ID: aiam3707

Dear Mr. Meiter: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondenc between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate.; Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency' regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3):; >>>(3) 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' or 'GVWR', followed by th appropriate value in pounds, which 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 pounds.'<<<; Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15- passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3708

Dear Mr. Meiter: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondenc between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate.; Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency' regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3):; >>>(3) 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' or 'GVWR', followed by th appropriate value in pounds, which 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 pounds.'<<<; Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15- passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 0076

Herr Hellfried Sandig
Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co KG
Eckenerstrasse 2
73730 Esslingen
Germany

Dear Herr Sandig:

This responds to your FAX of June 6, 1994, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You present a drawing of a rear combination lamp incorporating one stop lamp and two taillamps. You have asked whether it is "necessary that we must have the ratio 5:1/3:1 between the stop and the tail lamp measurements in this arrangement?"

If the lamp is intended for use on narrower vehicles, the answer depends upon the distance between the optical axes of the stop and taillamp functions. SAE Standard J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.3 of J586 is the source of the ratio: "[w]hen a tail lamp is combined with the stop lamp, the stop lamp shall not be less than three times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp at any test point; except that at H-V, H-5L, H-5R, and 5U-V, the stop lamp shall not be less than five times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp." However, in a multiple compartment lamp such as yours, if "the distance between optical axes for one of the functions exceeds the dimensions specified in paragraph 5.1.5.2 [i.e., 560 mm] the ratio shall be computed for only those compartments or lamps where the tail lamp and stop lamp are optically combined." Although your combination lamp design combines the two functions, your drawing indicates that they are not optically combined, and the ratio will not apply if the optical axes are more than 560 mm apart. The ratio will apply if the distance between the optical axis of the stop lamp and that of either taillamp is 560 mm or less.

SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width is the standard incorporated in Standard No. 108 that applies to lamps used on wider

vehicles. Its paragraph 5.1.5.2 establishes the same 5:3 ratio (though not including H-5L in the five times ratio), but does not provide an exception based upon spacing of optical axes. Thus, if your lamp is designed for wider vehicles, the ratio applies regardless of the spacing of the optical axes.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 7/6/94

ID: aiam4668

"Dear Ms. Black: This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requestin 'reconsideration of an interpretation' of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpreting the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key. We note that while your petition requests an 'interpretation,' it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to the agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions. In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. ll4's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, l990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements of section S4.2, as amended. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that: 'Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 'park' position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key.' You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical interlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift with the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and 'rollaway' accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override. We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. ll4, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be 'locked' in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4870

"Dear Mr. Wakamatsu: This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter t Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for 'derating' the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request. NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned 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.' There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles. I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2803

Dear Mr. Loftus: This responds to your January 12, 1978, letter asking several question concerning the applicability of the Federal safety standards to vehicles that are being reconstructed with new chassis. The answers to your specific questions are set forth below.; 1. You ask whether the replacement of the engine, transmission, driv train, rear end, frame, front axle, front brakes, wheels and steering box constitutes the manufacture of a new chassis requiring a new or upgraded body. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.7(e) of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies the items that must be retained in a truck chassis in order that such chassis be considered used. These same considerations apply to reconstructed school buses since they are built on truck chassis.; 2. You ask what parts of a chassis must be retained to ensure that th vehicle could continue to utilize an old body that does not comply with current Federal safety standards. Part 571.7(e) states that, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) must be retained.; 3. You ask who must certify a remanufactured vehicle if its chassis i considered old or new. In the case of an old chassis that retains the required components and is therefore considered used, no certification is required of any repair business. In the case of a remanufactured chassis, the chassis manufacturer must certify his chassis for compliance and the shop that installs the body must certify the final compliance of the vehicle.; 4. Part 568.8 states that vehicles altered before the first purchas for purposes other than resale must be labeled with an alterer's label. When a new chassis is installed in a vehicle, this is not an alteration, but rather, it is the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Therefore, section 568.8 would not apply. The other provisions of Part 568 relating to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle would apply to this reconstructed vehicle. The person undertaking the remanufacture would be treated like the original manufacturer of the vehicle and would be required to certify it for compliance with the standards.; 5. Standards promulgated after 1975 that are specifically applicable t school buses are : Standard No. 217-76, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, Standard No. 222, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*. Many of the other safety standards apply to school buses as well as other vehicles. I am enclosing a sheet detailing the applicability of Federal safety standards. All Federal safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. By examining the standards in Part 571, you can ascertain when their most recent amendment has occurred.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-2.9

DATE: 03/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of February 23 you present a fact situation in which a final stage manufacturer (Illegible Words)a completed vehicle, such as a Ford Econoline and is instructed by the ultimate puchaser to add seats and seatbelts, flashing lights, etc. to transform the vehicle into a small school bus. You ask:

"Must this vehicle be certified as a bus, even though it had been certified previously by the chassis maker as a completed truck? How would a person to certify?

Where a completed, certified vehicle is altered after manufacture, the issue is whether sufficient modifications have been made to the original vehicle that the one who modifies it must be considered a manufacturer in his own right. Considering two scope of modifications you describe, and the change of vehicle type from "truck" to "bus" (if its carrying capacity is over 10 persons), or to multipurpose passenger vehicle (if it can carry 10 persons or less), this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case the modifying manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable standards. He would have the responsibility of ensuring that his modifications did not affect the vehicle's original compliance with the standards, as well as full responsibility for any standards that became newly applicable because of the change of vehicle type.

