ID: aiam3027

Dear Mr. Martin: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of m staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.; As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, *as altered*, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3024

Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your May 12, 1979, letter asking how to determine th correct date of manufacture of your motor home. You indicate that the chassis was constructed in 1977 and the body in 1978. The manufacturer apparently classified the vehicle as a 1978 model.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a regulatio governing the date of manufacture of vehicles for the application of safety standards. Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, of our regulations states that a manufacturer may choose as the date of manufacture of a vehicle the date of manufacture of the chassis, the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle, or any date between those two dates. However, the vehicle must comply with all of the applicable safety standards in effect on the chosen date. Since the body of your vehicle was manufactured in 1978, we assume that the vehicle was completed in 1978. Therefore, the manufacture could legally call your vehicle a 1978 model, at least for the purposes of our safety program.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3025

Dear Mr. Martin: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of m staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.; As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, *as altered*, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3029

Dear Mr. Cordner: This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, addressed to Ms Eileen T. Leahy of my staff, in which you provide further information in support of your earlier request for this agency's opinion as to whether a 1980 4WD Hatchback Sedan to be imported by Subaru of America can be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; As I stated to you in my letter of May 31, 1979, the fact that vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive is not, in itself, sufficient to qualify the vehicle as an MPV, as that term is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3. Your second letter lists six other features of the 1980 hatchback sedan which you state are designed to permit occasional off-road use. The additional features you describe are: a ground clearance of 8.07 inches, or 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle, adjusting devices to permit an additional 0.78 inches of ground clearance front and rear, an engine undercover to protect the engine from rocks and other debris, a clutch cover to prevent entry of dust and sand, bumper overriders to protect front and rear bumpers, and a tubular guard in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.; The ground clearance you describe exceeds that specified in th definition of automobiles 'capable of off-highway operation' contained in the fuel economy regulations (49 CFR S 523.5(b)(2)(iv)). In addition, the other features you describe appear to be designed to protect various parts of the vehicle from damage from rocks, sand and other types of debris that are more likely to be encountered in off-road driving. Therefore, all of the items you mention can be considered 'special features for occasional off-road operation' when determining the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; Since the vehicle as you have described it in your letters has severa features in addition to four-wheel drive that make it suitable for occasional off-road use, it is the agency's opinion that the 4WD Hatchback Sedan would qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3022

Dear Mr. Tobin: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1969, in which you submi information and photographs of mobile concrete plants, and ask whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with a view to determining whether comments should be submitted to Docket 1-11, Rear Underride Protection.; The matter of whether pieces such as the subject concrete plants ar motor vehicles within the meaning of section 203(3) of the Act, and also 'trailers' within the meaning of the proposed underride standard, is presently under consideration by this Agency.; We encourage your organization and its members to submit to the docke any materials that they consider relevant to the subject.; Sincerely, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3020

Dear Mr. Cordner: This is in response to your letter of April 23, 1979, in which yo requested the agency's opinion whether a four-wheel drive hatchback sedan could be classified as a multi- purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; As was stated by Eileen Leahy of my staff in telephone conversation regarding your request, the agency cannot give an opinion regarding this vehicle's classification for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards without knowing whether the vehicle has any special features for off-road use other than four-wheel drive. An MPV is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3(b) as 'a motor vehicle with motor power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' Since the vehicle you describe is not constructed on a truck chassis, it must have 'special features for occasional off-road operation' in order to qualify as an MPV. The agency interprets this language as requiring that the vehicle contain more than a single feature designed for off-road use. This interpretation is based on the use of the word 'features' in the plural rather than the singular in the definition, and on the fact that a vehicle's total design determines its likely use. Four-wheel drive would be useful in snow on public streets, roads and highways, so this feature cannot be determinative of the vehicle's classification if there are no features for off-road use.; Also, the agency is reluctant to exempt a vehicle from compliance wit any of its safety standards purely on the grounds that it is equipped with four-wheel drive. There is little likelihood that a vehicle that is identical to a passenger car in every other respect will be used differently than other passenger cars. Under these circumstances, the agency sees no reason for treating such vehicles any differently from other passenger cars with respect to the applicability of safety standards.; Therefore, unless you can provide us with additional informatio (including, but not limited to, pictures or drawings of the vehicle) concerning other special features of this vehicle that would make it suitable for off-road operation, the agency cannot concur with the opinion expressed in your letter that this vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Also, I would refer you to 49 CFR S 523.5(b)(2) for a description of some of the characteristics that would be considered as 'special features for off-road operation' although that section relates primarily to fuel economy.; If you will provide us with additional information, we will be happy t offer a final opinion.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3021

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your May 18, 1979, letter asking to what extent th parallelepiped device required by Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, must fit inside a school bus in order to provide the mandated 'unobstructed passage.'; The agency responded to a request similar to yours in 1976. A copy o that interpretation is included for your information. The essence of that interpretation is that while conducting the test in accordance with S5.4.2.1(a) of the standard, the parallelepiped device must, at a minimum, fit inside a bus so that the device's outside edge is flush with the lower outside edge of the bus body. If your bus complies with this interpretation of the standard, it would be in compliance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4736

"Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your letter to this agency's Publi Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred to me for reply. I regret the delay in responding. As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers and subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee. We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already been sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so. For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determination that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information. You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 07-002909as

ID: aiam5616

"Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company. In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand 'over the door handle... and was tring sic to hold on and the door came open.' You ask several questions relating to requirements for 'a safety lock' for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have 'safety locks.' Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 establishes certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold 'new' to the rental company. Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a 'safety lock.' Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install 'child safety locks' on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the 'unlocked' position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA. Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a 'rental vehicle.' The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a 'truck' under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle. Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action. Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";