ID: aiam3350

Dear Mr. Chauvin: This responds to your August 5, 1980, letter asking why it might not b possible for a manufacturer to certify a vehicle in compliance with the school bus safety standards if that vehicle transports 10 persons or less. You state that you would like the smaller sized vehicles to be constructed with the same safety features as larger school buses.; First, we would like to note that the school bus safety standards wer originally applied only to the larger sized vehicles (more than 10 persons) because the larger sized vehicles were not previously required to comply with many of our safety standards. On the other hand, most of our standards apply to vehicles transporting 10 persons or less. Since these small vehicles were extensively regulated it was determined to be unnecessary to apply school bus safety standards to them.; In response to your particular question, a vehicle transporting 1 persons or less is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), not a bus or a school bus. A manufacturer is required by this agency to certify such a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. This certification statement must be made on the vehicle's certification label. Therefore, a manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a school bus in compliance with the school bus safety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category (more than 10 persons).; New York should not attempt to issue a regulation that would requir multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with all school bus safety standards. Some of those standards might conflict with other Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's and would, therefore, be preempted. For example, the school bus seating standard could not be applied to MPV's because their seating is regulated by other Federal safety standards. However, since MPV's are not presently regulated in the areas of emergency exits, joint strength, or roof crush, New York could have a regulation requiring MPV's used to transport children to comply with these performance standards now applicable only to school buses. The vehicles would still be required to be certified only to the safety standards applicable to MPV's, however.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3352

Dear Mr. Chauvin: This responds to your August 5, 1980, letter asking why it might not b possible for a manufacturer to certify a vehicle in compliance with the school bus safety standards if that vehicle transports 10 persons or less. You state that you would like the smaller sized vehicles to be constructed with the same safety features as larger school buses.; First, we would like to note that the school bus safety standards wer originally applied only to the larger sized vehicles (more than 10 persons) because the larger sized vehicles were not previously required to comply with many of our safety standards. On the other hand, most of our standards apply to vehicles transporting 10 persons or less. Since these small vehicles were extensively regulated it was determined to be unnecessary to apply school bus safety standards to them.; In response to your particular question, a vehicle transporting 1 persons or less is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), not a bus or a school bus. A manufacturer is required by this agency to certify such a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. This certification statement must be made on the vehicle's certification label. Therefore, a manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a school bus in compliance with the school bus safety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category (more than 10 persons).; New York should not attempt to issue a regulation that would requir multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with all school bus safety standards. Some of those standards might conflict with other Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's and would, therefore, be preempted. For example, the school bus seating standard could not be applied to MPV's because their seating is regulated by other Federal safety standards. However, since MPV's are not presently regulated in the areas of emergency exits, joint strength, or roof crush, New York could have a regulation requiring MPV's used to transport children to comply with these performance standards now applicable only to school buses. The vehicles would still be required to be certified only to the safety standards applicable to MPV's, however.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1271

Dear Mrs. Stamboni: I have checked the sample ANSID-19.4 title and odometer disclosur forms which were submitted by you and Mr. Pfaff for review.; The odometer form complies with the disclosure regulation, 49 CFR Par 580. The odometer disclosure portion of the title document complies except for a blank for Last Plate Number and a reference to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which points out the civil liabilities for failure to comply.; If we can be of any more assistance, please contact our office. Yours truly, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht95-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. F. Tolley -- Senior Development Engineer, New Products Office, Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/28/95 LETTER FROM R. F. TOLLEY TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10847)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tolley:

This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The second sentence of this paragraph states that "The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern." You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifica lly, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp.

We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as "some other point"), our comment is that; until N HTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: 0897

Mr. R. F. Tolley
Senior Development Engineer
New Products Office
Magneti Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire WS11 3LP
England

Dear Mr. Tolley:

This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The second sentence of this paragraph states that "The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern." You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifically, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp.

We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as "some other point"), our comment is that, until NHTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/8/95

ID: aiam4389

Dear Mr. Thompson: This letter responds to your inquiry concerning classifying a vehicle the 'TransiTaxi,' which your company manufactures. You inform us that although in 1985 you classified this vehicle as a bus, you now have a question whether this is a proper classification. You state that you use Ford truck components in your vehicle design, and describe your vehicles as larger than the Ford Bronco.; You state further that if you must classify this vehicle as 'passenger car,' you would find it 'financially impossible to go through the crash-testing procedures required.' You ask us to consider issuing either an interpretation or an exemption, cite your maximum annual production of only 500 units as factor, and offer to bring a 'demonstrator' vehicle to Washington. You enclose specifications with your correspondence that say the standard 'TransiTaxi' seats a maximum of seven passengers.; First, please understand that under our certification requirements (4 CFR 567) for the vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer initially determines a vehicle's type using the definitions set out in 49 CFR S571.3, and certifies that the motor vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. However, a manufacturer's classification does not bind the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Under S571.3, a ''Bus' means a motor vehicle with motive power, excep a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Since your vehicle is designed to carry a maximum of seven passengers, it appears that your vehicle is not a bus.; Your specifications indicate your use of design elements associate with a truck chassis. For example, the front twin I-beam suspension (coil springs) is designed for trucks, and the ground clearances and curb weight more nearly match truck specifications than for other types of; PAGE 2 WAS INADVERTENTLY MISSING FROM THE ORIGINAL Finally, if you wish to certify your Transitaxi as a bus, you may wis to consider using a larger chassis suitable for completion with the requisite seating capacity.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1809

