchorage system at the position. To qualify for the exclusion, interference with transmission and/or suspension components must prevent the location of the lower bars of a child restraint changes system anywhere within the zone described by the standard such that the attitude angles could be met. Unless the situations described in your letter met those criteria, the exception would not be available. In response to the second part of your question, if the vehicle were excluded from the requirement to provide the lower anchorage bars because of impracticability, then by definition the bars would not be able to be installed, either voluntarily or to meet the provisions of the standard. Moreover, under S4.1 of Standard No. 225, each tether anchorage and child restraint anchorage system installed voluntarily or pursuant to the standard after September 1, 1999, must meet the configuration, location, marking and strength requirements of the standard.

Before closing, we would like to address a further issue you raised. In your letter and in other correspondence with the agency, you have expressed a belief that S9.3 is invalid because, by requiring the back seat of vehicles to fit the CRF, S9.3 allegedly violates a "no design standard prohibition." Your belief is mistaken. We seek to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are performance-oriented as possible, but if need be they may have the effect of imposing certain design requirements or limitations. The CRF is representative of a child restraint system. Just as we require lap and lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies to be capable of adjustment to fit occupants whose dimensions and weight range from those of a 5^th-percentile adult female to those of a 95^th-percentile adult male (S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209, 49 CFR 571.209), we require vehicle seats to fit the CRF to ensure better compatibility and fit between vehicle seats and child restraint systems to improve the performance of child restraints in protecting children. Further, S9.3 is performance-oriented, in that manufacturers retain flexibility in designing their vehicle seats as long as they allow placement of the CRF, and the standard does not specify dimensions or other features of the vehicle seat. Accordingly, it does not create a "design standard" that would be prohibited by statute.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/25/02

ID: nht79-3.8

DATE: 10/04/79

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

TO: Clanahanm, Tanner, Downing and Knowlton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 24 and your telephone conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office in which you inquired about the Federal law applicable to the manufacture and use of auxiliary fuel tanks. You indicated that your client will be in the business of manufacturing auxiliary fuel tanks for use in passenger vehicles and on farm equipment. Most of the tanks will apparently be designed for mounting on the vehicles without connection to the vehicle fuel system, although some will be built with such connections.

Below is a discussion of questions numbered 1 and 6 in your letter, as well as a general discussion of the law applicable to the installation of both types of auxiliary tanks. Following is a brief discussion of the questions numbered 2-5 in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire motor vehicles or to equipment for installation in motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment is not encompassed by the term "motor vehicle" because Congress clearly did not intend that such equipment be within the coverage of the Act. Therefore, none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to farm equipment and the rest of this letter will be concerned only with passenger vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks.

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks of either type you have mentioned must be designed and manufactured for safety. As a manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, your client would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (section 151 et seq). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer himself, your client, as a manufacturer, would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

A person who installs an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations if that person modified the vehicle during the installation. As an alterer, your client would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, your client would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners and remedying the noncompliance or defect.

If your client connects auxiliary gasoline tanks to used passenger vehicles, he or she would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowlingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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, if your client added an auxiliary tank of either type mentioned in your letter to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or other systems, he or she would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

For example, if your client mounted a tank on the exterior of a vehicle, without connection to the fuel system, and one of the mounting bolts caused the existing fuel system to leak in an amount in excess of that permitted by Safety Standard No. 301-75, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Depending upon the way in which he attached the tank to the vehicle or to its fuel system your client could also violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to other safety standards including, but not limited to, the Bumper Standard (49 C.F.R. 581), and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Questions 2, 3, and 4.

According to the Federal Highway Administration which administers the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, they apply only to motor carriers and not to passenger vehicles that are not involved in interstate commerce. If you have further questions you might wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration directly.

Question 5. Do 49 C.F.R. 171 et seq. which regulate the transportation of certain hazardous materials apply to the private carrying of such materials on passenger vehicles or farm equipment?

These regulations are administered by the Research and Special Programs Administration, which informs me that the Federal regulations applying to hazardous materials concern the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. Thus far, the regulations have not been applied to the private carrying of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, in a passenger vehicle or farm machine. If you have further questions you might wish to contact the Research and Special Programs Administration.

