ID: aiam3052

Dear Mr. Hiribarren: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the tw vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) define motor-driven cycle (moped) as 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.; The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, woul not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.; All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.; The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has ha serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3051

Dear Mr. Hiribarren: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the tw vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) define motor-driven cycle (moped) as 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.; The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, woul not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.; All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.; The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has ha serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4463

"Dear Mr. Speas: I am responding to your letter of July 7, 1987, wher you ask for some assistance with an issue facing your State's public school systems. You stated that some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet Federal school bus specifications. The school systems use these noncomplying vans primarily to transport school teachers and administrators, but the vans sometimes are used to transport students to extracurricular activities. You ask two questions. The first question is whether Federal law prohibits a school system from using a van to transport students to extracurricular activities if the van does not meet Federal school bus standards. The second question is whether the Secretary of Transportation has adopted a regulation defining the term 'significantly' as that term appears in 15 U.S.C. /1391(14). The 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act or VSA) apply to any person manufacturing or selling a new 'school bus.' NHTSA defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold or introduced into interstate commerce for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. The VSA does not regulate the manner in which a person, including a school district, uses a vehicle it purchases. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that Federal law does not prohibit a school district from transporting students in a noncomplying vehicle. On the other hand, the seller of these vans may have sold them in violation of Federal law if the seller had reason to know from factors such as the identity or activities of the purchaser that the purchaser intended to use or convert the vans to school buses. When NHTSA proposed to amend the definition of 'school bus' in consequence of the 1974 VSA amendments, we anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a manufacturer has no reason to know that one of its dealers has sold one of its vehicles as a school bus. The agency expressly stated in the preamble to the proposal that if a dealer knowingly sold any multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, then the dealer would be responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. 40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975. NHTSA maintains its long-standing position that the seller is the person in the chain of distribution most likely to know of a vehicle's intended use, and remains accountable for selling a vehicle as a school bus if the seller has reason to know whether the buyer intends such use. 40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975. Your second question involves the term 'schoolbus' as it is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, /102(14) 15 U.S.C. /1391(14) . That provision reads: ''Schoolbus' means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (Emphasis supplied.) You ask whether the Secretary has adopted a regulation that defines the term 'significantly' as it is used in this statutory provision. The answer is no. The question of whether a motor vehicle is 'likely to be significantly used' for transporting students is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing upon the intended use of the vehicle. However, in the final rule amending the definition of 'school bus,' the agency stated its view that 'the Congressional emphasis on 'significant use' of a vehicle (is) a direction to extend the school bus standards to all buses that transport students, whether or not it is their primary purpose.' 40 FR 60033, 60034. Emphasis supplied. In expressing this view, NHTSA specifically rejected a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) suggestion that the agency find 'significant use' only where a bus was to be used 'primarily' for transporting students. Id. Emphasis supplied. Therefore, when the agency considers 'significant use,' the question of whether a vehicle primarily transports school staff is not determinative. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht94-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1994

FROM: Gerard Bonvin -- Automobile Cheyenne USA, Inc

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Council Office, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Gerard Bonvin (A43; Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht

Automobile Cheyenne USA, INC, is a California corporation, and an affiliate of Automobile Cheyenne S.A. (France) a successful manufacturer of small passenger and utility Vehicles with a proven ten years track record.

Automobile Cheyenne's main product is the "Cheyenne", a small Jeep type, a lightweight, front-wheel drive utility vehicle which is stylish, reliable, very economical, and inexpensive. Automobile Cheyenne USA, has been formed for the purpose of distri bution in North America. Our preliminary schedule has our first year of production beginning July 1996.

After our brief conversation dated the December 14, I would like to take the opportunity to ask you questions about DOT regulations.

- What are the procedure to follow in order to be categorize Small Volume manufacturer?

- Is there really a big difference on the test in order to certified between small volume and over 10000 vehicles?

- Is there any difference between two seaters or four seaters on crash test?

- Is there a rear crash impact?

- Do we need Air Bags if we have Seat belts?

- Do we need a buzzer for the Seat Belt?

- Is the dashboard need to be padded?

- Is there any specific ways on how to install the windshield?

- What is the surface of the windshield that need to wiped?

- As far as Windshield Wipers, how many cycles and how many different speed?

I hope that these questions will not infringe on your time, and I would like to thank in advance for your help. I wish you a happy holidays.

