ID: 1985-01.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office 3861 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1984, concerning several questions about Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

In all of your questions, you in essence asked whether automatic safety belts are required to meet the marking requirements of section 4.1(j) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that automatic belts complying with the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not required to meet the marking requirements of Standard No. 209.

As explained in detail in the enclosed agency interpretation letter of August 7, 1981, to Volkswagen, automatic safety belts that meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are only required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in section S7.1 of Standard No. 208. Section S7.1 of Standard No. 208 only incorporates provisions directly related to retractor performance and does not incorporate the marking requirements of S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 21, 1984 NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Interpretation of Marking Requirement for Passive Seat Belts

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this request for NHTSA's opinion on this subject on behalf of NSK-Warner Co. Ltd. (NWC) of Japan, which is a producer of automotive seat belts and is one of NSK's subsidiaries.

Question 1) Are the passive seat belts required to have the identification marking label sewn or glued on the belt similar to the active seat belts, for ever-ready viewing of such? or is ever-ready viewing of the identification label not required although the I.D. label must be on the seat belt?

2) Is it sufficient to have the identification marking on components other than the belt, such as the retractor or buckle frame, where ever-ready viewing of such could not be practical?

3) Are there other interpretations of the marking requirement than the above?

Background information:

1) NWC needs to know NHTSA's interpretation on the above subject matter for planning the production of its passive seat belts which would be somewhat similar in external appearance to the Toyota Cressida type or the diagonal belt of the VW Rabbit.

2) NWS's customer auto-manufacturers are indicating their dislike far sewing the identification label onto the belt webbing.

3) The probable alternate method would be gluing the I.D. seal label or mark-stamping it onto the retractor frame or the mounting bracket. In this case, the retractor or bracket might be hidden under some form of cover or be located in the center console box, for which ever-ready viewing of such I.D. marking is not practical.

Your kind attention to this request for NHTSA's interpretation of the marking requirement for passive seat belts would be appreciated by us.

Very truly yours,

Binichi Doi NSK Representative

BD/lgc

ID: 1985-01.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Janet M. Goodrich

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Janet M. Goodrich 870 W. Versailles Ct. Baton Rouge, LA 70819

This responds to your letter asking about regulations for automobile ignition systems and steering wheel locking systems. You asked for information concerning requirements for vehicles with automatic transmissions for the removal of the ignition key while the vehicle is in drive or any gear other than park. You specifically asked whether a driver should be able to remove the key from the ignition while the car is in drive even if the engine is no longer running.

Requirements relating to steering wheel locking systems are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. Section S4.2 of the standard requires (among other things) that vehicles have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both. Section S4.3 of the standard requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine shall not activate the deterrent that prevents steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle. Thus, the driver of an automobile may turn off the engine while the car is in motion without activating the steering column lock or impeding forward self-mobility.

Neither Standard No. 114 nor any other standard specifically requires that vehicles be designed so that drivers are unable to remove the key from the ignition while the vehicle is in drive. I would note that the agency has conducted rulemaking addressing the issue of inadvertent activation of the steering column lock in moving vehicles. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in May 1978 and a final rule in December 1980, the agency deleted the relevant requirements in a final rule and response to petitions for reconsideration, published in June 1981. In that latter notice, the agency stated that it had determined that the problem of inadvertent activation is not significant enough to require vehicles to be equipped with key-locking systems that provide more protection against inadvertent activation.

Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, also includes a requirement relevant to your question. Section S3.7.3 requires that the engine starter for automatic transmission vehicles be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

Copies of Standards Nos. 102 and 114 and the three Federal Register notices discussed above are enclosed for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

870 W. Versailles Ct. Baton Rouge, La. 70819 (504) 275-0666 November 8, 1984

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of Standard Enforcement 400 7th Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

I need information concerning the legal regulations for automobile ignition systems and steering wheel locking systems. Specifically I would like for the information to cover what the requirements are for the manufacturers of vehicles with automatic transmissions for the removal of the ignition key while the vehicle is in drive or any gear other than park. Should the driver be able to remove the key from the ignition while the car is in drive even if the engine is no longer running.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be very much appreciated as I need the information to complete my research. Thank you. Sincerely, Janet M. Goodrich jmg

ID: 1985-02.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. David Hawkins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician Failure Analysis Associates 10899 Kinghyrst, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77099

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether buses are excluded from the requirements of section S4.2, section S4.3, and/or the static testing procedures of section S5. You also asked whether there are any other standards which provide criteria for the testing of seating systems on buses.

Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies to buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, General performance requirements, provides that "(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand" specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.

Similarly, section S4.5, Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, provides that "(e)except for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall" meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would not be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

With respect to your last question, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies criteria for the testing of school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing seating systems of buses.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Failure Analysis Associates

March 6, 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Our File No. HS30089

Dear Mr. Wood:

In regard to our recent phone conversation, I am sending this following list of questions pertaining to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. This standard deals specifically with seating systems--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The purpose and scope of this standard is to "establish requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact".

1. Am I correct in assuming that buses are excluded from: the general performance requirements (S4.2), restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs (S4.3), and also excluded from the static testing procedures outlined in (S5)?

2. If buses are indeed excluded from all of the above, are there any other standards which provide criteria for the testing (visual, static, or dynamic) of seating systems on buses?

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician RDH:cdk

ID: nht87-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dwight R. Koehler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. BOX 37589 Omaha, NE 68137

Dear Mr. Koehler:

This is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1986, with respect to agricultural (grain) transportation vehicles which you manufacture, known in the industry as "grain buggies." You have asked whether there are any DOT lighting requirements for these ve hicles, and if so, what are they and how might you meet them.

You have described the grain buggies as designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, with a top road speed of 25 to 3Q mph. You have also told us that "the primary use for these trailers will be 'off road' in nature," although "there are times when the se units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways."

The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment apply to various categories of "motor vehicles.' A "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufa ctured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. The manufacturer of a vehicle determines whether his product is a "motor vehicle" and therefore a vehicle that must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards inc luding Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reserves the right to challenge any determination that appears clearly erroneous. On the basis of the information you have presented us, the grain buggies will be primarily used off the public roads, and u e of the public roads will be only incidental (in our experience agricultural equipment uses public roads for such limited purposes as crossing from one field to another, and delivery of produce to processing plants). Under th ese circumstances, we would not consider the grain buggies as "motor vehicles," and no Federal requirements would apply to them. They would, however, remain subject to any appropriate requirements of the State in which they are used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

12/9/86

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 407th Street Southwest Washington D.C., 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are a manufacturer of agricultural grain transportation vehicles, also known in the industry as "Grain Buggies". We manufacture 4 different models. (ref. enclosed product literature)

Although the primary use for these trailers will be "off road" in nature, we realize there are times when these units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways. They are designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, which generally have a top road speed of 25 to 30 MPH.

Since we market these units over a wide geographic area, we felt the need to incorporate a comprehensive safety lighting system, which would conform to any Department of Transportation specifications for said vehicles if there were indeed any such specif ications.

We need to know two things:

1. Are there any DOT lighting requirements for these types of vehicles?

2. If there are any requirements, what are they and how can we meet them?

I have included some general descriptions of our products for your review.

We are committed to producing quality, safe equipment for our customers. Your response to our questions will help us meet our commitments.

Sincerely

Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. Box 37589 Omaha, NE. 68137 (402) 595-3050

ID: nht87-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada -- Manager, Automotive Lighting, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to a new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be tilted 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle - for use of mechanical aimers for headla mps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the types of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adaptors. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporatin g on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the Standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

However, there are some practical considerations that are important if you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adaptors for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptors which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for larger ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have prop osed.

In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your new designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adaptors do not exist in the service communit y.

Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidential treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying re ferences to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However, because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 Development of MR (Multi-Reflector Headlamp) and was discussed at SAE and was discussed at SAE meeti ngs in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We have asked you an advice about permissibility of mechanical aiming with the additional adaptor by the letter dated August 4, 1986.

As for the above mentioned letter, we would like to ask a favor of you. We would like you to deal with this matter in strict confidence.

Since this headlamp is being developed as our new idea for customer satisfaction, we are trying to keep this information inside of our company. Therefore we would like you to maintain the secrecy of this information strictly against any other third party .

Your kind cooperation will be highly appreciated and as well we are looking forward to your reply to our problem.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: nht87-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: P. Soardo -- Istituto Elettrotecnio Nazionale, Galileo Ferraris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Prof. P. Soardo Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale Galileo Ferraris 10155 Torino Italy

This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 1987, to the agency with reference to the "homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined - capable of performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function of the front fog lamp." You have told us that the device Is intended principally for the aftermarket and will use a two-filament H4 bulb, the main filament providing the "driving beam, " and the secondary filament performing "the ' fog' function." When it is mounted on the vehicle it will "meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams. "

As you may know, there are two types of laws in the United States that pertain to motor vehicle lighting equipment, the laws of the United States government. "Federal" law) , and those of the 50 individual States ("Local" law). One of these laws is Feder al Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for original equipment, and, as a general rule, only aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace original equipme nt. There are no original equipment requirements in Standard No . 108 for a combination driving-fog lamp such as you discuss, and hence there are no Federal aftermarket requirements for it either. provided that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of required front lamps, Standard No. 108 allows a vehicle manufacturer to install the driving-fog lamp as original equipment. Because Standard No. 108 does not allow use of the H4 bulb in headlamps for four-wheeled vehicles it could not serve as a head lamp. There are no Federal restrictions preventing the sale of this device in the aftermarket as a supplementary lamp.

However, the lamp would be subject to Local law, and some of the States of one State does not signify approval by another, so there would not be "homologation" permitting sale in all States based upon approval by only one State. Even if a Local law does not require approval of a driving-fog lamp, it may forbid its use . We are unable to advise you on Local laws but you may wish to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle administrators for an opinion. The address of this organization is 1201 Conn ecticut Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Strada delle Cacce, 91 10135 Torino - Italy

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 (USA)

Dear Sirs,

a manufacturer or lighting equipment has asked us whether it is possible to obtain homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined -capable or performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function or the fron t fog lamp.

The device, which is intended mainly for the aftermarket. uses a two-filament bulb, type H4.

The main filament is used to obtain the driving beam. the secondary filament is used to obtain the "fog" function.

The special design characteristics or this light unit allow the headlamp -when mounted on the vehicle - to meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams.

We look forward to hearing your comments to the above at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, we remain.

Yours sincerely. (P. Soardo)

ID: nht87-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Albert Schwarz -- Senior engineer, Imperial Clevite Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/84 letter from Frank Berndt to Terry E. Teeter (Std. 106)

TEXT:

Mr. Albert Schwarz Senior Engineer, Product Development Imperial Clevite Inc. Imperial Eastman Division 6300 W. Howard Street Chicago, IL 60648-3492

This responds to your January 12, 1987 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You ask whether the standard applies to flexible conduits (i.e., hoses and plastic tubing) used to trans mit air pressure to accessories such as horns and windshield wipers. The answer to your question is yes, if a failure of such a conduit result; in a loss of air pressure in the brake system.

On August 3, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation of Standard No. 106 to Mr. Terry Teeter of the Eaton Corporation, who asked the same question you did about the applicability of the standard to conduits used for accessories. Our letter explains that fle xible hoses (and tubing) connected to accessories are "brake hoses" and subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes--i.e., a failure of such a hose would result in a loss of air pressur e in the brake system. I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Teeter for your information.

I understand that Ms. Hom of my staff sent you a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA on April 17, 1986, which terminated rulemaking on whether the air brake hose tensile requirement of Standard No. 106 should be reduced for hoses typically used for accessories. NHTSA decided to terminate rulemaking because the agency believed that it would be in the interest of safety for the smaller-diameter hoses to comply with current requirements of the standard. Since you might want to review this not ice in light of the information provided you in this letter, I have enclosed a duplicate copy for your convenience.

You also ask whether there are requirements other than those included in Standard No. 106 that must be met by accessory lines. The answer to your question is no. The air brake hoses you intend to use in accessory lines need comply only with Standard No. 106 to be manufactured and sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(4/17/86 Federal Register notice of termination of rulemaking, 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 85-04, Notice 2) omitted.

Januxary 12, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today, during a conversation with Ms. Dierdra Hom, I raised a question which she has suggested that I pass along to you for comment.

This question involves a vehicle equipped with an air brake system which is within the jurisdiction of DOT 106-74. When such a vehicle also uses the compressed air system to power accessory non-brake equipment, such as horns or windshield wipers, must th e hoses and or plastic tubing, along with their associated couplings, also meet the requirements of DOT 106? Are their other requirements which must also be met by non-safety-related accessories which may also be powered by, and therefore connected to th e compressed air system?

I look forward to receiving your comment.