Dear Mr. Shall: This responds to Dana Corporation's January 1, 1975, question whethe the exception found in S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.2(a) of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, which permits 'controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system' is available in the case of a wheel which is not 'sensed' by the antilock system through a wheel sensor. You indicate that a statement in our November 1, 1974, letter to Dana Corporation appears to permit the exception for wheels that are not equipped with a antilock valve and logic system.; The answer to this question is no. The statement in our November 12 1974, letter states that 'the manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system.' This statement simply recognizes that the standard does not require an antilock system, and that the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules in any antilock system employed by a manufacturer is also not specified.; The standard does require 'no lockup' of any wheel above 10 mph excep 'controlled lockup allowed by an antilock system.' It is clear that a manufacturer who wishes to make use of this exception must provide an antilock system and that it must control lockup at the wheel in question. We pointed out in our November 12, letter that an antilock system would not control lockup of a wheel unless a sensor located on that wheel signaled the logic module of the lockup condition. It would not be sufficient that an antilock system controlled the air available to the wheels' brake system without the ability to sense that wheel's lockup.; To summarize, a manufacturer may choose whether to utilize an antiloc system, and whether to equip each wheel with a sensor. However, a manufacturer must equip each wheel with a sensor in order to take advantage of the controlled lockup exception at that wheel.; Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0964

Dear Mr. Milby: In our letter to you of December 7, 1972, regarding Standard 217, Bu Window Retention and Release, we incorrectly stated in the answer to question 5 that an amendment currently being prepared would clarify Figures 1 and 2 to indicate the location of the bus wall in relation to the seat. We do not feel such a clarification is necessary for the purposes of the standard. The intent of those figures is to establish a space envelope containing certain reach distances with respect to the seat, and the location of the wall is therefore not relevant.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ray August -- Auto Trends

TEXT:

Mr. Ray August Auto Trends 9818 Grinnell Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48213

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking "what is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, to be equipped with a supplementary stop lamp mounted on the centerline of the vehicle not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches if it is a convertible). The standard specifies that the lamp shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, and that it shall meet minimum candela values at certain specified test points. Under Federal law, the lamp must meet these requirements at the time the new car is sold. Thus, if the vehicle manufacturer or new car dealer equips a passenger car with a trunk rack, care must be taken to insure that the requirements are still met (obviously this depends both upon the location of the lamp and the configuration of the rack). If the rack prohibits the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it complies with all requirements of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle, the owner may modify his car without reference to Federal law but a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business cannot make modifications that "render inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment relating to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view dealer installation of a trunk rack on a used car with an original equipment center stop lamp as subject to this prohibition if the rack affects compliance with photometric and visibility requirements.

The question is frequently asked us whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no: compliance is determined without the load in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Dec. 12, 1985

Taylor Vinson Legal Consul NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: New Brake Light - Rear Window

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In my discussion with Mr. Kagy of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, he recommended I write to you for a legal opinion in this matter.

Auto Trends is a manufacturer of luggage racks, both roof racks and trunk racks. What is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Ray August, Plant Manager RA:ks cc:ra

ID: aiam0622

Dear Mr. Pieratt: In your letter of February 23 you present a fact situation in which final stage manufacturer receives a completed vehicle, 'such as a Ford Econoline,' and is instructed by the ultimate purchaser to add seats and seatbelts, flashing lights, etc. to transform the vehicle into a small school bus. You ask:; ???'Must this vehicle be certified as a bus, even though it had bee certified previously by the chassis maker as a completed truck? How would a person so certify?<<<; Where a completed, certified vehicle is altered after manufacture, th issue is whether sufficient modifications have been made to the original vehicle that the one who modifies it must be considered a manufacturer in his own right. Considering the scope of modifications you describe, and the change of vehicle type from 'truck' to 'bus' (if its carrying capacity is over 10 persons), or to 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' (if it can carry 10 persons or less), this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case the modifying manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable standards. He would have the responsibility of ensuring that his modifications did not affect the vehicle's original compliance with the standards, as well as full responsibility for any standards that become newly applicable because of the change of vehicle type.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel