ID: nht91-5.38

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: None

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This is to request confirmation of our interpretation that specific future vehicle models may be properly classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Attachment I contains a description of these future vehicle models.

As described in Attachment I, the new models will be constructed on a truck chassis. The chassis-frame is separate from the vehicle body (a design usually associated only with trucks) and the chassis was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation.

The vehicles also have special features for occasional off-road operation.

- Attachment I describes some of the special features for off-road operation.

- Attachment II shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for the new models (preliminary estimates) with characteristics listed in NHTSA's CAFE regulations which are used to identify vehicles capable of off-highway operation (minimum approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and front and rear axle clearances). The new models are expected to meet the criteria for three out of the five off-highway vehicle characteristics listed.

- Attachment III shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and axle clearances for a variety of current model passenger cars and MPVs with estimated specifications for the new models. In general, the new models have specifications outside the range of most passenger cars and within or close to the range of most MPVs.

Because the future vehicle models described above are constructed on a truck chassis and have special features for occasional off-road operation, we believe that they would be properly classified as MPVs for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please confirm that our interpretation is correct.

ATTACHMENT I

Description of Future Vehicle Models ATTACHMENT II

CAFE Regulation Minimum Preliminary Vehicle for Automobiles Capable Estimate for Characteristic of Off-Road Operation New Models

Approach angle 28 degrees Departure angle 20 degrees Breakover angle 14 degrees Running clearance 203 mm Axle clearance Front 178 mm Rear 178 mm

ATTACHMENT III

Charts and graphs showing vehicle specifications. (Graphics omitted)

ID: 7246-3

Mr. Hal Balzak
28025 N. Sarabande Lane #1216
Canyon Country, CA 91351

Dear Mr. Balzak:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes; the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components.

However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that "(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." This provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:201#VSA d:6/11/92

ID: nht92-6.9

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hal Balzak

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/3/91 from Hal Balzak to NHTSA, U.S. DOT

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes; the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components.

However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that "(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." This provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10456

Ms. Darlene Skelton
President
National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.
17155 Robey Drive, Suite 101
Castro Valley, CA 94546-3852

Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards of this agency, in which you asked the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to three specific scenarios. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, under the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 U. S. Code, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture, and manufacturers must certify such compliance by affixing to each vehicle a manufacturer's certification label. Among other requirements, the certification label must contain the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of each vehicle and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle on the vehicle, identified in order from front to rear.

a. Your first question referred to a situation in which the GVWR exceeded the tire load ratings. Specifically, you alluded to the case of a fire truck with four rear mounted tires, each rated at 7,000 pounds (lb), that were installed on a 31,000 lb. axle. You stated that the final stage manufacturer received a letter from the tire manufacturer raising the tire inflation pressures from 100 to 110 or 115 pounds per square inch and limiting the driving to not more than 7 miles at a speed not to exceed 55 miles per hour. You asked whether such practices violated the FMVSSs.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, provides in pertinent part:

[T]he sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567.

In other words, the load ratings of the tires on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be at least equal to the weight ratings of the axles on which the tires are installed. The standard makes no provision for changing the tire inflation pressures or driving at restricted speeds or limiting the distances the vehicle may travel to compensate for discrepancies in the load and weight ratings.

The facts you provided us, however, are not sufficient on which to base an opinion as to whether there has been a noncompliance in that instance. We would have to know all the facts and circumstances relevant to the tire manufacturer's alleged actions, including input from the manufacturer itself, before we could arrive at a conclusion in that regard.

b. Your second question referred to vehicles in which axles had been rerated. You cited a situation in which a manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Thus, the manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks from 22,000 to 24 000 lbs.

NHTSA defines the GAWR as:

[T]he value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interface (emphasis added).

A manufacturer's assigning different GAWRs to axles on different vehicles is not prohibited by our FMVSSs. In fact, manufacturers routinely assign different GAWRs and GVWRs to different vehicles based on the various equipment options and add-ons, particularly with respect to emergency vehicles. In any case, NHTSA expects that the GAWR(s) stated on the vehicle's certification label correctly reflects the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle.

c. Your final question asked whether it was a violation of the FMVSS for manufacturers to take the air supply for their vehicle horns off the air supply for the vehicle's brakes. The answer is, in general, no.

FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles other than passenger cars that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for the horn, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If the horn operating off the brake air supply is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 121. If the horn is added to a previously certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be an alterer who would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the FMVSSs affected by the alteration. If the horn were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle repair business, that business would not be required to attach a label or recertify the vehicle. It would, however, have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In addition, hoses connected to air horns could be subject to Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. They are subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with Standard No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:106#120#121#567 d:4/10/95

ID: 18644kwii.ogm

William Shapiro, P.E.
Manager
Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
7 Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This is in response to your letter of August 6, 1998 regarding the impact of amendments adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) on applicable penalties for violations by Volvo Cars of North America (Volvo) of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard applicable to model year (MY) 1998 passenger cars.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  32912(b), a manufacturer that violates a CAFE standard (after applying any applicable carry-back or carry-forward credits) is liable for a civil penalty of $5.00 for each tenth of a mile per gallon (mpg) by which the standard exceeds its average fuel economy for that year, multiplied by the number of automobiles in its fleet. Pursuant to the DCIA, NHTSA raised that amount to $5.50 per tenth of an mpg. 49 CFR 578; 62 Fed. Reg. 5167 (January 30, 1997). The effective date of the increase was March 6, 1997.

In your letter, you refer to a July 23, 1998 letter from me to you, in which I stated that the increase in the CAFE penalty amount would apply beginning with the 1998 model year. You assert, however, that the penalty increase should not apply to Volvo's MY 1998 fleet because certain MY 1998 Volvos were produced and sold prior to the effective date of the increase.

In my July 23, 1998 letter, I explained that NHTSA has long maintained that CAFE standards apply to model years as a whole, and not to separate parts of a model year. The letter also set forth the agency's rationale for concluding that the applicable CAFE penalty is the penalty in effect at the beginning of the model year in question. Since the effective date of the DCIA increase was after the beginning of the 1997 model year, we announced that the penalty increase would apply to violations of the MY 1998 CAFE standards.

You have advised us that, beginning in February 1997, Volvo began selling S/V70 model vehicles that it designated as MY 1998 models. Since this preceded the effective date of the penalty increase, you contend that applying the increased penalty to Volvo's MY 1998 fleet would be inconsistent with the agency's decision that CAFE standards apply only to model years as a whole.

The agency does not agree with your interpretation. Rather, as explained below, we have determined that all DCIA amendments to CAFE civil penalty levels that are effective prior to October 1 of a given year will apply to violations of CAFE standards applicable to the subsequent model year.

As you know, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329, "Automobile Fuel Economy," establishes time limits within which NHTSA must prescribe and/or amend fuel economy standards for a given model year that are based upon the beginning of the model year. See 49 U.S.C.  32902(a) and (g)(2). In interpreting those provisions, both NHTSA and the courts have concluded that the model year will be deemed to begin on October l. See 49 Fed. Reg.225l6 (May 30, l984); 49 Fed. Reg. 4l250 (October 22, l984); In re Center for Auto Safety, 793 F.2d l346, l349 (D.C. Cir. l986). See also General Motors Corporation v. NHTSA, 898 F.2d l65, l76 (D.C. Cir. l990); and Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 7l0 F.2d 842, 847 (D.C. Cir. l983).

The use of October 1 to mark the commencement of a model year provides NHTSA with a consistent benchmark for satisfying its statutory obligation to promulgate and amend CAFE standards on a timely basis. If, for example, the agency were to recognize model years that were selected by manufacturers for marketing or other purposes as the model year for the purposes of prescribing or amending CAFE standards, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for NHTSA to issue such standards in a timely fashion.

We recognize that a manufacturer may produce or import vehicles that it designates as belonging to a particular model year before October l of the preceding year. However, for purposes of deciding the model year to which any enhanced penalties imposed under the DCIA apply, we need to have a standardized model year that applies to the industry as a whole. We have concluded that since we have previously utilized October 1 as the relevant date for other purposes under the CAFE statute, we will use it for this purpose as well.

If, as you suggest, NHTSA did not apply the enhanced penalties to Volvo's MY 1998 fleet, Volvo would be subject to lesser CAFE penalties than other manufacturers simply by virtue of having produced a small number of vehicles prior to March 6, 1997 that it unilaterally chose to designate as MY 1998 models. We believe that it would be inequitable for the agency to apply the CAFE penalties in such a fashion.

Moreover, if NHTSA were to adopt the position urged by your company, we would encourage manufacturers to time the introduction of new model year vehicles to avoid future penalty increases adopted pursuant to the DCIA. It could also lead to claims that newly adopted or amended CAFE standards for a future model year that were issued on a timely basis should not apply to any manufacturer that sold some of that model year's vehicles prior to October 1 of the preceding year. Such a result would be contrary to the purposes of both Chapter 329 and the DCIA.

Accordingly, NHTSA has concluded that, for purposes of deciding when the enhanced CAFE penalties will apply, the 1998 model year began on October 1, 1997, which was well after the effective date of the penalty increase. Of course, as has always been the case, all of the vehicles that Volvo designated as MY 1998 vehicles will be considered to be part of Volvo's MY 1998 fleet for purposed of calculating its CAFE for that model year.

Accordingly, it is our position that any CAFE penalties applicable to Volvo for the 1998 model year must be calculated using the $5.50 per tenth of an mpg rate required by the DCIA and NHTSA's implementing regulation. However, it also my understanding that Volvo intends to submit another request for interpretation that may further impact on any penalties owed for MY 1998. Provided that this request is submitted prior to the current deadline for the company's payment of the MY 1998 penalty, NHTSA will not take further actions until your request is resolved.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:578
d.1/13/00

ID: 18644KWII.ogms

William Shapiro, P.E.
Manager
Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
7 Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This is in response to your letter of August 6, 1998 regarding the impact of amendments adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) on applicable penalties for violations by Volvo Cars of North America (Volvo) of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard applicable to model year (MY) 1998 passenger cars.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  32912(b), a manufacturer that violates a CAFE standard (after applying any applicable carry-back or carry-forward credits) is liable for a civil penalty of $5.00 for each tenth of a mile per gallon (mpg) by which the standard exceeds its average fuel economy for that year, multiplied by the number of automobiles in its fleet. Pursuant to the DCIA, NHTSA raised that amount to $5.50 per tenth of an mpg. 49 CFR 578; 62 Fed. Reg. 5167 (January 30, 1997). The effective date of the increase was March 6, 1997.

In your letter, you refer to a July 23, 1998 letter from me to you, in which I stated that the increase in the CAFE penalty amount would apply beginning with the 1998 model year. You assert, however, that the penalty increase should not apply to Volvo's MY 1998 fleet because certain MY 1998 Volvos were produced and sold prior to the effective date of the increase.

In my July 23, 1998 letter, I explained that NHTSA has long maintained that CAFE standards apply to model years as a whole, and not to separate parts of a model year. The letter also set forth the agency's rationale for concluding that the applicable CAFE penalty is the penalty in effect at the beginning of the model year in question. Since the effective date of the DCIA increase was after the beginning of the 1997 model year, we announced that the penalty increase would apply to violations of the MY 1998 CAFE standards.

You have advised us that, beginning in February 1997, Volvo began selling S/V70 model vehicles that it designated as MY 1998 models. Since this preceded the effective date of the penalty increase, you contend that applying the increased penalty to Volvo's MY 1998 fleet would be inconsistent with the agency's decision that CAFE standards apply only to model years as a whole.

The agency does not agree with your interpretation. Rather, as explained below, we have determined that all DCIA amendments to CAFE civil penalty levels that are effective prior to October 1 of a given year will apply to violations of CAFE standards applicable to the subsequent model year.

As you know, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329, "Automobile Fuel Economy," establishes time limits within which NHTSA must prescribe and/or amend fuel economy standards for a given model year that are based upon the beginning of the model year. See 49 U.S.C.  32902(a) and (g)(2). In interpreting those provisions, both NHTSA and the courts have concluded that the model year will be deemed to begin on October l. See 49 Fed. Reg.225l6 (May 30, l984); 49 Fed. Reg. 4l250 (October 22, l984); In re Center for Auto Safety, 793 F.2d l346, l349 (D.C. Cir. l986). See also General Motors Corporation v. NHTSA, 898 F.2d l65, l76 (D.C. Cir. l990); and Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 7l0 F.2d 842, 847 (D.C. Cir. l983).

The use of October 1 to mark the commencement of a model year provides NHTSA with a consistent benchmark for satisfying its statutory obligation to promulgate and amend CAFE standards on a timely basis. If, for example, the agency were to recognize model years that were selected by manufacturers for marketing or other purposes as the model year for the purposes of prescribing or amending CAFE standards, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for NHTSA to issue such standards in a timely fashion.

We recognize that a manufacturer may produce or import vehicles that it designates as belonging to a particular model year before October l of the preceding year. However, for purposes of deciding the model year to which any enhanced penalties imposed under the DCIA apply, we need to have a standardized model year that applies to the industry as a whole. We have concluded that since we have previously utilized October 1 as the relevant date for other purposes under the CAFE statute, we will use it for this purpose as well.

If, as you suggest, NHTSA did not apply the enhanced penalties to Volvo's MY 1998 fleet, Volvo would be subject to lesser CAFE penalties than other manufacturers simply by virtue of having produced a small number of vehicles prior to March 6, 1997 that it unilaterally chose to designate as MY 1998 models. We believe that it would be inequitable for the agency to apply the CAFE penalties in such a fashion.

Moreover, if NHTSA were to adopt the position urged by your company, we would encourage manufacturers to time the introduction of new model year vehicles to avoid future penalty increases adopted pursuant to the DCIA. It could also lead to claims that newly adopted or amended CAFE standards for a future model year that were issued on a timely basis should not apply to any manufacturer that sold some of that model year's vehicles prior to October 1 of the preceding year. Such a result would be contrary to the purposes of both Chapter 329 and the DCIA.

Accordingly, NHTSA has concluded that, for purposes of deciding when the enhanced CAFE penalties will apply, the 1998 model year began on October 1, 1997, which was well after the effective date of the penalty increase. Of course, as has always been the case, all of the vehicles that Volvo designated as MY 1998 vehicles will be considered to be part of Volvo's MY 1998 fleet for purposed of calculating its CAFE for that model year.

Accordingly, it is our position that any CAFE penalties applicable to Volvo for the 1998 model year must be calculated using the $5.50 per tenth of an mpg rate required by the DCIA and NHTSA's implementing regulation. However, it also my understanding that Volvo intends to submit another request for interpretation that may further impact on any penalties owed for MY 1998. Provided that this request is submitted prior to the current deadline for the company's payment of the MY 1998 penalty, NHTSA will not take further actions until your request is resolved.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:578
d.1/13/00

ID: 15104.ogm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, N.Y. 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1997, requesting information regarding modification of a motor vehicle for a driver with physical disabilities. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will replace the driver's seat with a wheelchair restraint system and remove the driver from the vicinity of the air bag originally installed in the vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 329 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture.

For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position.

Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection used to satisfy this requirement are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997, 95 percent of a manufacturer's production must have air bags at the forward outboard seating positions.

Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less)manufactured after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1997 are required to provide either automatic crash protection or safety belts at the front outboard seating position. During this period, manufacturers must equip certain percentages of their vehicles with automatic crash protection systems. However, section S4.2 of Standard No. 208 contains an exclusion from the automatic protection requirement for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. The exclusion applies to "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities," defined as:

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

In general, repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. 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 would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment (such as an air bag) installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

Removing a seat, and replacing the seat belts for the seat with a wheelchair tiedown and restraint system, could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

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 any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. In your situation, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings >against the business that modifies the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made, and the person making the modifications should consider other safety issues that might arise from the modification. For example, in installing a wheelchair tiedown and restraint system, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the driver's wheelchair will be solidly anchored in its new location. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to deactivate the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we encourage the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

Your letter does not contain enough information to indicate conclusively whether your situation falls within the exclusion for vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities found in Standard No. 208. However, you may nonetheless rely on non-enforcement of the "make inoperative" prohibition for the reasons I described above.

