ID: aiam5602

"Dear Mr. Meurer: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995 responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process. You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c). 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency 'decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events.' Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain 'a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation.' The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported. The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project. Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point, when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs. Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must 'at all times retain title to and possession of' vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and 'shall not lease' them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project. I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes 'on terms NHTSA decides are necessary.' Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers. The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest. If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht90-3.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roman L. Cepeda

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-24-90 from R.L. Cepeda to F. Berndt (OCC 5039)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 24, 1990, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You wish to import 8 to 12 stainless steel parts. After importation, the parts would be put together to form a Jeep body. Ultimately, an engine , chassis, and all other parts, which are from Guam, would be added to form a completed motor vehicle.

You have asked for confirmation that "the stainless steel jeep body is not a motor vehicle and is not required to meet any provision of the U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 to 999." Apparently, you are having a misunderstanding with Guam Customs on this point.

We are pleased to provide confirmation of your interpretation. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the stainless steel body parts that you describe. This means that you may import them, as individual body parts, into Guam without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 CFR 591.5(i)(2), the appropriate declaration for entry is that they were manufactured on a date when no Federal motor vehicle safety standards were in effect that applied to t hem.

ID: aiam3967

Dear Mr. Maloney: Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1985, concerning the safet belts in your 1984 Ford Tempo. You explained that Ford has offered to replace the safety belt buckle in your car and you asked if such an alteration is permissible under the Federal law. As discussed below, Ford can replace the buckle as long as the safety belt would continue to comply with our safety standard for safety belts.; Our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 *Seat Belt Assemblies*, which sets performance and marking requirements for safety belts. All safety belts sold as items of original or aftermarket equipment must be certified as meeting Standard No. 209. The alteration or repair of items of safety equipment is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai 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....<<<; Thus, if a dealer alters a safety belt, the dealer must ensure that i is not rendering inoperative the belt's compliance with Standard No. 209.; I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1085

Dear Mr. Eisberg: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1973, concerning fuel tank fire incidental to vehicular collisions.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity which was effective January 1, 1968, requires that the fuel system of passenger cars shall withstand a 30 mile- per-hour frontal fixed barrier collision with a fuel loss rate no greater than one ounce per minute after impact. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information, along with a copy of a proposed amendment (*Federal Register*, Volume 35, No. 169, August 29, 1970), which is intended to expand this standard to include rollover situations, as well as rear impacts.; The need for a protective fire wall between the fuel tank and passenge compartment has been studied and is being considered as part of the passive protective measures to insure driver and passenger protection within the occupant compartment. A study by Derwyn M. Severy, et al., 'Postcrash Fire Studies Show Need for Rear-Seat Fire Wall and Rupture-Proof Fuel Tank,' was published in the July 1969 issue of *The SAE Journal.* This article may also be of interest in your research.; If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate t contact us.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht87-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAK FUJITANI -- PROGRAM MANAGER, INSPECTION SERVICES OFFICE OF FLEET ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fujitani:

This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of my staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champio n is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor Vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.

As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First, you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicles as a "chassis" rather than as a "chassis cab" means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer 's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a "chassis" is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehi cles.

Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14, suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated sea ting capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.

The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question.

In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 and 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as "mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers ( who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for

2

certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load." As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance sta tus. This document is not a certification.

If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stage manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of "chassis cab." The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the "sole certification" of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one c ertification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).

Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis cab manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of e ither conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis can manufacturer; or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for hims elf. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.

While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document the agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of "chassis cab," the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.

Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stage manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufa cturer changes the GVWR for the vehicles, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Pass enger Cars might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise "due care" when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance has asked the

3

[Illegible Word] stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.

Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation.

Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing a certification label or tag to a motor vehicles. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:

". . . shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120."

In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the two Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicated that according to your $ 567.4(g)( 3) calculation, the same are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilghman:

This letter is in reference to our telephone conversation on February 6, 1981, concerning the interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statutes, regulations and standards. Particularly in 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c), ( iii), labeling and certification requirements for final stage manufacturers who complete certain incomplete vehicles. and 49 CFR 568.4 which requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document that contains:

(1) Name and mailing address of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer,

(2) Month and year during which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer performed his last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.

