ID: 1766y

Mr. Les Schreiner
Fresia Engineering Inc.
700 E. Main Street
Suite 1618
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:VSA d:4/3/89

ID: 17675.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1998 Ford E150 van for a driver with quadriplegia due to a spinal cord injury. In your letter, you state that you need to replace the vehicle's original steering column with an extended steering column and install reduced effort steering and brakes to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. You also state that your client will be driving from his wheelchair. In a phone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that you would be installing horizontal steering in the vehicle. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require removing the vehicle's air bag.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, because we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Extending the vehicle's original steering column and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. We also note that removing the driver's seat to enable your client to drive from his wheelchair would compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating systems, which requires vehicles to be equipped with a driver's seat. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, air bag, and driver's seat to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
Ref:VSA
d.5/1/98

ID: 17677-1.pja

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

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your April 3, 1998, request for reconsideration of our March 31, 1998, interpretation whether Item 4A Glazing, "Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows," specified in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, is permitted in the rear window that is behind a retractable roll bar in a convertible passenger car. Based on the materials you originally sent us, we concluded that rigid plastic glazing was not permitted in that location. However, based on the materials and the issues you raised in your April 3 letter, as well as a videotape and photographs you submitted on July 24, we have concluded that the glazing should be permitted.

As we discussed in our original letter, the relevant question is whether the rear window of the vehicle is part of the convertible top. This is because S5.1.2.11(a)(1) of Standard No. 205 permits item 4A rigid plastic glazing in "[a]ll areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used." ANSI Z-26.1a-1980 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) permits item 4 glazing in "[t]he rear windows of convertible passenger car tops."

When we considered whether the window could be considered the rear window of a convertible passenger car top, we based our decision on the materials you submitted. Your original letter attached three color copies of photographs showing the vehicle. The rear window we are discussing retracts automatically behind the rear seats. The one photograph that showed a side view of the window appeared to show the rear window in a partially retracted position on the outside of a broad rollbar. It appeared to be unconnected to the rollbar, with the top edge of the window partially down while the rollbar was fully deployed. Based on this, our March 31 letter concluded that, although your vehicle was a convertible, "the glazing in the vehicle is separate from (not of the same piece as) the convertible top, and therefore is not a rear window of a convertible passenger car top."

The videotape and photographs you sent us in your April 3 letter give a different impression. The newer materials show that the rear window retracts as one unit with the rollbar.⁽¹⁾

When the switch is depressed, the rollbar and window pivot together and drop down behind the rear seats. The window is connected to the rollbar sufficiently that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers them to be one unit.

The rollbar is part of the convertible top. The top of the rollbar, when deployed, presents a horizontal exterior surface several inches wide directly over the rear seat passengers. It supports the rear edge of a removeable roof panel (another part of the top) above the front seat occupants. The rear window is physically connected to a part of the top, raises and lowers with the top like other convertibles, and depends on the position of the top for its position on the vehicle. Based on the new materials you have sent us, NHTSA considers the rear window to be part of a convertible passenger car top. Therefore, the rear window can be made of Item 4A rigid plastic glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.9/16/98

1. What appeared in the original photograph to be the top edge of a partially retracted rear window was actually one image in a timed exposure of the front edge of the rollbar retracting with the window.

ID: 17678.drn

Greg Balmer, Esq.
Staff Counsel
YMCA of the USA
101 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Mr. Balmer:

This responds to your letter concerning dealers' refusals to sell 15-passenger vans to YMCAs that drop off and pick up school children from school. You ask for clarification of the circumstances when buses are considered "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new bus sold or leased to a YMCA that will use the bus on a significant basis to transport school children to or from school is a "school bus" and must meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Your letter states the following:

Many YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school. Dealers are classifying this use as one of a school bus, and are refusing to sell or lease passenger vans to YMCAs, despite the fact that YMCAs are not schools and that YMCA child care and after-school programs are, under traditional definitions, primarily custodial, and not educational, in nature.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any bus which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. A 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If a dealer sells or leases (e.g., leases on a regular or long-term basis), a new bus to transport students, the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA's) school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

As you are aware, in an interpretation letter of November 20, 1978, to DeKalb Rental/Leasing, Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA determined that YMCAs are not schools. In instances where a new bus purchased by a YMCA is not used for transportation "to or from school," or a school-related event (e.g., if the bus will be used only for YMCA summer camps, or YMCA weekend activities where there is no transportation to or from school), a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus.

