ID: nht87-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 21, 1987

FROM: JAY COSTA -- ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST, METROPOLITAN SEATTLE

TO: DEIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-23-88, TO JAY COSTA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 271, REDBOOK A31; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 6-25-87, CONTACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

TEXT: We have a unique problem with our articulated trolley coach which we believe you may be able to help us solve.

The problem we are experiencing concerns passengers opening the rear emergency window and pulling the ropes, causing the poles to dewire. This could cause serious injury to the passenger doing this as well as to others. It is also an interruption of se rvice, as the driver must stop the bus and put the poles back on the wire. It is our belief that in the interest of safety the rear emergency window should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window. This task can be done quite simply by o ur Body Shop.

As we understand FMVSS 217, we could accomplish this task. We inquired of the manufacturer of the trolley about this problem and enclose copies of their letters on this topic. Their letters also include information on the available emergency windows an d hatches on this bus. These 46 buses are 60 ft. long, three-axle articulated buses which are electrically powered from overhead wires.

We would like to receive from you clarification on FMVSS 217 and a formal opinion regarding our proposed action.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht92-5.49

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Gronowicz -- Keiper Recaro Seating, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 5/12/92 from Michael Gronowicz to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7306)

TEXT:

This responds to your Fax of May 12, 1992, requesting an explanation of the term "render inoperative" as it is used in S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). In general, that section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from making any modification or repair that would negatively affect a vehicle's compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you are interested in how the "render inoperative" prohibition would apply to a specific factual situation, I would be happy to provide an opinion if you will describe the specific situation. If you would like any further information about this "render inoperative" prohibition, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1982-2.14

DATE: 05/27/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Mrs. James J. Mitchell Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pleased to learn that you want to install a high-mounted stop lamp on your 1978 Buick LaSabre. The two studies that the Administration funded, one with the Essex Corporation and the other with the Allen Corporation, indicated that rear end collisions could possibly be reduced by 50 percent with the use of a single high-mounted stop lamp. We do not know whether the States of New York or New Jersey will allow the use of these lamps. Our Office of Rulemaking contacted the American Association of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (AAMVA) but the information we received was indefinite, and I would suggest that you contact your local State Police for a definitive answer. The agency has proposed that passenger cars be equipped with this system, and if the proposal is adopted, the lamps would be legal in all States.

As to where to locate these lamps on the car, our research showed that a single lamp, placed on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle and within the back window (either inside or outside) was the most effective position. Our research also included a system of two high-mounted lamps, mounted on either side of the rear window, apparently similar to the one you observed in upstate New York; however, this was not nearly as effective as the single lamp system in reducing rear end collisions.

SINCERELY,

April 2, 1982

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Based on the attached article, which appeared in the June 1981 issue of McCall's Magazine, I sent a check for $ 29.90 to Amerace Brands Division, Hilite, Ace Road, Butler, N.J. 07405 for two Slimsonite Hi Lite brake lights, to fit a 1978 Buick LaSabre sedan.

Would you please tell me which states authorize these lights and where they must be placed on the car -- I am, of course, interested in New York State. The reason I make this inquiry is that when my husband took the lights to our local service station, the mechanic suggested that my husband check with the local police regarding the legality of these lights. We border on the State of New Jersey. My husband learned that we could not affix the lights; that if we did, he would be asked to remove them by the police.

When we traveled upstate New York, I noticed a car with similar lights, affixed in the back window, on either side. I must say that they do indicate when the car ahead is stopping. As a legal secretary, I worked on many accident cases, and I personally feel that a driver should give all the warning he can when he plans to stop.

Thank you for your reply.

Mrs. James J. Mitchell, Jr.

ID: nht88-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/88

FROM: BRIAN HALL -- PRESIDENT, VS TECHNOLOGY

TO: VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO BRIAN HALL, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108

TEXT: I'm sending this letter to you to find out how to get an approval from the U.S. D.O.T. on a apparatus that I believe will be a useful tool for the safety of a motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver.

This apparatus will be a high level visability red light that will be worn on the upper back of the driver or passenger on the above mentioned vehicles.