In conclusion, please note that, in general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration discourages the use of auxiliary fuel tanks of any kind because of the grave dangers of fire and explosion posed by their improper manufacture or installation. In the near future this agency will be making a press release warning consumers of these hazards and discouraging them from using auxiliary fuel tanks.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and that you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

SINCERELY,

CLANAHAN, TANNER, DOWNING AND KNOWLTON

July 24, 1979

Steven Wood, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Re: Specifications for the Manufacture and Use of Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

Dear Mr. Wood:

This letter is an inquiry regarding the requirements and specifications of the Code of Federal Regulations for auxiliary fuel tanks. The fuel tanks with which we are concerned are those which could be mounted on passenger vehicles and farm equipment. Such vehicles would not be involved in interstate commerce.

I talked with Chuck Keiper in the Denver Office of the NHTSA and he recommended that I contact you concerning the following inquiries. Our questions concern both the applicability of the particular sections of the Code of Federal Regulations enumerated below and whether any other sections are applicable to the manufacture and use of the auxiliary fuel tanks described above. Would you please submit to us your opinions on the following:

1. Does the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301 contained in 49 C.F.R. @571.301-75 apply to auxiliary fuel tanks not connected with the fuel system?

2. How do the regulations define "properly mounted fuel tank or tanks" as found in 49 C.F.R. @ 392.51?

3. What are the manufacturing specifications for such fuel tanks referred to in 49 C.F.R. @ 392.51?

4. Do 49 C.F.R. @ 393.65-.67, concerning the construction of liquid fuel tanks, apply to those auxiliary fuel tanks as specified above?

5. Do 49 C.F.R. @ 171 et seq. which regulate the transportation of certain hazardous materials apply to the private carrying of such materials on passenger vehicles or farm equipment?

6. Are there any other regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or Department of Transportation which would apply to the manufacture and use of such auxiliary fuel tanks?

Mr. Keiper indicated that the NHTSA was considering new regulations regarding auxiliary fuel tanks. Any information concerning such regulations also would be helpful.

Our client is concerned with complying with the regulations as they now exist. Your response to the above inquiries should assist in this regard and will be appreciated. If there is any other information which would be helpful, please contact me at your convenience.

Chuck Reeves Law Clerk

ID: nht88-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: E. W. Dahl -- Vice President, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (Std. 109; Std. 119) 2/16/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mike Kaizaki 4/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (occ 1951)

TEXT:

Mr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. 119.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, 1987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of us ing dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size design ation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a 1974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. 109 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR 10162.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. 109 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position in interpretation letters that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concludi ng that this exception existed. (See June 8, 1971 letter to Mercedes-Benz; January 19, 1972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, 1973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the 1971-7 2 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, 1980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. 109 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. 119 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, 1987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. 119 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure August 12, 1987 Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter concerns the tire marking requirements of FMVSS 119, section S6.5(c), the tire size designation. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company wishes to mark three sizes of wide base super single tires whose size designations are being changed from conv entional inch-based markings to metric-based markings. We propose to use, for a transitional period, the format: "METRIC SIZE replaces inch size", for each of the following three sizes--

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5 (We propose to mark the word "replaces" and the replaced size designation adjacent to the primary size designation, in characters no larger than one-half the height of the primary size designation.

Since the time FMVSS109 and FMVSS119 became effective, the question of size marking tires has come up frequently, the last time being your recent opinion letter to Mr. J B White of Michelin, Greenville, South Carolina. Since the subject of that letter in volves one of the exact sizes in this letter, we feel it necessary to further discuss the intent of this request.

August 11, 1987 -2- Erika Z. Jones

The NHTSA has reiterated in opinion letters and rulemaking that the purpose of the tire labeling requirements is to provide

with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. The NHTSA has previously stated that:

"Replacement size markings, however, represent that a particular size is replacing or superseding an existing size designation. The NHTSA believes this type of information to be advantageous to consumers, providing on the tire itself information that a s pecified size designation is intended to be used in place of another." (39 FR 10162, 18MAR74).