(3) Identification of the incomplete vehicle to which the document applies.

(4) Gross vehicle weight rating of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended.

(5) Gross axle weight rating for each axle of the completed vehicle.

(6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured.

(7) Listing by number of each standard, in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, that applies to any of the vehicle types listed in this paragraph (a)(6) of this section, followed in eaxch case by one of the following three types o f statement, as applicable:

(i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehcile will conform to the standard.

(iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In referencing 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c)(iii), we interpret the regulation to mean that the RV Cutaway chassis rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR by the incomplete vehicle, manufacturer, is not classfied as a chassis-cab, therefore, no allowance is made to perm it alterations as they do for chassis-cabs.

In the Federal Register, 42 FR 47816. July 25, 1977, NHTSA denied the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association's (RVIA) request to change the definition of chassis-cab to include certain incomplete vehicles that are completed as motor homes and cutaway ch assis, etc. RVIA requested this rule change possibly because chassis-cabs may be altered and new GAWR and GVWR ratings may be certified by the final stage manufacturer.

The provisions in part 56B - vehicles manufactured in two or more stages - prescribes methods by which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages ensure conformity of those vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and ot her regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We interpret the regulations, 567.5(c)(iii). and 568.4(4) (5). to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter the gross vehicle weight ratings imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capacities without altering axle components to handle the extra load.

The types of vehicles in question are;

Incomplete vehicle, Ford RV Cutaway chassis, 176" wheel base, rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR.

The completed vehicles may be:

- 16 passenger bus with two (2) wheelchair stations and chair lift. - 22 passenger bus with a drive line Telma electric retarder. - 24 passenger bus.

The new gross vehicle weight ratings may be:

- 11,550 lbs. GVWR

- 11,900 lbs. GVWR

The buses being questioned are manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division; however, there are other manufacturers following similar guidelines.

We are holding up three purchases which we feel may be overloaded when maximum passengers are being carried.

Please advise us of you legal opinion on this matter at your earliest convenience. This issue is safety related and I believe that manufacturers are not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

cc: George Williams

California Highway patrol Motor Carrier Section Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-1526

April 14, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilgman:

This is supplemental letter following my letter of request for interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(c)(iii) and 49 CFR 568.4 dated February 17, 1987, and telephone discussions held during the past week.

As I have mentioned in my letter of February 17, 1987, be interpret the regulations 567.5(c)(iii), and 568.4(4)(5), to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle height ratings imposed by i ncomplete vehicle manufacturers, particularly, on GVWR cutaway chassis which are rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR

The factor affecting the 11,000 lbs. limitation is based on the least rated component, which is the rating of 7,400 lbs. imposed on the rear axle, Adding additional springs on the rear axle will not increase the load carrying ability of the completed veh icle. We have confirmed this through Ford Light Truck Applications and Dana Axle Applications Engineers; both have stated that the application of the completed vehicle remain; at 11,000 lbs. GVWR in RV cutaway chassis.

Champion Home Builders Company rates the completed vehicle at 12,000 lbs. GM, which is not consistent with the incomplete vehicle manufacturers instructions, and it is misleading to owner/operators to have two load ratings.

Three buses manufactured or Champion Home Builders Company and ordered for the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation at Angle Island State Park were inspected on April 1 and again on April 7 for compliance with the State specifications at TW Bus Sales in West Sacramento.