If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.9/22/97

ID: nht88-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 3, 1987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, 1988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not nece ssarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn lamps. Each of the fiv e lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an ite m of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement

2 the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. 108 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fa ct that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 would encompass a certification that there is no i mpairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. 111 Rea rview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a s afety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicle if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modific ation is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, supplem entary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. 108. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible

3 to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant port ions of Standard No. 108 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, y ou should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. 108, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Enclosures

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-3.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rembert Ryals

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from R. Ryals to S. Krapzke (OCC 5063); Also attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff in which you asked for an interpretation of tbe requirements of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). Specif ically, you asked whether manufacturers were required to install a lap belt at seating positions equipped with automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements in Standard No. 208. Your letter indicated that you were part icularly interested in the requirements that applied to 1980 model year cars. The answer to your question is no.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating posit ions, safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that, those positi ons comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a safety belt at every seating position, h ave automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be certified as complying with Option 1.

However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This provides that an automatic belt system may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any safety belt system that would othe rwise be required by that option.

I have enclosed a copy of the December 14, 1971 rule (36 FR 23725) that added the current version of S4.5.3 to Standard No. 208.

In telephone conversations with you, Mr. Kratzke has explained that there is no requirement in the Federal safety standards that seating positions equipped with automatic belts include a lap belt either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manu al belt. Your letter indicates that you believe that two regulatory provisions appear to require a lap belt in 1980 Volkswagens at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

First, you suggested that Option I (S4.1.2.1) of Standard No. 208 requires automobiles to meet lateral and rollover crash protection requirements, in addition to providing automatic protection in frontal crashes. This is an erroneous reading of S4.1.2.1 (c). Manufacturers have the cboice of certifying compliance with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements (S4.1.2.1(c)(1)) or of providing manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that the vehicle meets the protecti on requirement with a test dummy protected by both tbe safety belt and the automatic protection system (S4.1.2.1(c)(2)). When this latter option is chosen, the vehicle manufacturer could use the automatic safety belt in place of the specified manual saf ety belt, in accordance with the provisions of S4.5.3. Hence, a manufacturer could certify compliance with Option I without providing a manual lap belt at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

It is not clear, however, that Volkswagen chose to certify that its cars complied with Option I in Standard No. 208. In a January 30, 1974 notice (39 FR 3834; copy enclosed), NHTSA indicated its understanding that the Volkswagen automatic belts were cer tified as complying with Option 2. In that notice, the agency stated that S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 "permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of option two and to replace the require d seat belt assemblies." If Volkswagen certified its vehicles as complying with Option 2, the requirements of Option 1 would not be relevant.

Second, you noted that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CPR S571.209) specifies that a seat belt assembly "shall provide pelvic restraint (i.e., a lap belt) whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, ..." You suggested that t he Volkswagen belt system without a lap belt does not appear to comply with this requirement of Standard No. 209.

As Mr. Kratzke explained to you in your telephone conversation, the applicability of Standard No. 209 to crash-tested automatic belts is addressed in S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. That provision in Standard No. 208 provides that automatic belts that are not required to meet the crash protection requirements shall conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The agency explained this provision as follows in the 1971 notice that added this langu age to Standard No. 208, "On reconsideration, the NHTSA has decided tbat relief from Standard No. 209 should be afforded if a passive belt is capable of meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 in a frontal perpendicular impact and amen ds S4.5.3 accordingly." 36 FR 23725; December 14, 1971. Thus, automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not generally subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In a September 12, 1979 letter from this office to Mr. Frank Pepe (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that automatic belts must meet the adjustment requirements of S7.1 of Standard No. 208 and those parts of Standard No.

209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208. That letter also noted that automatic belts installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are exempted from all other requirements of

Standard No. 209 by virtue of S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. Since S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is not incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208, seating positions equipped with automatic belts that are certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements are not required to provide lap belts either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manual belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2797o

Mr. Kent B. Robinson
18230 Kingsdale Ave., Apt. D
Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Dear Mr. Robinson:

This is in reply to your letters of December 3, l987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, l988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not necessarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn signal lamps. Each of the five lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an item of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. l08 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fact that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. l08 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. l08 would encompass a certification that there is no impairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a safety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicles if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September l, l985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modification is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September l, 1985. However, supplementary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. l08. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant portions of Standard No. l08 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, you should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. l08, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:552#108 d:8/l2/88