Yours Truly,

ID: nht79-1.18

DATE: 04/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Black, Manager U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an opinion of whether a red rear fog lamp system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as original equipment. This lamp system would be of the same intensity as the stop lamp system, installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assemblies. The system would have a separate switch and be operational only when the headlamp switch is in the "On" position.

As you have noted, Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for either front or rear fog lamps. Lighting equipment supplementary to that required as original equipment may be provided at the manufacturer's option if it does not impair the effectiveness of any equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (S4.1.3). On the basis of your submission, we are unable to form an opinion whether your system would impair effectiveness within the meaning of S4.1.3. If it is Alfa Romeo's judgment that the red fog lamps will not impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps or backup lamps, then you may have a reasonable basis upon which to install the fog lamp system and to certify compliance with S4.1.3.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

March 12, 1979 Ref. Nr. 068

Dear Mr. Vinson:

FMVSS 108 is lacking in the area of non specified lighting devices, and we find it necessary to request your interpretation of the standard itself.

We would like to incorporate into our rear light assemblies a rear red fog lamp of the same intensity of the present stop lamp. The fog lamp would be installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assembly. This compartment having its own lens and reflector. We propose to use a separate switch with warning light for operation of this fog lamp. It would only be operational when the headlamp switch is in the "on" position.

We feel this system has merit for U.S. model Alfa Romeo vehicles. For the same reason, it is standard on our European models. However, FMVSS 108 is absent of any reference to such a device. One could, but its absence, assume it is either permissible or forbidden. We think that the intent of 108 is to permit the use of such non specified safety features.

Could you please discuss this with one of your 108 experts and let us know your combined opinions as to its compliance status.

A diagram of the tail lamp assembly indicating the desired location for such a device in the as yet unoccupied compartment is enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

D. Black

ID: aiam5119

"Dear Mr. Dobberteen: This responds to your letter that requeste information about how the regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. According to your letter, your company is developing an overhead storage compartment bin to be secured to the interior roof of a utility vehicle behind its rear seat. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that you anticipate that this product will typically be installed in motor vehicles prior to their first consumer purchase. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering a rear overhead storage bin. However, it is possible that the installation of such a product could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your storage bin is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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 your storage bin is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards. We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge. In order to determine how installation of your storage bin could affect the compliance of a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to Standard No. 216 which addresses roof crush resistance and Standard No. 302 which addresses the flammability of interior materials. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht76-1.37

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Mark O. Hatfield - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: EARL C. SIEVERS -- FINANCE MGR., LAYTON PAVING EQUIP. SPECIALISTS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 10, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company. The standard requires that the paver be equipped with tires of sufficient load rating and that these tires be certified by their manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. Your constituent, Mr. Earl Sievers, has met with representatives of this agency to discuss the need for his company's paver to comply with Standard No. 120 and his difficulties in procuring the proper tires.

Your letter suggests that, generally, the paver is moved simply within the confines of a construction site rather than in traffic. Nevertheless, the paver is designed and expected to be towed on the public highways. Indeed, Layton's own promotional materials stress this point:

For municipalities who do not own their dump trucks or need extreme mobility without sacrificing hauling weight! . . . Any truck can tow paver safely at highway speeds. ("Exhibit 'C'" accompanying Mr. Sievers' letter of January 14, 1976.)

This usage of the paver leads to the conclusion that the paver is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 120. The conclusion is compelled by the definition of "motor vehicle" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

As a manufacturer of fewer than 10,000 motor vehicles in its most recent year of production, Layton is eligible to petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 120 on the basis of substantial economic hardship. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which sets out procedures for filing and processing such petitions.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate

March 10, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Thank you for taking the time to visit with my constituent, Earl Sievers, regarding the matter of Layton Manufacturing Company's having to comply with FMVSS #120 in the outfitting of its paver. Your Assistant Chief Counsel, Mr. Dyson, wrote to Mr. Sievers on February 24, 1976, to advise him that compliance with FMVSS would be required. Mr. Sievers has come to Washington to present personally additional evidence which he believes you should consider prior to making a final determination on compliance. I deeply share his concerns and so have asked that you and your staff meet with him.

It is probably true, as Mr. Dyson asserts in the aforementioned letter, that the Layton paver could be moved from job site to job site at speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour. Generally, however, the paver is simply moved within the confines of a construction site, not in traffic. I question the logic of applying FMVSS 120 standards to a vehicle which is obviously construction equipment, which infrequently is transported on the open road, and which is so well designed that its safety record is nothing short of exemplary. A mechanical application of FMVSS #120 to classify the paver as a motor vehicle, and thus to require its entire retooling and consequent economic disruption, would seem quite unjust.

The Layton paver is a very safe and highly cost-effective piece of construction equipment. I urge that you give the most careful consideration to the data and arguments presented by Mr. Sievers to the effect that a waiver of FMVSS #120 be granted. Given the enormous business impact which your decision may have on Layton and its employees, I also urge that you handle this matter as expeditiously as possible.

I am confident that you will be both fair and open-minded in evaluating this case.

Mark O. Hatfield United States Senator