Two of these buses are 25 passenger perimeter seating tour buses, and the other is a 21 passenger forward seating bus with rear storage compartment 33 inches deep. All three buses are equipped with a Telma electric brake retarder system, CD 30, or equal. One 25 passenger bus and one 21 passenger bus were weighed to calculate the loaded weight of the buses. Following are the weighmaster readings with load calculations: 21 passenger bus 25 passenger bus forward facing seats perimeter seating rear luggage compartment seats front axle, unladen weight 3,520 lbs. 3,660 lbs. rear axle, unladen weight 5,180 lbs. 4,920 lbs. total 8,700 lbs, 8,580 lbs. 21 passengers and 25 pass engers and driver at 150 lbs. 3,300 lbs. driver at 150 lbs. 3,900 lbs. luggage-day packs or small picnic baskets 7 lbs. atx 21 people 147 lbs. 4 bicycles & rack 100 lbs total 12,147 lbs 12,500 lbs.

Certification labels on the buses are:

* Ford Incomplete Vehicle label * Champion Home Builders Co. label 11,000 lbs. GVWR Date of Mfg 11-86 type bus 12,000 lbs. GVWR WB Type Body Trans Axle Sp Inc Veh Mftg by Ford 176" E303 AK G 52 OL Dste of Mfg 9-85

* Incomplete Vehicle Manual

GVWR 11,000 lbs. F GAWR R GAWR F GAWR R GAWR 4,200 lbs 7,400 lbs. 4,200 lbs. 8,200 lbs. LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/75R16D 16X6K 16K6K 16X6K 16X6K dual 58p Champion Ser No. 5573241F1984

May be completed as: Multi Pur Pass Veh Truck

The Office of Fleet Administration has rejected the three buses delivered to the State by Champion Home Builders Company on grounds of noncompliance with State and Federal Regulations. * California Vehicle code, Division 12, Equipment of Vehicles Section 24002: Vehicle not Equipped or Unsafe

Section 24011: Federal Safety Standards

* Code of Federal Regulation, Title 69, Transportation 49 CFR 567.5(c) (s)(iii), Certification Label

49 CFR 578.4(4) 95). Requirements for Incomplete Vehicle Manufactur4r's

* Gross Vehicle Weight Rate in. Final stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages are required to affix a label to each vehicle which contains, among other statements, Gross Vehicle height Rating or GVWR" followed by the appropriat e value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds time the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

The gross vehicle weight rating posted on the certification label is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, the incomplete Vehicle Manufacturers rating of 11,000 pounds should be applied, however, it is also out of compliance with Champion's GVWR of 12,000 pounds.

We believe that the final stage manufacturer is not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete Vehicle manufacturer.

Please advise us or your legal opinion and interpretation of the regulations we have discussed