The apparatus is a 2" strap that is worn by putting the arms through the holes so the straps are resting on the shoulders, such as a shoulder harness. There is a square piece of velcro that is sewed to the strap that will be positioned about 3 to 4 in ches above the center of the back. The shoulder harness, as I will call it, is conmfortable to wear. The velcro square on the back will be where a red brake light will be attached. The brake light will be made of plastic with the back of the light hav ing a flat surface that will be velcroed to the square velcro patch on the shoulder harness. Coming from the brake light will be two wires that will be plugged to a pigtail connector that will be safety fastened to the existing brake light wires. The s afety fastner will be included with the package. Instructions on how to locate the right wires will also be in the package with instructions on were it is best to put the safety fastner pigtail. The brake light connector will be plugged into the pigtai l connector so when the brakes levers are applied the high visability brake light will come on at the same time so surrounding vehicle drivers will have a better chance of seeing the motorcycle driver.

I hope that this brief description of what I'm writing to you about is enough for you to understand what I'm trying to do and why I'm seeking for a U.S. D.O.T. approval on this apparatus.

I have talked to the Arizona D.O.T. about this and they referred me to the U.S. D.O.T. in Washington D.C., which I called, to have the information sent to me on the requirements and specifications needed for such a apparatus.

My intentions are to put this on the market as a after market products for those persons who are concerned for their safety as motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver. Also I'm talking to the military about this for on-base requirement for motorcycle, etc. drivers.

ID: aiam5645

"Dear Mr. Mansell: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1995 to Philip R. Recht, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You seek an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs). Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires conspicuity sheeting to be placed 'across the full width of the trailer' and 'as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface.' You indicate that for many trailers the rear bumper is the closest practicable location (approximately 500 mm), but that, on some FGTTs, the load/unload ports are directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. The hot water to which the bumper is exposed degrades the conspicuity sheeting. 'Since installation of sheeting subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable', you interpret this paragraph to allow the sheeting to be 'applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150 mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area.' You also state that 'otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area.' We believe that this interpretation meets the intent of the standard. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a), the mounting height of the conspicuity material is based upon practicability, but the application 'across the full width of the trailer' is absolute. We interpret 'across the full width' to mean that the sheeting must cover the entire width of the vehicle, though not necessarily on the same plane or continuously. Thus, mounting above the load/unload area would be acceptable as a practicable location. Generally, the agency defers to a manufacturer's determination of practicability and will not question it if it is not clearly erroneous. It is not the intent of the standard that manufacturers 'redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water.' You also believe that, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, 'conspicuity sheeting should be mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper.' Although you did not enclose a drawing of this configuration, it appears acceptable. We assume that, when viewed from the rear, the sheeting has the appearance of extending across the full width of the vehicle, even if the section on the cabinet doors is not on the same plane as that on the bumpers. This, too, is acceptable as a manufacturer's determination of practicability. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";

ID: nht74-3.27

DATE: 09/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales Inc.

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1974, inquiring as to whether or not a vehicle with unitized construction, developed as a truck and converted to carry passengers may be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Your description of the vehicle in question indicates that it does qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The reference to "truck chassis" in the MPV definition was intended to include vehicles that were designed and developed as trucks but have been produced in a version for carrying passengers. Since the delivery van referenced in your letter was developed as a truck, its modification to enable the carrying of passengers places it in the MPV category.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A. INC.

August 12, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would like to request your interpretation of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as defined in @ 571.3 Definitions of PART 571-FMVSS Subpart A.

Our concern is with the meaning of "truck chassis" and whether or not we can classify the following vehicle in the MPV category under the above-cited definition.

Among our car lines we have a delivery van, a diagram of which is attached. This van has a unitized body construction, but it was developed for cargo transportation. In other words, it could be classified as a truck. If we were to install enough seats in this van to enable it to carry ten passengers or less, could this vehicle as modified be classified in the MPV category?

Your interpretation of the above will be greatly appreciated.

THANK YOU.

K. Nakajima

Director/General Manager

Factory Representative Office

ATTACHMENT (Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

Wheelbase: 2200 mm

ID: nht76-3.20

DATE: 01/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wenke; Burge; and Taylor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to questions you raised in a January 7, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the determinations of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.

GVWR is defined as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. (49 CFR 571.3).

One constraint on this specification is found in the Certification regulation, which requires that the GVWR be

not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity . . . . (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3))

"Rated cargo load" is not defined. If a manufacturer does not provide a cargo load rating to dealers or consumers, the NHTSA expects his determination of GVWR to reflect a good faith evaluation of the vehicle's load carrying capacity. In the case of a boat trailer, this evaluation should be made with the assumption that the trailer is attached to a towing vehicle and should include that portion of the trailer's load that is carried by the towing vehicle.

GAWR, on the other hand, is defined as:

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

The GAWR of a boat trailer's axle system could thus be less than the GVWR, because some of the trailer's load would be carried by the towing vehicle. However, the NHTSA would consider a boat trailer with a GAWR that is less than the actual load on its axle system, when loaded to its GVWR and attached to a towing vehicle, to contain a safety-related defect, which is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

The NHTSA expects to issue, in the near future, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire and rim selection for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.120). Until the effective date of that standard, however, we will continue to consider a vehicle with tires insufficient for its gross axle weight ratings to contain a safety-related defect.

ID: nht93-5.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Michael H. Dunn -- Vice President of Marketing, Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from Michael Dunn to Greg Fera; Also attached to letter dated 11-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael H. Dunn; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Michael H. Dunn to Paul Jackson Rice.

TEXT: This agency has received copies of your May 17 and June 3, 1993, letters to Mr. Greg Fera, Pupil Transportation Specialist, New Jersey Department of Education, advising Mr. Fera that you can now "certify" your product, the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bars), as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 222.

This agency has repeatedly asked you to refrain from false or misleading representations that, among other things, NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars or that R-Bars comply with Federal safety standards. (For example, we sent a letter to you on this subject on November 29, 1991, copy attached.) As we previously explained, FMVSS 222, SCHOOL BUS SEATING AND CRASH PROTECTION, applies to school buses, not to individual items of motor vehicle equipment mounted or mountable in school buses, such as R-Bars. Further, there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to equipment such as R-Bars. Therefore, it is not possible to "certify" that R-Bars comply with any FMVSS.

In your December 3, 1991, response to our November 29, 1991, letter (copy attached), you stated that you and other company employees would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars. However, that letter is silent as to our demand that your company cease its representation that R-Bars meet applicable Federal Standards.

To alleviate any possible misunderstanding, you are again asked to refrain from claiming that Micho Industries can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars. Such a claim is false, and misleads people into believing that your product complies with or is "certified" to a safety standard that does not exist. Such a false and misleading certification is prohibited by S108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1)(C). This agency is prepared to bring appropriate legal action against you and your firm if you persist in making these representations in the future.

ID: 3199o

Dear:

This is in reply to your letters of July 12, and September 2, 1988. In accordance with your request for confidentiality on the basis that your letter of July 12 contains confidential business information, your name, your company's name and address, and the name of the product concerned will be deleted from copies of this interpretation that are made publicly available.

Your company wishes to install a leveling device that will lower the height of a motor vehicle to facilitate entry. It can be activated only when the parking brake is applied and the vehicle is at rest. Normal vehicle height is restored by driver activation of a control when the ignition is in the "on" position. Should the operator attempt to drive away without activation of the control, release of the parking brake or registration of motion by a speed sensor ensures that normal vehicle height is restored within approximately l5 seconds. You state that the vehicle will conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards "when the vehicle is in its configuration for operation on public roads..., meeting all the requirements relevant to height (i.e., lighting device mounting heights, rear view mirror fields of view, non passenger car CAFE" categorization, and the like). You believe that incorporation of the height adjuster feature should not be considered when determining compliance with either the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the vehicle's classification for fuel economy purposes, except for mounting height requirements for lighting equipment designed to be used while the vehicle is stationary (such as parking lamps and hazard warning signal lamps). You ask for our concurrence in this interpretation.

Your interpretation is acceptable to us. Provision of the feature described would not invalidate the certification of your company that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor safety standards. We note that the adjustment in height is not automatic, but at the discretion of the vehicle operator. Further, the height adjuster is designed so that if it depresses vehicle height while a vehicle is being operated, it would do so only temporarily, i.e., not more than 15 seconds. Similarly, the height adjuster would not lead to a change in the classification of your vehicle for purposes of the fuel economy standards. Although 49 CFR 523.5 clearly indicates that measurement of angles and clearances for automobiles capable of off-highway operation is to be made when a vehicle is at rest, and your vehicle apparently would not have the requisite angles and clearances when the height adjuster is activated, it would have those angle and clearance when the adjuster is not activated. Further, activation of this feature is discretionary and its effects on the vehicle in motion are, as already noted, very brief. Thus, the vehicle would have the requisite clearance almost all of the time while it is being operated.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#523#108