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

E W Dahl

ID: nht92-4.30

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Marie McFadden -- Cable Car Concepts Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/92 from R. Marie McFadden to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7468)

TEXT:

This responds to your June 23, 1992 letter requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the "Mini Trolley," the "Road Train," and the "Trolley Tram." You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Your literature indicates that the "Mini Trolley" has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a "bus" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The power unit of the "Road Train" has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1,

1991.

1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

As explained below, buses such as the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position; trucks such as the power unit of the "Road Train" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position; and trailers such as the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have safety belts.

2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram," and all "occupant seats" in the power unit of the "Road Train" must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material; therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard.

As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the "Mini Trolley" or the power unit of the "Trolley Tram." If the jump seat is in the power unit of the "Road Train," and if it is not a side-facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an "occupant seat" as defined in that standard.

Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an "occupant seat" as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." A "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as

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

Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207.

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.

ID: aiam5041

"Dear Ms. McFadden: This responds to your June 23, 1992 lette requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the 'Mini Trolley,' the 'Road Train,' and the 'Trolley Tram.' You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'bus' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Your literature indicates that the 'Mini Trolley' has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a 'bus' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The power unit of the 'Road Train' has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' The coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991. 1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position, trucks such as the power unit of the 'Road Train' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position, and trailers such as the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR). The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR. Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have safety belts. 2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all. The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side- facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram,' and all 'occupant seats' in the power unit of the 'Road Train' must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material, therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard. As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats. As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' or the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram.' If the jump seat is in the power unit of the 'Road Train,' and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an 'occupant seat' as defined in that standard. Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an 'occupant seat' as 'a seat that provides at least one designated seating position.' A 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207. 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, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 1982-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K-D Lamp Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION

NOA-30

Mr. Chris Tuerck Assistant Chief Engineer K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45210

Dear Mr. Tuerck:

This responds to your letter asking whether your sample turn signal and hazard switch design complies with the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter states that the switch is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. We therefore assume that it would only be used on trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. We make that assumption because Standard No. 101-80 includes requirements for a vehicle's displays in addition to its controls if it has a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, it is our opinion that the sample switch does comply with the labeling requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

The sample turn signal and hazard switch is designed to be clamped onto a vehicle's steering column to the left of the driver and looks something like a box. We assume that the box is to be installed so that the side of the box which has two pushbuttons on it, marked 'R' and 'L,' is on the left. Pressing the 'R' pushbutton, which is located toward the back, activates the right turn signal. Pressing the 'L' pushbutton, which is located toward the front, activates the left turn signal. Both buttons must be pushed simultaneously for the hazard warning signal.

Most of the identification for the switch is located on top of the box. Just above the right turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the right. Just above the left turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the left. Above each pushbutton there is also a triangle outlined in black, i.e., the hazard warning symbol specified by Table 1 of Standard No. 101-80. Between those identifications is located a pushbutton, identified by the use of both words and symbols, which clears the turn signals or hazard warning signal. The top of the box also includes three jewel-type pilot indicators which indicate when the turn signals or hazard warning signal are activated and additional labeling explaining the method of operation for the hazard warning signal.

Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101-80 states in relevant part:

Vehicle controls shall be identified as follows:

(a) Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 3 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright.

Both the turn signal and the hazard warning signal are listed in column 1 of Table 1 and have symbols designated in Column 3. Therefore, Standard No. 101-80 requires that those controls be identified by the designated symbols.

The primary issue raised by your design is whether the turn signal control symbol specified by Table 1, a pair of arrows, may be split where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals. As explained below, it is our opinion that the pair of arrows may be split in that particular circumstance.

The symbol for the turn signal control is the same as the symbol specified by Table 2 for the turn signal display. A footnote to Table 2 explains that while the pair of arrows is a single symbol, the two arrows will be considered separate symbols when the indicators for the left and right turn operate independently and may be spaced accordingly.

Table 1 does not include that footnote for the turn signal control. A turn signal control would normally be expected to consist of one button or lever and would be required to be identified by the pair of arrows as one symbol. It is our interpretation, however, that the two arrows may be considered separate symbols where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals, as in your sample switch. Separating the two arrows in such an instance has the advantage of indicating the direction of the signal activated by each pushbutton.