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

Attachments

cc: George William

California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Section

Tom McCauley Office of procurement

ID: aiam4787

Dear Mr. Helfgott: This is in reply to your letter of June ll, l99 (Your file CAIN 8877), with respect to the permissibility under Standard No. 108 of the use of amber lamps on the rear of motor vehicles. You have referenced our letter to you of March 30, l989, on the use of a single amber lamp adjacent to, but separate from, the center highmounted stop lamp. Your client wishes to utilize the amber center lamp in conjunction with rear amber turn signal lamps to provide an amber triangular array on the rear. The array would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and remain activated except when the stop lamps were activated (which, with the red center lamp, provide a red triangular array). With respect to the triangular amber lamp array you have asked the following four questions: 'l. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles.' Standard No. 108 requires that the color of taillamps be red. Therefore amber turn signal lamps could not serve as substitutes for taillamps. Your comment about frontal lighting is not exactly in point. A turn signal lamp may be combined with a parking lamp (provided the requirements for each are met) but Standard No. 108 requires that both be amber in color. '2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps.' We do not regard this as a true supplement because the color of the array differs from that of the taillamps required by Standard No. 108. However, like taillamps, the array is intended to indicate the presence of a vehicle. The question is, whether an array of three amber lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required two red taillamps. As we advised in our letter of March 30, l989, additional lighting equipment is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. We cautioned that you should consider whether steady-burning amber lamps might confuse following drivers, who would probably be unused to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of a vehicle. Because you have not informed us as to the intended candela of the array, we cannot advise with any assurance whether the amber array would impair the effectiveness of the required red taillamps. Certainly if the candela of the triple amber arrray exceeded that of the red taillamps a basis would appear to exist for a judgment of impairment. '3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle.' Under this scenario, the amber array would function as daytime presence lamps, a function not provided by any rear lighting system required by Standard No. 108. The question therefore is whether such a system would impair the effectiveness of the signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. These are hazard warning signals, turn signals, and stop lamps. With respect to the hazard warning signals, these operate through the turn signal lamps, and, although operable when the vehicle is in motion, they are designed to operate when the ignition is not on (i.e., when the triple array would be deactivated). Therefore, we do not believe that the triple array would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning signals. As for impairment of the turn signals, we must distinguish between those that are amber and those that are red. Again, we raise the possibility that confusion could exist if the candela of the triple array exceeds that of an amber turn signal system. It is imperative that following drivers understand without hesitation the signals provided by other vehicles in front of them. Confusion may be less likely to exist if the required signal lamp and the triple array differ in color. Concerning the stop lamps, you have informed us that the triple array is deactivated when the stop lamps come on. In this event, there would be appear to be no impairment of the stop signals. '4. The possibility of utilizing the 'amber triangular array' as described above.' In our view, no specific Federal rulemaking appears required for your client to offer its system for installation on motor vehicles, subject to the constraints expressed in this letter and the letter of March 30, l989. As the earlier letter explains, the determination of whether there is impairment is initially made by a manufacturer who wishes to offer the system as new vehicle equipment. In the aftermarket, installation of the system must not, in effect, result in impairment of required lighting equipment, but nevertheless the system is subject to State and local lighting laws. We have forwarded a copy of your letter and our response to the agency's Office of Research and Development for their information. We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht90-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/90

FROM: MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK PRESIDENT

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/13/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK; A35; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Panda Technik, the North American agent of GEKA Gunther & Kastl GmbH., Eislingen/Fils, West Germany, is contemplating the distribution of the GEKA early warning panel in the United States. As this is a safety related devise, we respectfully request your evaluation of this product's suitability as a supplemental safety reflector. Our main concern is to insure that no laws or regulations are violated in the use of the GEKA early warning reflector.

Safety reflectors of this type are required, by law, in West Germany and we feel can make a significant contribution in the reduction of nighttime accidents in our roads as well.

The GEKA safety reflector consists of a metal backing plate, to which triangular section reflectors are affixed by means of rivets, to form a square reflector body. The individual reflector elements are assembled so that a pattern of diagonal, alternati ng red and white reflective strips is created (other color combinations can be made available as well). This pattern resembles the similarly alternating red and white stripe reflective tape developed by the NHTSA as a measure to increase the nighttime v isibility of on highway trucks.

The purpose of the GEKA reflector is to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationary vehicles which may be positioned in a manner which generates a hazard of collision with oncoming traffic. This is accomplished through a r eflective efficiency up to ten (10) times that of conventional reflectors (such as those required by law on all motor vehicles).

The GEKA reflector is intended solely as a supplemental safety devise and will be advertised as such, with specific mention that this is only an auxiliary devise which in no way replaces, supersedes or eliminates required safety devises or safety procedu res.

Applications for which the GEKA safety reflector are considered beneficial are:

* Slow moving trailers/convoys

* Parked or broken down vehicles within or near roadways

* Public Utility vehicles (i.e. utility line trucks, road crews, etc.)

As mentioned, Panda Technik firmly believes the GEKA early warning reflector can make a substantial contribution in the reduction of nighttime accidents through the increase in visibility and presence of slow moving or stationary vehicles.

Furthermore, the GEKA reflector can be installed with simple hand tools on either the front or rear of the vehicle. In cases where the vehicle is transverse to the flow of the traffic (such as line crews performing telephone or electric repairs) the rem ovable version can be positioned in accordance to the direction of traffic flow and which portion(s) of the vehicle is (are) exposed to the risk of collision.

In order to facilitate your evaluation of the GEKA reflector, a sample has been included. This particular model represents a fixed version, to be deployed whenever needed, which remains in the close, protected position, under normal usage.