ID: aiam4901

"Re: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. Reimportation of Volkswagens Dear Mr Stepp: This responds to your letter of July 1, l99l, on behalf of your client, Escargot Motorcars of Canada, with respect to its plan to export Volkswagen Beetles to Mexico for refurbishment, with subsequent reentry into the United States. You have asked for an interpretation that such vehicles may be allowed reentry without further certification. As you have explained it, Escargot Motorcars plans to purchase Beetles that were initially imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America, and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts 'and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture.' Some of the old Beetles will retain their manufacturer's original certification of compliance located on the door post, while others, if the bodies are worn or damaged, 'the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed.' If the bodies are extensively damaged, Escargot may ship only the chassis to Mexico. You state that '(w)here the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification.' You also state that further certification is also unnecessary for vehicles no longer bearing the certification label, or whose door post condition is such that it must be removed during restoration, because that vehicle's VIN will indicate that it was originally imported into the United States as a certified and complying car. Similarly, those vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment should be allowed entry without further certification 'since the chassis will be preserved and registered.' The appropriate statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), which provides the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), and the vehicle importation regulation (49 CFR Part 591). You suggest that the refurbished Beetles may be admitted without further certification since they were originally manufactured to conform to the Federal safety standards. Thus, it appears that Escargot would seek entry under section 591.5(b), the declaration that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards 'and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently attached by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.' The first issue raised by the factual situation described in your letter is whether the 'refurbished' vehicles would be considered to be new or 'used' vehicles. If the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations for the vehicles to be considered to be new, the vehicles would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of the new manufacturing operations (refurbishing), including the requirements for automatic restraints. However, if the refurbishing involves more minor operations, the vehicles would be considered to be used. As discussed below, only if the vehicles would be considered to be used could they be reimported into the United States based on the original manufacturer's certification label. The range of potential manufacturing operations described by your letter is so broad as to include ones where a vehicle would be considered to be used and ones where a vehicle would be considered to be new. As indicated above, you state the following: After shipment to Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with a VW engine. The body, sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts 'and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture.' (Emphasis added.) If the operations only involved replacement of the engine and minor restoration/repair of other parts, the vehicle would be considered to be used. If, however, in addition to replacing the engine, the other operations involved replacement or 're-manufacturing' of the other parts mentioned in your letter, it would be considered a new passenger car and subject to all current safety standards, notwithstanding the fact that the old frame was retained. A new certification would also be required. I note that information that this agency has on Escargot's operations in Canada suggests that the latter category of operations may be more what that company has in mind. We have seen an advertising circular issued by The Beetles of Toronto, 'a registered tradename of Escargot Motorcars, Inc.', that boasts 'Every single piece of your Beetle is factory brand new, except one, and that's the frame.' The circular states that The Beetles places around the pan, 'all new components: engine, suspension, braking, steering, etc. The entire body is also new, as are the bucket seats, dashboard, gauges, dials, everything. Even down to the last nut and bolt.' We regard this as the manufacture of a new motor vehicle to which contemporary safety standards apply, and which must be certified by Escargot as conforming to those standards. To the extent that Escargot performed operations that are sufficiently minor that a vehicle would be considered used, it could be reimported into the United States under section 591.5(b), based on the original manufacturer's certification label. Under that section, an importer declares that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards and 'bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle.' In the case of a used vehicle which is being reimported, we interpret the phrase 'conforms to all applicable safety standards' to refer to the vehicle at the time of its original manufacture prior to its first sale. We recognize that, because of age and use, a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, and did not intend that phrase to prevent reimportation of used vehicles that originally complied with all safety standards. While a used vehicle typically may not continue to meet some safety standards, the original certification label ordinarily lasts for the life of the vehicle. The certification label is the primary evidence that the vehicle was originally manufactured to meet applicable safety standards, and, in order for a used vehicle to reimported under section 591.5(b), we would ordinarily expect the certification label to present at the time of the reimportation. We recognize, however, that a certification label may be defaced or destroyed and would not, in such instance, consider absence of the certification label to an absolute bar to reimporting a vehicle under section 591.5(b). However, we would need to very carefully evaluate each factual situation on a case-by-case basis. If you have any further questions of a legal nature, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), and if they are of a technical nature, to Clive Van Orden of the Office of Enforcement (202-366-2830). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";