ID: nht76-2.23

DATE: 05/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Southside Datsun

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your April 29, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the modification work that you perform on Datsun pick-up trucks. I understand that this modification involves removal of the body from a fully certified truck and replacement of the body with a flat bed.

You are a vehicle alterer who is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.7 (copy enclosed). That section requires that you affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If any of the original vehicle's weight ratings are affected by the modification, the modified weight ratings must also appear on this label. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

One constraint on this specification is found in @ 567.4(g)(3) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, which requires that the 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. . . .

"Gross Axle Weight Rating" 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.

As one who alters completed vehicles but does not otherwise manufacture motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that is subject to a safety standard, you are not required to submit the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

Enclosed for your convenience is an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." If you have any further questions, please feel free to write.

ID: 07-0040004

ID: 77-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 8, 1977, letter asking where a school bus sidewall ends and the bus roof begins for purposes of complying with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

You enclosed a sketch detailing the bus sidewall and roof structure. On that sketch, you have a section of the bus labeled "A" where the sidewall and roof structure join. You have called this a quarter panel section. However, from your sketch, it appears that this panel is divided into two segments, with one extending upward from the window a short distance and connecting with a second more rounded section that continues over the top of the bus. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that your interpretation that the section labeled "A" need not comply with the requirements of the standard is incorrect. The agency concludes that the portion of the "quarter panel" that is a continuation of the bus sidewall is exempted from the requirements. However, the rounded portion of the panel that is merely a continuation of the roof must comply with the standard.

In your other sketch you present a roof drawing of a larger school bus. The agency has determined that the section you have labeled "roof section" is the only section of the drawing subject to the head protection zone requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

June 9, 1977 Dictated June 8, 1977

Roger Tilton Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Relating to our phone conversation to-day pertaining to the "head impact zone confines" I pose for you the following question:

Q. Using the simple line sketches enclosed, we request an interpretation of that area "not occupied by bus sidewall"?

It is our interpretation that the area marked "A" is considered to be a part of the sidewall section and would thus be excluded from the impact zone confines.

In that production dates for the post-April standards are rapidly approaching, we respectfully request a prompt response with your interpretation.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice-President

BIG BUS - CONVENTIONAL FULL SIZE

SMALL BUS - VAN CONVERSION TYPE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-8.3

DATE: November 08, 1993

FROM: Trombi, Federico -- Chief Homologation Engineer, Bugatti

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 05/09/94 From John Womack To Lance Tunick (A42; PART 525)

TEXT: This letter follows the recent correspondence that you received from Ms Rachel Jelly at Lotus Cars, Ltd. ("Lotus") regarding the question of whether Lotus and Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. may file separate petitions requesting alternate CAFE standards.

As Ms Jelly noted, in August of this year, Lotus was sold to Bugatti International Holding, SA, a Luxembourg company that also controls Bugatti Automobili, S.p.A. ("Bugatti SpA"), the Italian automobile manufacturer that is planning to enter the US market in the near future. Lotus and Bugatti SpA are operated as separate companies.

Lotus intends to file a CAFE exemption petition, as does Bugatti-SpA. Both companies are small volume manufacturers, and their joint annual production is far below the 10,000 units per year eligibility threshold. There is thus no question as to eligibility of either Bugatti or Lotus. The only question is whether Bugatti SpA and Lotus can file separate CAFE exemption petitions.

To our knowledge, the Bugatti/Lotus situation (that is, two small manufacturers under common control whose joint world-wide annual production is less than 10,000) is unique and has never before been addressed by NHTSA. Bugatti SpA is of the opinion that it is appropriate for Bugatti and Lotus to file separate petitions.

THE FILING OF TWO SEPARATE PETITIONS IS WITHIN THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CAFE STATUTE AND LESS LIKELY TO CREATE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS

The CAFE statute states that "a manufacturer" may submit a petition for a CAFE exemption. A joint petition in this case would not fall within this provision. Bugatti International is itself not a manufacturer, and under the statute it would be improper for TWO manufacturers to apply together.

Further, the purpose of the alternate standards provisions of the CAFE law is to permit a given small manufacturer to obtain an alternate CAFE standard that reflects the best fuel economy that SUCH small manufacturer can achieve. Combining two small companies together would muddy the all important question of the best fuel economy that EACH company is capable of achieving.

Lastly, if separate petitions were not allowed and a joint petition were required and a joint alternate standard were granted, in the event of a failure to comply with such a joint alternate standard, NHTSA would be faced with a difficult situation as regards enforcement To whom would NHTSA send the bill and how would the bill be divided?

THE FERRARI/ALFA CAFE DECISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE TWO PETITIONS IN THIS CASE

It would be improper to apply NHTSA's July, 1991 Ferrari - Alfa Romeo CAFE decision to the Bugatti/Lotus situation. Under that decision, Ferrari was found ineligible for a CAFE exemption because the total world-wide production of Ferrari and its sister companies (Fiat and Alfa) were combined when considering whether the 10,000 unit per year limit was exceeded. Under this test, Ferrari was ruled ineligible.

The Ferrari decision reversed a previous decision in 1978 which held that Maserati was eligible to apply for a CAFE exemption even though its related company, Innocenti, manufactured in excess of 10,000 cars per year. The Maserati decision was based on the fact that only Innocenti's US imports were counted when considering the 10,000 unit limit. Because Innocenti did not import into the US, Maserati was eligible.

For the following reasons, it is inappropriate to apply the Ferrari decision to the Bugatti/Lotus situation:

1) The Ferrari decision was an ELIGIBILITY DECISION, and there is no question here that Bugatti and Lotus are eligible (their combined world-wide annual production is less than 10,000). It is therefore inappropriate to apply the logic of the Ferrari decision to answer the completely different question at issue here -- should Bugatti SpA and Lotus receive separate standards?

2) The relevant FACTS of the Ferrari case were different from the facts in the Bugatti/Lotus situation. With Ferrari, NHTSA was considering two related companies (Ferrari and Alfa), one of which has a small volume manufacturer (Ferrari), the other of which was a large manufacturer (Alfa), and both of which were controlled by a still larger manufacturer (Fiat). In the Bugatti/Lotus case, Bugatti SpA and Lotus are both small manufacturers and their parent, Bugatti International, does not manufacturer autos. It is significant that the facts here are vastly different: NHTSA made it clear that the Ferrari decision depended heavily on the specific facts of that case.

3) In the Ferrari decision, NHTSA stated that the LEGISLATIVE GOAL of the CAFE exemption -- helping SMALL manufacturers -- would not be served if Ferrari were granted an exemption. In the Bugatti/Lotus situation, however, that goal would be best served if two standards were granted.

It is true that in the Ferrari decision, NHTSA said that "Ferrari and Alfa Romeo are in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards". NHTSA also stated that "any CAFE standard which applies to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together". These conclusions, however, do not foreclose Bugatti SpA and Lotus from filing separate petitions and receiving separate standards, for several reasons:

1) NHTSA's RATIONALE for these conclusions allows two standards in the Bugatti/Lotus situation. NHTSA based its conclusions on two sections of the CAFE law. Section 502(c) of the CAFE law permits CAFE exemptions to be granted ONLY IF NHTSA establishes "alternative . . . standards for . . . automobiles manufactured by manufacturers which receive exemptions". Section 503(c) defines "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" to include autos manufactured by a related company. Thus, in the Ferrari case, NHTSA concluded that it could grant Ferrari an exemption only if Alfa's cars were also covered by an alternate standard -- something that was impossible given Alfa's size. In the Bugatti/Lotus case, however, if two separate alternate standards were granted, NHTSA would be establishing alternate standards for all automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers which were receiving exemptions. Thus, the dilemma that existed in the Ferrari case is simply not present here.

2. The conclusions reached by NHTSA -- that Ferrari and Alfa Romeo were in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards and that any CAFE standard which applied to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa -- must be read literally and confined to the context in which they were issued. In other words, when NHTSA stated that Ferrari and Alfa were "in essence the same manufacturer", the agency meant just that -- that Ferrari and Alfa were the same; the agency did NOT say or mean that two other manufacturers in a different situation would be "in essence the same". When NHTSA stated that the standard that applies to Ferrari should apply to "Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together", it meant exactly what it said -- that the standard should apply to Ferrari and Alfa; it did NOT say or mean that two other manufacturers in a different situation must meet the same result.

3. Lastly, NHTSA pointed out in the Ferrari decision that considering Ferrari and Alfa as separate manufacturers would cause problems, such as in determining compliance. In the Bugatti/Lotus case the opposite is true -- considering Bugatti and Lotus separately would create fewer problems.

The Ferrari ruling therefore only means that: 1) when the precise facts of the Ferrari situation exist (one small manufacturer related to larger manufacturers, with combined production in excess of 10,000), then all the manufacturers must be considered "the same" manufacturer, and the "normal" CAFE standard must apply; and 2) when there is a "related companies situation", one of two results must obtain: Either both companies are subject to "alternate standards" or both are subject to the "normal standard" (you cannot have half of one and half of the other).

Both of these readings of the Ferrari decision permit Bugatti SpA and Lotus to receive separate standards. Moreover, so limiting the application of the Ferrari decision to the specific facts of the Ferrari case is entirely consistent with NHTSA's careful crafting of a narrow ruling.

Based upon the forgoing, Bugatti SpA respectfully requests that NHTSA permit the filing of two separate petitions requesting 2 separate alternate standards for Bugatti SpA and Lotus.

Kindly direct any questions, as well as your response, to: Lance Tunick Ital Group Llc 9114 W 6th Ave. Lakewood CO 80215 (Tel. 303 274 0203) (Fax 303 279-9339)

ID: nht76-5.14

DATE: 05/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Delbert L. Latta; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your March 23, 1976, request for consideration of the views of a constituent that provision of air cushion restraint systems in passenger cars would be too costly, and that motor vehicle regulation should concentrate on used vehicles because they are equipped with fewer safety and emission features.

As you are aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle standards that will reduce the number of accidents and deaths, and the severity of injuries, that occur on our nation's highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation evaluates the available means to meet this goal. Restraining vehicle occupants to protect them against impact with the vehicle interior in a crash offers one of the greatest opportunities for improving motor vehicle safety. Reliance on existing seatbelt systems has prevented only a small portion of the death and injuries that occur from impact with the vehicle interior. For this reason, other means of providing restraint are under consideration. I can assure you that the issues of purchase cost, replacement cost, and the alternatives to air cushions are being included in this consideration.

The safe operation of motor vehicles has traditionally been regulated by the individual States and not the Federal Government. While the Act does not authorize the retrofit of safety devices to vehicles in use, the NHTSA has issued a highway safety program standard for State periodic motor vehicle inspection programs (23 CFR @ 1204.4). Part 570, Vehicle in Use Standards (49 CFR Part 570), sets forth a procedure for inspection of older vehicles for use by the States in implementing the program standard. Also, the NHTSA has established demonstration diagnostic inspection projects that include emission as well as safety inspection of vehicles in use.

I have no basis for comment on the reported decision by Allstate Insurance Company not to consider the effects of bumper modification in establishing its premium structure.

I trust that this response will answer your constituent's questions.

ID: nht90-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK ATTACHED; ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 2-20-90 TO HENRY J. NOWAK FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC., AND LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJIT A, OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH.

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning an infant restraint system that has a sun visor permanently attached to it. You ask whether Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, requires the visor to be covered with energy absorbing material, when the visor i s not contactable by a test dummy's head during dynamic testing. I regret the delay in responding. The answer to your question is no.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for certifying a particular vehicle or item of equipment in the first instance on its manufacturer. For t his reason, NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before actual compliance testing by the agency. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement actions. W e are able to tentatively state whether we believe a particular requirement applies to your product, based on the information contained in your letter. However, it is important for your company to keep in mind that these tentative statements are based e ntirely on the information you presented to NHTSA. Our view could change if the agency were to find reason to test your product or otherwise acquire additional information about it.

Child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during a dynamic test be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirements ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. The standard does not require non-c ontactable surfaces to be covered with the specified protective materials, since doing so would not meet the safety need addressed by S5.2.3.2.

The term "contactable" is intended to refer to "surfaces which can be contacted by the test dummy's head during dynamic testing." (See the preamble to the final rule establishing the current Standard 213, 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979; emphasis a dded.) You report that your crash tests indicate that the sun visor cannot be contacted by the dummy's head during Standard 213's dynamic tests, in part because the force of the test caused the visor to fold back into the storage position" during the tes ts. Assuming that these observations are accurate, we would regard the visor to be a non-contactable surface. Accordingly, the visor would not be required to be covered with energy absorbing material.

We are providing a copy of this letter to Congressman Henry Nowak, who contacted us on your behalf about your inquiry. Again, my apologies for our delay in responding.

ID: 2904yy

Mr. Earl C. Lempke
President, Delavan Industries, Inc.
1728 Walden Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14225

Dear Mr. Lempke:

This responds to your letter of March 6, l991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether there is "any Federal ruling stating that Trailer Clearance Lights are considered as Safety Equipment and as such are not be be included as part of the overall width of the vehicle." You have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 323.20, the clearance lamp regulation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the observation that "this section does not answer the question."

I am pleased to clarify this situation for you. As the FHWA regulation states, "Clearance lamps shall be mounted so as to indicate the extreme width of the motor vehicle . . . ." This requirement is virtually identical to that in Table II of this agency's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." In l976, NHTSA issued an interpretation that was published in the Federal Register on August 23 of that year stating that "The term 'overall width' refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . marker lamps" such as clearance lamps. I enclose a copy for your information.

The FHWA concurs with this interpretation, and has provided us with some additional comments. Federal width limits apply only on the National Network highways (23 CFR 658, Section A). The width of commercial trailers operated on these highways is to be measured across the sidemost load carrying structures, support members, and structural fasteners, as stated in an interpretation published on March 13, l987, a copy of which I enclose. That proceeding also determined that side marker lamps and any other "non load-carrying safety appurtenance" which extended beyond these limits were excluded from width measurements. This would include clearance lamps, and thus exclude them also from width measurements. In December 1989, FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to consider if a new approach should be adopted to determine which devices to exclude from measurements of vehicle length and width. I also enclose a copy of that notice. FHWA advises that its next notice on the subject should be issued soon.

Although under FHWA regulations, the States determine whether safety equipment is to be excluded from the measurement of vehicle width, we believe that the State determination must be identical to the NHTSA position. Federal law (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibits a State from enacting or maintaining in effect any regulation covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal requirement. We believe that a State must also interpret an identical regulation in a manner identical to NHTSA's interpretation. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#l08 d:3/27/9l

ID: nht87-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D.F. Landers -- President, Mobile Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/11/83 letter from Frank Berndt to D.F. Landers

TEXT:

D. F. Landers PSI Mobile Products Inc. 25 Eldredge P.O. Box 1183 Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043

This is in response to your letter requesting confirmation of a July 11, 1983 determination by this agency that your special tow tractor vehicle is exempt from Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You indicate in your letter that you now have three si zes of tow tractors and that your market may expand to include commercial airline use as well as the Department of Defense.

Based on the information you have provided us, we confirm our previous determinations that baggage tow tractors are not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has consistently interpreted the definition of motor vehicle as excl uding vehicles such as airport runway vehicles that are intended and sold solely for off-road use and are not equipped for highway use. Further, we note that section 571.7(c) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that.

No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

Your vehicles might become subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if there is a material change in the facts regarding the intended or actual use, design or sale of your vehicles. Please remember that compliance with all Federal motor vehi cle safety standards is the obligation of each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We appreciate your continuing efforts at classifying correctly your vehicles.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have requested your opinion in the past, regarding the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to our special tow tractor vehicle. (A copy of our most recent correspondence is attached.) The purpose of this letter is to update our files and exemption position.

PSI now manufactures three sizes of tow tractors. These are sold to the Department of Defense agencies only, but may have commercial airline potential sales In the future.

The three vehicle sizes are shown on the chart enclosed along with pertinent specifications. Photographs and brochures are also enclosed for your information and files.

We would appreciate your confirmation that your previous determination that these vehicles are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards still applies.

Yours very truly, D. F. Landers President DFL/mm enclosures (See 7/11/83 letter from NHTSA to D.F. Landers)

ID: nht72-6.58

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: E. R. STERNBERG -- DIRECTOR ENGINEERING PLANNING - TRUCK GROUP WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

COPYEE: DYSON; VINSON

TITLE: 40-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1/3/72 FROM E. R. STERNBERG -- ENGINEERING PLANNING TRUCK GROUP WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION TO DOCKET ROOM NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sternberg:

This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1972, requesting an interpretation of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 101, as it applies to your proposed method of compliance for push-pull controls.

S4.2.2 requires, in pertinent part, that "Identification shall be provided for each function of any . . . heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range." Identification such as that shown in your Example (2) would meet Standard No. 101, while the identification provided in Example (3) would not. Legends such as "Pull on" and "Push off" might more clearly indicate control positions than your suggested "Max (out)" and "Off (in)." The control which operates both the defroster and heater must identify both functions; "Defrost" as indicated is insufficient. Legends such as "Pull to defrost" and "Push for heat" would be acceptable for conformance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-3.29

DATE: 03/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maurice J. Sopp & Son

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning the sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a "boiler" assembly.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label

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 . . .

Further, @ 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altered by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.