Table 2 also includes a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of the turn signal display symbol may be filled in. While Table 1 has a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of several symbols may be filled in, the turn signal control is not among those listed. It is our interpretation, however, in light of the footnote in Table 2, that a manufacturer may fill in the framed areas of the turn signal symbol whether it is used for a control or a display.

Thus, the symbols used on the sample switch for the turn signal controls are those specified by Standard No. 101-80.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 13, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

ATTH: Mr. Frank Berndt-Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is a request for a legal opinion regarding compliance of our Model KD723 Turn Signal and Hazard Switch with FMVSS 571.101-80 Controls and Displays. It is a push button switch of the clamp on style (see attached Instruction Sheet) and is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. This switch has been manufactured by K-D Lamp Co. for approximately twenty years and is specified by the McLean Trucking Co. on all their new truck tractors.

The push button design had led to some problems in marking the switch to meet 571.101-80 requirements. We had tried and discussed various designs of labels which would properly identify the various switch functions and had arrived at a design which we felt would be satisfactory. At about the same time an order was received from GMC Truck and Coach for their version of this switch. We discussed the label with their engineers and they in turn submitted the label design to their legal department for review. Their legal department was of the opinion that the label would bring our Model 723 switch into compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80.

There are three jewel type pilot indicators in the center of the cover. The two (2) outer indicators are green and meet the size (area of 3/16" dia. circle) and functional requirements of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps which is a part of FMVSS 108. The same green indicators also meet the requirement of flashing simultaneously when the hazard system is turned on as specified in SAE Standard J910 Hazard Warning Switch. This standard is also a part of FMVSS 108. This latter function agrees in part with Note 2 under Table 2 of FMVSS 571.101-80. The center pilot indicator is red and serves only as a delineator between the two green indicators.

Early this year I visited with Mr. John Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Edward Glancy of your office to discuss the subject switch. They, quite properly did not offer any solutions for bringing the switch into compliance. They suggested that, when we developed a method and design for marking the switch, we send you all the pertinent information along with a print of the label and switch (print attached) and a sample switch with label to show the color scheme. They felt that the print and the sample switch would provide sufficient data so that your office could determine if the switch is in compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80. Under seperate cover we are sending the switch via UPS to your attention.

We apologize for being so late in requesting your opinion and respectfully ask that this matter be handled as expeditiously as possible since the final dead line of September 1,1981 is very near.

Sincerely,

Chris Tuerck Ass't. Chief Engineer

ID: 1983-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. Forbes Crawford

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1983, to Secretary Lewis recommending that he make an "administrative decision" that would exempt foreign manufacturers from compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations for vehicles conforming to standards of their country of origin, and which are produced in quantities "up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100cc."

The Department does not have the legal authority to issue a directive of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless temporarily exempted. No permanent exemption is authorized for any type of vehicle, and no discretionary power is provided for this purpose. Authority of a nature responsive to your request could be provided only by a Congressional amendment to the Act.

As a former principal of Jet Industries which was the beneficiary of one of the NHTSA temporary exemptions (No. 76-1) and an extension of it, you are aware that a mechanism exists by which you may participate in the American market in a manner that takes into account both your economic realities and our safety concerns.

SINCERELY,

PERSONAL

January 10, 1983

Drew Lewis, Secretary of Transp. U.S. Government

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I am one of millions of U. S. Citizens who are sorry you are leaving the Government. We understand and wish you every success in your new career. I occassionally "kid" myself into believing I helped you solve the Air Controllers Strike by sending you a telegram suggesting that unemployed Commercial Airline Pilots be hired as controllers. At least Percy Woods, President of United phoned to thank me because I had suggested the idea to him (My having help start United in 1931).