However, the situation raised in your letter is different. The pertinent issue is not whether the YMCA is a school, but whether the bus will be "significantly" used to transport school children "to or from" school (as described in Section 30125). If the bus will be used for such purpose, a school bus must be sold, regardless of whether such transportation is provided by a "school," a day care facility, or any other entity.

We find it appropriate to address whether buses are "used significantly" to transport students on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. Your letter states that "[m]any YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school." Children attend school five days a week. After-school programs are presumably also offered five days a week. YMCA buses are therefore presumably providing school children with transportation to or from school five days a week or nearly at that rate. NHTSA considers such recurring and consistent use of the YMCA buses to transport students "to or from school" (even if the same students are not transported each day), to constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, it is our position that, when selling or leasing new buses to any child care facility (including YMCAs) for the purpose of taking students to or picking students up from school, dealers must sell or lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."⁽¹⁾

NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. You may want to check with state laws governing private tort liability and consult with your insurance carriers for further information on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/17/98
ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus only"

1. As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event" and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has recently reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they have been superceded.

ID: 1767y

Mr. Richard L. Story, Sr.
34855 Annapolis Ave.
Wayne, MI 48184-2133

Dear Mr. Story:

This responds to your letter asking whether manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no.

The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird.

We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NHTSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:4/3/89

ID: 17680.DRN

Mr. Don Cote
Inventory/Fleet Manager
Northside Ford
9800 San Pedro
San Antonio, TX78216

Dear Mr. Cote:

This responds to your letter regarding the use of 15-passenger vans by a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days." You ask whether the vans are "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new 15-passenger van sold or leased for such a purpose is a school bus. When your dealership sells or leases new buses for the use you describe, the dealership must sell or lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, even when the purchaser is a child care facility.

Your letter explains that you are aware of a child care facility that uses 15-passenger vans to transport children "on a regular basis." In the morning, the child care facility uses the vans to take children from the facility to school. When school is over, the vans are used again to transport the children from school back to the child care facility. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that in the morning, the children's parents drop the children off at the child care facility, and the parents pick the children up from the facility in the evening. The children range in age from kindergarten to junior high school. You explained that by "on a regular basis," you meant that the transportation is provided "on regular school days."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new van is sold or leased to transport students (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis), the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

Whether buses are "used significantly" to transport the students is an issue that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. In the situation you describe, the child care facility is using vans to transport children to or from school "on regular school days." Such recurring and consistent use of the van to transport students "to or from school" would constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, when you sell or lease new buses to any child care facility for the purpose of taking students to or picking students up from school, you must sell or lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."^[1]

The requirements for the use of a motor vehicle are determined by State law, so Texas's requirements should be consulted to determine how students must be transported to and from school or school-related activities. NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.7/23/98

^[1] As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event" and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has recently reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. '30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they are hereby superceded.

ID: 17683.ztv

Mr. Nick Tysoe
Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd.
Crewe
Cheshire CW1 3PL
England

Dear Mr. Tysoe:

This is in reply to your fax of March 24, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Rolls-Royce is considering a four-lamp headlighting system in which the upper and lower beams would be provided by separate headlamps. You ask if it would be permissible for the lower beam headlamps to be visually/optically aimable and the upper beam headlamps to be mechanically aimable by external means.

This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring identical headlighting systems on both sides of a new vehicle, including their aiming features. I enclose a copy of a letter dated March 10, 1998, that this Office sent to Herr Spingler of Robert Bosch GmbH which explains the agency's views.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/19/98

ID: 17684.ztv

Mr. Peter Gross
Electrical Engineer
Spartan Motors
P.O. Box 440
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Gross:

We are replying to your letter of March 25, 1998, asking a question regarding motor vehicle lighting on motor homes wider than 80 inches, which will have rear combination stop/turn signal lamps. Specifically, you write that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the brake signal will not override the flashing tail lamps" (we believe you mean flashing turn signal lamps). You state that this is inconsistent with all vehicles Spartan has built with rear combination stop/turn signal lamps and inquire whether the lack of override is acceptable.

The stop lamp and turn signal lamp standards that apply to vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are, respectively, SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm Or More In Overall Width, and SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm Or More In Overall Width. Paragraph 5.4.2 of both J1398 and J1395 address the performance priorities of combination stop/turn signal lamps. These paragraphs state that "when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing" (the same is required by paragraphs 5.4.2 of SAE J586 FEB84 and SAE J588 NOV84 for combination stop/turn signal lamps on narrower vehicles). Because hazard warning signal lamps operate through the turn signal lamp system, many vehicles are wired so that the stop signal cannot be turned on if all the turn signal lamps (i.e., the hazard warning lamp system) are flashing.

However, Standard No. 108 and the SAE have no requirements per se for the hazard warning system. This means that a vehicle may be wired with a separate hazard warning system circuit so that it is subordinate to, and overriden by, the stop signal when both are operated simultaneously.

However, the stop lamp must not override the individual turn signals when they are operating simultaneously. This may explain the apparent inconsistency that you noted in Spartan production.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98

ID: 17688.wkm

Mr. Sunarto Vanani
Quality Assurance Manager
P. T. Elangperdana Tyre Industry
J1n Elang, Desa Sukahati - Citeureup
Bogor 16810, Indonesia

Dear Mr. Vanani:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your inquiry to this office in which you request interpretation of regulations and standards regarding manufacture of new tires, particularly 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 569, 571, and 574. You stated that as new tire manufacturers you intend to go into the export business and you need to know the applicable standards.

For your information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including tires. The law establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Each manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its products are free of safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. The manufacturer may also be subject to substantial civil penalties for violations of these requirements.

As you requested, please find enclosed copies of the following standards and regulations pertaining to the manufacture and importation of new tires:

• 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires
• 49 CFR 571.109 (Standard No. 109), New pneumatic tires
• 49 CFR 571.110 (Standard No. 110), Tire selection and rims
• 49 CFR 571.119 (Standard No. 119), New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars
• 49 CFR 571.120 (Standard No. 120), Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars
• 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
• 49 CFR 575, Consumer Information Regulations

I am also enclosing 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, subpart D of which requires each importer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires, to designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent for the service of legal process, notices, orders, decisions, and other applicable requirements. The resident agent must be designated and this agency so advised before tire codes can be assigned in accordance with Part 574.

For your additional information, I am enclosing copies of fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at 001 801 10 (202) 366-2992, fax 001 801 10 (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:109
d.6/5/98

ID: 1768y

Mr. Karl H. Mayer
Rules and Regulations
Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG
Porschestrasse 42
Stuttgart--Zuffenhausen
West Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. l0l, Controls and Displays, and No. l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standards in connection with a new transmission and related gear shift mechanism that you are considering producing. I note that your accompanying request for confidentiality was withdrawn by an August l5, l988 letter signed by your attorney, effective September 30, l988.

You stated that the new transmission is characterized by two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit. A motor vehicle incorporating the transmission does not have a clutch pedal. Operation of the transmission is entirely dependent on the position selected for the gear shift lever. The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 l. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position after being tapped. You plan to provide two shift displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel.

You stated that you believe that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it meets the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02 and asked whether we agree with your interpretation. You also asked three questions related to certain aspects of the transmission and related gear shift lever and shift displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, and as noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I agree with your basic contention that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it, and the accompanying gear shift lever and shift displays, meet the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02. The performance requirements specified in the two standards do not prohibit dual function transmissions.

I have one primary comment concerning how you should evaluate Standards No. l0l and No. l02 with respect to the compliance of a vehicle equipped with the transmission. In some instances, these standards specify different requirements depending on whether a vehicle is equipped with a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Thus, a critical issue is which of these requirements would need to be met by a vehicle equipped with your planned transmission. While you characterize the transmission as having two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit, it is our opinion that the transmission is an automatic transmission for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is possible, of course, to manually control most conventional automatic transmissions, at least to some extent, by means of the gear shift lever, e.g., by shifting the lever from D to L. Your transmission would differ from a conventional automatic transmission primarily in having an additional means of manual control. However, the transmission would still be an automatic transmission. Vehicles equipped with the transmission would thus need to meet the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02 for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, and not the requirements specified for vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

I will now address your three specific questions. You stated that it appears to you that when the shift lever is in the manual slot, it is permissible to have the lever, after tapping to shift up or down, return to the original middle position, and asked for our interpretation on this point. We agree that this basic design is permitted under Standards No. l0l and No. l02.

Your second and third questions, which I will address together, concern the shift displays. You stated that you believe it is permissible for both of the dual shift pattern displays, i.e., the one on the middle console and the one on the instrument panel, to be constantly visible so that the driver can simultaneously see the currently used shift mode and also the alternative, and asked for our evaluation of this point. You also asked about the permissibility of two alternative instrument panel displays.

I will begin my discussion of these questions by identifying the relevant requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02. Section S3.2 of Standard No. l02 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." NHTSA has previously interpreted "position" to mean the shift lever positions in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions. NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement for permanent display as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the required display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch. (I note that on August 25, l988, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the requirement for permanent display. A copy is enclosed.)

Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.l requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.l and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. l02.

Your design includes the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 l + M -. Under section S3.2 of Standard No. l02, all of these positions must be permanently displayed, i.e., there must be a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. As indicated above, Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays.

The fact that your design would include more than one gear position display raises several issues, including (l) whether more than one display is permitted, (2) whether each display (where multiple displays are provided) must meet all of the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02, and (3) whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. It is our opinion that more than one display is permitted. It is also our opinion that if one display meets all of the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, the additional display(s) provided voluntarily by the manufacturer need not meet any particular requirements (except for section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, which specifies requirements for sources of illumination not otherwise regulated by that standard). We have not previously found it necessary to address the issue of whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. However, one commenter on the August 25, l988 notice cited above asked whether two displays could be used together to demonstrate compliance with section S3.2 of Standard No. l02. We plan to address that specific issue in the context of that rulemaking.

While it is not entirely clear from your letter, the display on the middle console may provide permanent display (including times when the ignition is not on) of the shift lever positions, i.e., a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and an indication of the position selected by the driver. It appears, however, that illumination is not provided for this display. Given the reference in Standard No. l0l to Standard No. l02, it is our opinion that where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. l02 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. l0l must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. l02.

If the display on the console fully met the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, it would be unnecessary for the additional display on the instrument panel to also meet the standards (with the exception of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, as noted above). I note that neither of the alternative instrument panel displays shown in your letter show all of the shift lever positions. While the displays do show P R N D 3 2 l, they show either 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l instead of + M -. If the instrument panel display, rather than the console display, was to be used to meet the requirements of section S3.2 of Standard No. l0l, it would be necessary for the display to show the l0 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. I also assume that the instrument panel display is not activated when the ignition is not on and thus does not provide a permanent display.

I would like to note that the discussion in the preceding paragraph should not be read as a suggestion that you change the instrument panel display to show + M - instead of 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l. One consequence of your design is that, in the manual mode, the driver would not know what gear the car was in from either observing the location of the gear shift lever or by knowing the shift lever position (+ M or -). Your design takes care of this, however, by providing an indication of actual gear position on the instrument panel display. Assuming that you can meet the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02 by means of the console display, we believe that it would be a desirable feature of your design to indicate actual gear position on the voluntarily provided instrument panel display.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:l0l:l02 d:4/3/89