Yours truly,

Albert Schwarz

Senior Engineer, Product Development

ID: nht87-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Goodling

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 15, 1985 The Honorable Bill Goodling 2263 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Goodling: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Andy Witten of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, concerning our regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. Mr. Witten believes that Federal law prohibits schoo ls from carrying more than 9 students in a van. He suggested that the law should be changed to allow schools to use the full capacity of 15-passenger vans. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, there is no Federal law prohibiting schools from transporting 15 school children in a 15-passenger van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Congress amended t he Vehicle Safety Act in 1974 to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a "school b us" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Thus, a 10- or 15-passenger van is considered a school bus if intended for school purposes, and our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The Federal requir ements apply only to the manufacture and sale of school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the requirements which vehicles must meet in order to be licensed for use as school buses. School vehicles that are within Pennsylvania's definiti on of a "school bus" are subject to the State's requirements for school buses. We are aware that Pennsylvania has recently amended its definition of a "school bus" by extending it to vehicles with a capacity of 10 passengers and a driver. Previously, tho se vehicles were excluded from the definition. Pennsylvania now requires those previously-excluded vehicles to comply with the State's school bus regulations in order to be used as school buses in that State. The nature of the State's regulations for school bus use is a matter left to Pennsylvania. Our agency has issued recommendations for state highway safety programs regarding the use of school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transpor tation Safety (copy enclosed), which Pennsylvania may choose to adopt. Program Standard No. 17 is part of a series of program standards covering various aspects of highway safety which were issued by NHTSA under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Pennsylvania may have decided that our recommendations should be made part of the state's comprehensive regulations for school bus usage. Again, however, operating requirements which school buses must meet are determined by State officials. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures: Constituent's correspondence, HSPS No. 17

ID: 86-5.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1986, concerning the applicability of our regulations to the repair of fuel tanks. You specifically asked whether our regulations prohibit the repair of automotive fuel tanks made of plastic. As explained below, a dealer or motor vehicle repair shop can make repairs to plastic and other types of vehicle fuel tanks.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity sets performance requirements for new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Manufacturers of these vehicles are free to use fuel tanks made of any type of material, such as metal or plastic, as long as the fuel system can meet all of the performance requirements of the standard.

Repair of a fuel tank in a new vehicle, which, for example, sustained damage in shipment, would be affected by Standard No. 301. If a fuel tank is repaired prior to a new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567, a copy of which is enclosed). As an alterer, the person must certify that the fuel system, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard No. 301.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, repairs to a vehicle are potentially affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. However, the agency has not applied the prohibition of that section to the repair of a fuel tank which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the fuel tank and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged fuel tank in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel tank with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the repair of a fuel tank which has been damaged in use.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may repair fuel tanks regardless of whether the repairs adversely affect the fuel system. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Please note also that individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Therefore, it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from repairing the fuel systems in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

ENC.

DONALD L. ANGLIN

CONSULTING EDITOR McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY

Automotive and Technical Writing

August 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply of June 18 to my earlier letter requesting information on Federal regulations pertaining to motor vehicle safety equipment.

Recently, we have seen statements in the trade press and in consumer publications that Federal law prohibits the repair of automotive fuel tanks -- specifically, the repair of automotive fuel tanks made of plastic.

If this is true, would you please send me a copy of the appropriate regulations, and any available related materials.

Thank you once again for your interest and assistance.

DONALD L. ANGLIN

ID: 86-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson Director, Product Engineering E-Z-GO Textron P.O. Box 388 Augusta, GA 30913-2699

Dear Mr. Eavenson:

This responds to your letter asking whether a vehicle your company might import from Japan would be subject to Federal safety requirements. You stated that the vehicle will have a top speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour, be powered by a 20 horsepower engine, would have no body panels other than a protective cab enclosure, and is not designed or intended for use on public roads. Based on this information, these vehicles would not appear to be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as explained below.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. Section 102(3) of that 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 such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards. You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on the public roads, but would be used only at factories, golf courses, and for some off-road applications. Based on these statements, these vehicles do not appear to be motor vehicles, because they are not manufactured for use on the public roads.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 20, 1986

Chief Counsel National Hwy. Transportation Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir (Madam)

E-Z-GO Textron would like your opinion on a potential new product addition, which would be imported from Fuji Heavy Industries of Shinjuku, Japan.

This vehicle is considered for non-highway use at factories, golf courses and some off-road application. The vehicle incorporated a 20 horsepower engine with a four wheel drive powertrain. Gearing, governors and tires will limit the vehicle's top speed to 25 to 30 miles per hour to render it more suitable for grounds maintenance and industrial applications.

United States Customs have indicated that the proposed vehicle would fall under their Tariff Regulation 692.40, Non-highway Self-Propelled Vehicles. The vehicle as imported, would not include body panels with the exception of a protective cab enclosure. The engine is a special built, twin cylinder, industrial type that is being used on a three wheel vehicle manufactured at our Augusta, Georgia factory.

Since this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on public thoroughfares, we would like your opinion on this matter in order to avoid any potential problems.

Your helpfulness and prompt reply in this matter will greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jimmy N. Eavenson Director Product Engineering