The purpose of this communication is to ask you to make an administrative decision, before leaving the Government, which can be very helpful in relieving a small segment of unemployed Automobile workers. Based on my having been involved in the Tractor and Truck business for many years, I had tried to obtain permission from the NHTSA and EPA to start the manufacture in the U. S. of two models of Foreign made small vans (not made in the U. S.) on the condition that they be excluded from NHTSA requirements for up to 50,000 units per year. I was offered 10,000 units but the Foreign manufacturers would not commit on less than 50,000 units. I didn't press EPA for that reason but their Washington, D. C. and Flint, Michigan offices could not give me a simple answer on whether a 1600 cc engine could be exempted. After 30 days I received regulations the size of a telephone book in which I couldn't find the answer. In California, where anti-pollution requirements were tougher than Federal, a five minute phone call elicted a direct answer that such size motor was exempted.

If you could give an Administrative Directive which enabled Foreign manufacturers to assemble up 50,000 units per year of vehicles that meet their conutries' safety and pollution requirements, and get EPA to confirm the action, there is a strong possibility that I can arrange for the following assembly in the U. S.:

1. Fiat Motors Citivan 980 CC This is a van version of Light carriers as exemplified by imported Japanese Pickups. It is 30 Inches shorter and has a 12" longer & 2" wider carrying area protected from weather and pilferage.

Fuji Heavy Industries Subaru 600 CC Also a van version of light carrier 52 inches shorter than the Ford Courier.

Attached is a possible Administrative Directive for NHTSA & EPA approval.

A. Forbes Crawford

PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE

Amendment to NHTSA & EPA Regulations

"The Regulations are hereby amended to exempt manufacturers (or assemblers) of Automotive Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) from NHTSA (Also EPA) regulations as long as such vehicles comply with traffic and anti-pollution requirements in the Countries where they are currently produced, or have been produced within current regulations of such country at any time during the past five years. In addition, such exemption shall apply to such vehicles designed, engineered and committed for production in the U. S. at the discretion of the Administrator. Such exemptions shall apply for units production up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100 cc."

COMMENTS

In connection with the proposed exemption of U. S. vehicles up to 50,000 Units per year. U. S. Manufacturers may want to come out with a new type of vehicle. It used to be that major manufacturers would not go into production unless they could predict a market of at least 40,000 per year.

Added to the proposed amendent should be: -"Proposed manufacturer of such vehicles shall be allowed to import 10,000 per year of the vehicle proposed for production in order to establish a dealer market for such vehicles. This exemption should apply for at least two years or longer at the discretion of the agency - depending on the variables involved in getting into production - such as arranging for U. S. manufacturers to tool up to manufacture components or joint venture manufacture of sub assembly units.

Larger manufacturers in the U. S. are automating many of their operations and causing many existing plants to become obsolete. These plants and unemployed workmen in the communities would be ideal for this program.

January 10, 1983

To: Drew Lewis

From: A. Forbes Crawford

Subject: Possible Accelerated Action

In the event of the proposal I have made for an amendment to the regulations is an action that could take a lot of time, will you consider just making an administrative decision on the two companies -- Fiat and Fuji Industries. I believe this can be done. Then if you can write letters to the following giving them exemptions as suggested (including a commitment from EPA), we can accelerate the projects:

Fiat Motors - Torino, Italy (Attention Giovanni Agnelli, Pres.)

Fuji Heavy Industries - Tokyo, Japan (Attn: S. Kikuchi, Director)

International Vehicles Ltd. - Vancouver, B. C. (Attn: A. F. Crawford, Pres.)

I have already received tentative consent from the first two and of course control the last one covers a newly designed vehicle (Four Wheel Steered) which I will manufacture in the U. S. if I can receive the exemptions. Upon receipt of letters for the first two I will go to Japan and Italy to work out plans for starting each project - because they do not conflict with each other. In fact, each compliments the other.

[Attachments in file in Chief Counsel's Office]

MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.

September 27, 1982

Frank Berntt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berntt:

This is in reply to your letter to us as of August 12, 1982 regarding our petition of July 16, 1982 for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301. As we pointed out to you in our letter of July 16th, it is necessary that we do make some slight alteration on the vehicles as we are forced to relocate the filler cap on the vehicle, and extend the filler hose from the gas tank which is mounted between the frame members at the front of the vehicle to this gas cap. While all due care has been exercised by us in this operation in duplicating the hose and clamps used by the original manufacturer, it is necessary for us to furnish the gas cap mounted on the side of the vehicle for filling purposes. This is the point that disturbed us in some degree.

Since writing you, we have been furnished with a print outlining the complete installation of the utility body as required by AM General Corporation on their vehicles which includes a recessed cup for the gas cap itself on the side of the vehicle. While our engineering studies reveal that this installation is in compliance with 301-75 inasmuch as the complete installation is done in accordance with the print furnished by AM General, it is their feeling that rather than have us Certify the vehicle as the final manufacturer, they would consider us as a sub contractor completing certain phases of the work for them. Therefore, they would prefer to Certify the vehicles themselves as a complete truck after our work, and for this reason would like us to have the exemption referred to in our files for safety as well as legal reasons.

In order to satisfy AM General Corporation, and as we can see no hardship on the part of the Department of Transportation as well as the small number of vehicles involved, we would very much appreciate having you see your way clear to issue such exemption for a three year period to us. We would appreciate having you review our request as we believe the possession of this exemption would help cement our position with AM General and allow us to comply with their thinking as outlined in paragraph two above.

Thanking you for your consideration.

F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman

cc: JIM FORRESTER

ID: 1983-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Anton Ostermeier

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1983, supplying the further information we requested on January 28.

The 1955 Mercedes replica which you contemplate building is a hybrid of new and old parts. The body is of your construction and consists of new parts. You fabricate the chassis using new tubing; however, its front cross member may be either a new replacement Mustang part (1974-1978 models) or one actually taken from a vehicle in use. Similarly, the front suspension, differential and rear suspension, and transmissions may be new replacement parts or taken from vehicles in use. You will employ used rear wheel cylinders in the braking system and used engines (either a 1964 Chrysler Slant 6 or a 1969 Chevrolet V-8). Any equipment that has previously been used will be rebuilt to the manufacturer's specifications, and new parts will be incorporated where necessary.

As a general rule, the agency has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is treated as new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage consisting of a new body on the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads as a "used" motor vehicle and therefore not subject to the Federal motor vehicle standards. On the other hand, the agency will consider a truck newly manufactured when an old cab is replaced with a new one unless at least the engine, transmission, and drive axle of the assembled vehicle are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

The vehicle you propose to manufacture is somewhat different from either of these examples, but we have concluded that it is a "new" motor vehicle and must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars. Not only do previously unused parts appear to predominate in your plans, but, in addition, the old parts that are used will be rebuilt with new parts where necessary, to the manufacturer's original specifications. With the exception of the 1964 engine, the rebuilt components were originally used in vehicles manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and there appears no reason why your product may not also be manufactured to comply, even though it is a replica of a 1955 car.

Use of the 1964 engine could raise problems of compliance with Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, and with Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, in that event, we believe that you (as a producer of less than 10,000 vehicles a year) would be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from those standards, or any other standard where immediate compliance would cause you substantial economic hardship. I enclose an information sheet which tells you where you may obtain a copy of our regulations, including the standards and temporary exemption petition procedures.

If you have further questions, we would be happy to assist you.

ENC.

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 4, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt,

General Description of the products used in the construction of the 300SL Mercedes Replica by Gullwing Car, Inc. 19240 South Vermont Avenue, Gardena, Calif. 90248. (213) 324-9847 as follows.

Frame;

The frame is of square steel tubing construction, using new tubing. Sizes are as follows;

1" x 1" x .065

1" x 1" x .090

.75 x .75 x .065

.75 x .75 x .125

3" x 2.5" x .375

3/16" flat stock

The front cross member is 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11. This assembly is purchased both new old stock and used. It is welded into our frame assembly using original weld points, angles, forward aft locations and ground clearances. Even the axel weight has been maintained as prescribed for the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 manufacturing specifications. This unit is assembled and jig built as shown by previously supplied pictures the Dept. of the Chief Counsel, this insures the product uniformity.

Bumpers both front and rear;

Bumpers are constructed of stamped nickel chrome plated steel as orginally manufactured for the 1953 thru 1957 Gullwing 300SL. It is bolted to the frame through spring steel brackets as was the original production car.

Front Suspension;

The front suspension used is the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 and is used in its entirety. This suspension is purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used, units are completely disassembled. Basic units are inspected to assure conformity to the original manufacturers specifications, then reassembled using new parts. i.e. all new bushings, all new bearings, bearing races and seals. The stearing gear is stock 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 rack and pinion and is installed as prescribed for the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 by the manufacturer. Front end alignment as to Caster, Camber, Toe-in, suspension travel and clearances are maintained as originally designed.

Differential and Rear Suspension;

The products used is the 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont rear suspension and differential, it is used in its entirety unaltered. It is installed in our frame to the exact same specifications as it would be installed in the 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont frame, i.e. clearance, mounting points, angles and travel. These specifications and locations are maintained by the jig building of our frame. These units are purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used they are disassembled, inspected and rebuilt to original manufacturer specifications using new bearings, bearing races, seals, gaskets and gears where ever necessary.

Brakes;

The rear brakes are drum type 10" x 1 and 3/4" hydraulicly operated. They are the original brakes for the 1978 to 1983 Ford Fairmont. They are installed unaltered and in there entirety. New brake lining and wheel cylinders are used and assembled to the original manufacturers specifications. The front brakes are of Disc type and are used in there entirety as prescribed for the 1972 to 1979 Mustang 11. The lining is new and the wheel cylinders are rebuilt with new parts to original manufacturers specifications.

Brake Lines;

Flexible brake lines both front and rear are original equipment type.

Master Cylinder;

Master cylinder is the duel type vacuum boosted as used in 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont. Hydraulics to wheels is supplied through compatable differential valve and andoized double flared steel tubing and is of the sizes and routing using the practices of the manufacturers. note: Vehicle weight is between 2,050 lbs and 2,500 lbs.

The brakes system employed is capable of handling a 3,200 to 3,800 lb vehicle and is more than adequate.

Engines;

Two engines are available in our Gullwing Replica. They are 1964 225 cubic inch slant 6 Chrysler engine and the 1969 350 cubic inch V-8 Chevrolet engine. The engines are purchased used and rebuilt to the original manufactures specifications, using new parts where ever necessary.

Transmission;

The transmission selections are as follows, for the Chrysler slant 6 the Borge Warner 4 speed standard shift transmission and the aluminum automatic 3 speed torque flight transmission. For the Chevrolet V-8 engine the 4 speed Munci transmission and 350 hydromatic transmission are used. These units are purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used they are completely disassembled, inspected and reassembled to manufacturers specifications, using new parts when ever necessary.

Body;

Body is constructed of four layers, first layer of epoxy, second layer of 2oz fiberglass matting and epoxy, third layer 4oz fiberglass matting and epoxy, fourth and inside final layer of 2oz fiberglass cloth and epoxy. Fiberglass sequence is layed up in a female mold and Kiln dried for optimum cure and strength. Through temperature control. note: enclosed in the windshield frame is a 3/4" x 3/4" x .090 square tubing. Center section of roof contains steel support and hinge box, a rear window support also of 3/4" x 3/4" x .090 square tubing. The center hinge box assembly is bolted to front and rear window support tubing. When completely assembled driver and passenger are protected 360 degrees with steel bolted to frame assembly. On both left and right sides by no less than 8 inches of bridged frame work, not to mention inner and outer epoxied fiberglass panels and padded leather upholstery.

Lights;

Headlights are seal beam type, rear tail light lens are the reflector type required. Fully automatic signal and hasard lights are incorperated.

Glass;

All glass is new. Front windshield is two layered safety glass as prescribed by D.O.T.S. Door glass left and right is of the tempered type required by D.O.T.S. Left and right 1/4 windows, is also of tempered type required by D.O.T.S. As is the back window glass.

Rims and Tires;

Rims and tires are both 14" and 15", customers obtion. They will be supplied new old stock and new only.

The above is a summary of my replica's construction. I hope this supplies you with the information you requested to assist me with my list of requirements. Please contact me for any further information you may require.