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter. Should you have any additional questions, require additional documentation or need further test samples please, do not hesitate to contact Panda Technik.

Sincerely

ID: 86-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: RUDY VALDEZ -- PRODUCT MANAGER MR GASKET COMPANY

TO: NAT. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/23/86 EST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RUDY VALDEZ, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 108, AFTERMARKET DECORATIVE LIGHT

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

We are a company which manufactures and sells products for the Automotive Aftermarket. We are currently developing a product for this market and need an interpretation concerning its' legality. The unit in question is a splash guard designed for automobiles and light trucks. When the running lights are turned on, a light in the splash guard will light up at the same time. Our concern is in the location of the light. Although purely decorative, would placing a light in this area violate any state or federal standards or codes? With this letter, you will find a crude lay out of the instructions for this item. This will hopefully give you a clear idea of what this unit will be doing. Any help that you can give us with this product would be helpful.

Secondly, any information you can give us related to the collision avoidance light will be a great help. We are most interested in the direction your department is going in relation with the aftermarket.

We have seen a number of these units which do not appear to meet the federal regulation related to this item. Will the D.O.T. regulation for new automobiles soon pertain to those already on the road. If the D.O.T. regulation will not be required for vehicles already on the road, how closely will the retro fit unit need to be?

Clarification on these points will be helpful to both us and our customers. We thank you in advance for any help you can give us in both of these matters. If there is any problems that need clarification, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely

ID: nht76-5.20

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: J. WOMACK FOR F. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the label required by @ 567.4(g) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

The certification label is required by paragraph (g) (3) to include "'GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING' or 'GVWR' followed by the appropriate value in pounds . . ." Paragraph (g) (4) specifies a similar requirement for Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

You have pointed out that the Canadian motor vehicle safety regulations require a similar certification label with these weight ratings expressed in kilograms. You have asked whether a single label that expresses the weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms would be permitted by 49 CFR Part 567. The answer is yes, provided that each kilogram rating, which is optional, appear after the corresponding pound rating, which is required.

Please note that these two ratings differ in legal status. The rating that is expressed in pounds is the official rating for the purposes of the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. The accompanying equivalent kilogram rating, however, will be considered as optional, supplementary information provided for the guidance of the reader. This distinction is necessary, because the measurement values, including weights, that appear in our safety standards and regulations are specified in exact terms, without tolerances. While a measurement in English units can be "equal" to one in metric units to any preselected number of significant figures, the two can never be exactly equal.

ID: 18569.ztv

M. J. Shaw
379 E. Main St.
Peru, IN 46970-2522

Dear Mr. or Ms. Shaw:

This is in reply to your postcard of August 4, 1998, to Philip Recht, the Deputy Administrator of this agency, about the recent final rule on low-speed vehicles.

Your first question is whether "the Canadian Bombardier neighborhood vehicle (electric mini-car) [is] now street legal in the USA." Your second question is whether "all states, including [Indiana, are] registering the NV for legal operation."

The Federal government has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as it did recently with Standard No. 500 Low-Speed Vehicles. Thus, if a motor vehicle that meets the definition of "low-speed vehicle" is manufactured and certified by its manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 500, it is legal to import and sell that vehicle in the United States. Thus, Bombardier may import its Neighborhood Vehicle (NV) from Canada by certifying compliance with Standard No. 500. We do not know, however, whether Bombardier has begun to do so. Although the sale of a certified low-speed vehicle would not violate Federal law, the requirements for registration of vehicles and conditions of their use on the public roads are matters under the authority of the states. This means that a vehicle could be "street legal," to use your term, for Federal purposes but not under state law.

This brings us to your second question. We have no information whether states are or are not registering NVs or other types of low-speed vehicles. Some states, at this point, may be reviewing Standard No. 500 to determine how it affects the laws currently existing in that state. We do not know the views of Indiana on this issue. However, if you wish to ask the Indiana Department of Motor Vehicles for its opinion, you should identify the vehicle as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose maximum speed is more than 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour.

If you have any further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:500
d.9/29/98