Truly Yours

ID: aiam4410

Dear Mr. Maloney: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps* (49 CFR S571.211). Section S3 of this standard states, 'Wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections.' You asked whether these components are permitted to incorporate winged projections if the winged projections do not extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted. As we have stated several times in the past, winged projects are prohibited on wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs, *regardless* of whether the winged projections are recessed below the level of the wheel rim.; This issue was first raised in response to the notice of propose rulemaking for the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, published on December 3, 1966 (31 FR 15212). That notice proposed language for Standard No. 211 that was identical with that which was adopted. In response to this proposal, a manufacture commented that it did not consider its winged wheel nuts a hazard to pedestrians or cyclists, because the winged wheel nuts did not extend beyond the outermost projection of the wheel rim. The final rule published on February 3, 1967 (32 FR 2408) did not make any change to the proposed language in response to this comment.; In a report issued on March 17, 1967 on the development of the initia Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency summarized the comments on the proposed standards and its response to those comments. I have enclosed a copy of the summary of Standard No. 211 for your information. As you will see, this summary recited the manufacturer's comments on winged projections that were located inside the outermost projection of the wheel rim and tire. The summary goes on to say, 'The Agency did not agree, and retained the prohibition of even such recess winged structures lest the clothes of child pedestrians and others be caught.' Hence, arguments about the unobjectionability of *recessed* winged projections were considered and rejected by the agency more than twenty years ago.; We have repeated this position in our subsequent interpretations o Standard No. 211. I have enclosed copies of an August 26, 1970 letter to Mr. James S. Campbell ('...any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed.'), a November 25, 1975 letter to Mr. James J. Schardt ('Our interpretation of Standard No. 211 is that S3 prohibits winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the tire or rim, as well as those that do.'), and a January 31, 1980 letter to Mr. Doug Smith ('...the standard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim.').; After examining the history of this requirement, we have concluded tha the language of the standard itself draws no distinction between winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the rim and those that do. Instead, section S3 provides that the identified components 'shall *not* incorporate winged projections.' We reaffirm our previous interpretations, which concluded that this language prohibits *all* winged projections on the identified components, not just those that extend beyond the outer edge of the rim.; You concluded by asking me to state that recessed winged projection may by imported, offered for sale, and sold in the United States. I cannot make such a statement. Since those winged projections are prohibited by Standard No. 211, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps that incorporate winged projections. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), and we would consider each sale of wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of section 108(a).; If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free t contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 3241yy

John C. Buonora
Director
The City of New York
Police Department
Motor Transport Division
53-15 58th Street
Woodside, NY 11377

Dear Mr. Buonora:

This responds to your letter of November 1, 1991, "regarding the removal of the operating handle for the reclining mechanism of the 1991 Chevrolet police car split bench seat." You asked for "a written determination stating whether or not the removal of the operating handle violates the seat safety standard and any possible NYPD legal liability in the event of an accident." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Therefore, if a business in any of the aforementioned categories removed the reclining mechanism operating handle, it would need to ensure that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards following the removal.

Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, the City of New York Police Department may itself remove the operating handle for the seat reclining mechanism on vehicles it owns without violating the "render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, even if such removal did result in the vehicle no longer complying with all applicable safety standards.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of New York to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modification. In addition, since legal liability is a matter of state law, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of New York regarding potential liability.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:12/3/9l

ID: nht91-7.25

DATE: December 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John C. Buonora -- Director, The City of New York Police Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-1-91 from John C. Buonora to Mary Versailles (OCC 6632)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 1, 1991, "regarding the removal of the operating handle for the reclining mechanism of the 1991 Chevrolet police car split bench seat." You asked for "a written determination stating whether or not the removal of the operating handle violates the seat safety standard and any possible NYPD legal liability in the event of an accident." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser fur purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Therefore, if a business in any of the aforementioned categories removed the reclining mechanism operating handle, it would need to ensure that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards following the removal.

Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does NOT affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, the City of New York Police Department may itself remove the Operating handle for the seat reclining mechanism on vehicles it owns without violating the render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, even if such removal did result in the vehicle no longer complying with all applicable safety standards.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of New York to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modification. In addition, since legal liability is a matter of state law, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of New York regarding potential liability.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone

at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht71-5.3

DATE: 11/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As we have advised Ed Bernett of your office from time to time during the fall, a response to your letter on the treatment of removable foam seat cushions under Standard No. 207 has been under review for some time.

Standard No. 207 is essentially a test of the strength of the seat structure. As such it does not prohibit the use of removable seat cushions of the type described in your letter.

We consider it to be the intent of the standard, however, that when the momentum of a cushion is transferred in any way to the seat structure during the course of an acceleration in a given direction, the weight of the cushion must be added to the weight of the seat structure in calculating the force to be applied in that direction under 84.2 and 34.3.2.

ID: aiam0769

Dear Mr. Peck: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1972, in which yo requested formal confirmation of the interpretation of S4.3(c) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 given you informally on June 22.; The requirements of S4.3(c) apply to bolts used to secure the pelvi restraint of a seat belt assembly. They do not apply to bolts used to secure the upper torso restraint. Bolts for the upper torso restraint are therefore regulated with respect to their strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(b).; The reference to shoulder bolts' in S4.3(c) relates to the design o the bolt and not to the manner of its use. Pelvic restraints are often attached to the vehicle by such bolts, hence the reference to them.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1959

Dear Mr. Semark: This responds to Sheller-Globe's June 16, 1975, request for a statemen of the requirements for 1976-model multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) specified by Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*.; Section S4.3 of the standard sets out the requirements for MPV's with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. These requirements are the same in the future as at present.; Section S4.2 sets out the requirements for MPV's with a GVWR of 10,00 pounds or less (S4.2.1 for vehicles until August 15, 1975, and S4.2.2 for vehicles on or after August 15, 1975 until August 15, 1977). As the standard is presently effective, S4.2.2 will require that most MPV's of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with the same seat belts and warning systems as presently installed in passenger cars. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements as they were revised October 29, 1974 (40 FR 38380, October 31, 1974). Also enclosed is a *Federal Register* notice of December 6, 1974, that sets out the associated warning system reguirements (sic) (40 FR 42692, December 6, 1974). The only MPV's excepted from these requirements are forward control vehicles, convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor homes, and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. They will continue to be required to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 as presently in effect.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently propose that a manufacturer have the option of meeting the requirements of S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 until January 1, 1976. I enclose a copy of that proposal, which includes a preamble discussion of the reasons for this proposal. A final determination will appear in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel