ID: 1935y

Mr. Clifford Anglewicz
Vice President Marketing
Verne Corporation
50405 Patricia Drive
Mount Clemens, MI 48045

Dear Mr. Anglewicz:

This is in reply to your letter regarding the Dragoon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV), as amplified by a telephone call to you by Mr. Vinson of this Office. The ASV that your company produces is presently used "by the U.S. Armed Forces". You are now considering the possibility of selling the ASV "to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and utility vehicle", and have asked "to know the procedure for getting this vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, we have no category of "special purpose vehicle". If a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, it is a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that it must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type and be certified as conforming to those standards, and that it is subject to remedial action upon the determination that it does not comply with one of those standards or that it contains a safety related defect. If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not required to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a motor vehicle is one that is designed to carry l0 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis, or with special features for occasional off-road operation, it is classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle". A motor vehicle designed for carrying more than l0 persons is classified as a "bus".

This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the Federal standards. As Mr. Vinson further explained to you, we provided the Border Patrol with a letter of interpretation under which we concluded that its mission was so similar to that of the armed forces that it could be considered a component of it, and that the "Hummer" vehicle it wished to purchase in fulfilment of that mission need not be manufactured to meet Federal safety standards. I enclose a copy of that letter for your information. The ASV appears similar to the Hummer in configuration. Therefore, on the basis of the facts as presented in your letter, ASV's could be sold to the Border Patrol without the necessity of conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, we have not been contacted by the Drug Enforcement Administration or the U.S. Customs Service, nor by any police department. In the absence of any interpretation issued in response to these entities, ASVs sold to them must be manufactured to conform with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Technically, the ll and l2 passenger versions of the ASV would be "buses", but the overall configuration of the ASV, with its high approach and departure angles, its capability of amphibious operation with special equipment, and its suitability for use on rough terrain support its classification as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for all passenger configurations.

Obviously, the ASV is not a conventional motor vehicle subject to easy classification or, possibly, conformity with multipurpose passenger vehicle standards (e.g., we understand it uses a military specification brake fluid rather than DOT-3). Because of the facts that your annual production is around 60 units, and that your sales are not to the general public, you might wish to petition for temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal safety standards. If the petition is granted, you would be able to sell the ASV to entities other than the armed forces without conforming it to the Federal standards. Mr. Vinson has provided you with the citations to the Federal standards and to the exemption procedures, and you may consult him if you have any questions with respect to them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#571 d:8/7/89

ID: 10469

Mr. Donald T. Hoy
Senior Marketing Manager
Clean Air Partners
17301 Rimrock Drive
Golden, CO 80401

Dear Mr. Hoy:

This responds to your letter addressing this agency's regulations about converting school buses to run on a blended fuel combining diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). You stated that your company manufactures a conversion system that bolts on the original equipment manufacturer's diesel engine. While the diesel engine system remains intact and operates as designed during the dual fuel cycle, your conversion system serves to reduce the flow of diesel fuel to the engine and substitutes natural gas in its place. You further state that the system automatically reverts back to 100% diesel with no interruption in driveability if the supply of CNG is depleted.

You asked two questions about converting diesel powered school buses to dual fuel school buses that run on both conventional diesel fuel and alternative fuels such as CNG or LNG. You first ask whether there are any Federal regulations preventing the conversion of a school bus from diesel to a dual fuel school bus. You then ask if there is any significance as to when the conversion system is installed on a school bus with regard to vehicle certification.

Before answering your specific questions, let me provide you with background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our regulations. NHTSA is authorized by Congress to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSSs to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by diesel fuels and those powered by CNG. Specifically, FMVSS No. 301 regulates the fuel system integrity of gasoline and diesel powered light vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 10,000 pounds and all gasoline and diesel powered school buses regardless of GVWR. In addition, FMVSS No. 303 regulates the fuel system integrity of CNG light vehicles and all school buses. Finally, FMVSS No. 304 regulates the integrity of CNG fuel containers. While FMVSS No. 301 has been in effect since the 1970s, the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304 becomes effective on September 1, 1995 and the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 303 becomes effective on March 27, 1995. The agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to vehicles powered by LNG.

In response to your first question, no FMVSS or other NHTSA regulation prohibits the conversion of a diesel school bus to a dual fuel school bus. Nevertheless, FMVSS No. 301 requires each vehicle subject to the FMVSS, including each school bus, to have a limited amount of fuel leakage from the fuel system after being subjected to crash testing. Similarly, FMVSS No. 303 requires each vehicle subject to the FMVSS, including each school bus, to have a limited amount of pressure drop in the fuel system after being subjected to crash testing. Each school bus with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds is subjected to frontal, rear, and lateral barrier crash tests and each school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more is subjected to a moving contoured barrier crash test. With respect to a dual fuel vehicle, NHTSA explained in the final rule that "NHTSA has decided to require only one test on dual-fuel and bi-fuel vehicles that permits the amount of gaseous leakage specified in the CNG standard plus the amount of liquid leakage specified in Standard No. 301." (59 FR 19648, April 25, 1994.) In other words, after being subjected to the specified test crash or crashes, a dual fuel school bus may not leak more than the amount of fuel leakage permitted in FMVSS No. 301 plus the amount permitted in FMVSS No. 303.

In response to your second question, vehicle fuel system conversions are addressed in certain NHTSA provisions, whose application depends on when the work is done and who does the conversion. Under the statute and NHTSA's regulations, the first consumer purchase is the critical event by which certain responsibilities are specified. If your conversion system were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard once that FMVSS takes effect. If your conversion system were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. This means that if you convert a school bus prior to the first consumer purchase, then you would be responsible for certifying that the school bus as manufactured conforms to all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301 and, once FMVSS No. 303 and 304 take effect, those standards as well.

If you convert a bus after the first consumer purchase, you would not have any certification responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. However, an installer that is a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business would have to ensure that it did not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Since all school buses are currently required to comply with FMVSS No. 301, any aspect of the conversion to a dual fuel school bus must not make the diesel school bus more vulnerable to diesel fuel leakage or otherwise impair the school bus' fuel system integrity. After the September 1, 1995 effective date for FMVSS No. 303, any aspect of your conversion to a CNG/diesel school bus to a dual fuel school bus must not make the school bus more vulnerable to fuel leakage.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

In addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the container or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

With regard to additional requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:303 d:2/27/95

ID: 22131.drn

Mr. Timothy Tassick
Innovtech LLC
5 West Byler Road
Mercer, PA 16137






Dear Mr. Tassick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your product, a warning device called the "Collapse-a-Cone" must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you will market the product for use with motor vehicles with less than 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). As explained below, because your warning device is designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Innovtech, as the manufacturer, is subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) laws.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, your company's warning devices must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning device is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, your warning device, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

Finally, some states may regulate warning devices that vehicles with a 10,000 lb GVWR or less may or must use when the vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information on whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,00 lb or less.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:125#VSA102(4)
d.10/17/00

ID: nht93-6.47

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President - Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter date 4/27/93 from Scott R. Dennison to John Womack (illegible OCC number)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993, clarifying your FAX of March 12 to which I responded on April 19.

We appreciate your goal of helping people comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and those of EPA. We can well understand why, as you put it, "at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers." The regulation of kit cars and vehicles combining old and new parts is a complicated subject, and our opinions usually depend upon the specific facts of individual cases with the result that one may differ in degree from another. Because these are legal opinions, the Office of Chief Counsel is the proper Office within NHTSA to address questions of this nature, rather than the agency's Enforcement office.

We are sorry that some of your inquirers "are afraid to call (NHTSA) for fear of reprisal." By this, I think you mean that a call from a small manufacturer might cause NHTSA to initiate enforcement action concerning nonconformance with the FMVSS or agency regulations. The potential of an enforcement action should be sufficient to encourage those engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles to discern their responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to comply with them. We are willing to assist manufacturers in interpreting the Act and regulations. If they do not wish to write or call us, they can review our interpretation letters which are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Also, they can consult a private attorney.

You enclosed a copy of the "EPA Kit Car Policy" which we have reviewed, comparing it with NHTSA policy. In most respects, the two policies are congruent. Paragraph 1 of the EPA document fairly expresses NHTSA policy; fully assembled kit cars, and complete kit car packages are "motor vehicles" under the Act, required to be certified by the manufacturer or kit supplier. If they are not certified, they must be imported by a NHTSA-registered importer (the counterpart to EPA's Independent Commercial Importer), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to certify the kit car (an allowance that we understand does not exist under EPA regulations). I shall return to Paragraph 2 later. Paragraph 3 differs from NHTSA policy; although automotive bodies are not "motor vehicles" under either EPA or NHTSA's definitions, they are "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of NHTSA's jurisdiction. Paragraph 4 essentially states NHTSA policy; kit car body/chassis combinations may be imported as automotive equipment and are subject to NHTSA's regulations. Similarly, any attempt to circumvent the

Act or import regulations may be viewed as a violation subject to enforcement. However, NHTSA will also regard as a "manufacturer" any person importing kits or kit cars for resale, as well as the actual fabricator or assembler of a kit.

Paragraph 2 reflects the fact that EPA regulates only engines and emission- related components. A vehicle "will be considered to be a rebuilt vehicle of a previously certified configuration and will be considered to be covered by that configuration's original EPA certification of conformity" if the engine and all emission-related components and settings conform to those of the previously certified configuration, and if the weight of the completed kit vehicle is not more than 500 pounds greater than that of the originally certified configuration. Under EPA policy, a "rebuilt vehicle" could be a motor vehicle all of whose parts were new and unused except for its engine and engine-related components. NHTSA has no definition of "rebuilt vehicle" which would permit a similar interpretation, and while a vehicle as I have described could be covered by the previously existing EPA certification, NHTSA very likely would regard it as a newly manufactured motor vehicle which must be certified as meeting all contemporary FMVSS. It is here that the two agencies most diverge because of the breadth of NHTSA's regulatory authority which encompasses all motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicles assembled from that equipment.

You cite as an example of difficulty "the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod." The first question to answer is whether the car has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Factors to consider in this determination are whether the Hot Rod is intended solely for use on closed race tracks, whether it must be trailered from race to race, and whether a State would license it for on road use. If the car has not been manufactured primarily for on road use, then it is not a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not subject to the FMVSS. If the car is a "motor vehicle" and entirely assembled from parts from a disassembled motor vehicle or vehicles previously in use, then it is considered a "used" vehicle, and also not subject to the FMVSS (but subject to state and local standards). On the other hand, if the kit car is entirely comprised of previously unused parts, then it is a new motor vehicle that is required to comply with, and be certified as complying with, the FMVSS (and its manufacturer may be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of those standards under 49 CFR Part 555). If the kit car is comprised of parts both previously used and unused, NHTSA's examination of the list of components in each category will enable it to advise whether the kit car must comply with the FMVSS that apply to new vehicles.

In addition, we also receive inquiries from those who wish to construct vehicles which use a "host" chassis from a previously certified vehicle. The Act permits a manufacturer to modify a previously certified vehicle in any manner as long as it does not knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed by the original manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that, if the manufacturer removes the original body, at the end of the conversion process the resulting motor vehicle must continue to comply with the FMVSS that were in effect when it was originally manufactured. However, a certain divergence from original vehicle

compliance is permitted. For example, if a 1982 enclosed passenger car is modified to become a convertible, at the end of the conversion process it is no longer required to meet enclosed car FMVSS but must comply with those that applied to 1982 convertibles. The Act does not require that such vehicles be certified but the manufacturer should be prepared to substantiate that it has not rendered inoperative any of the vehicle's original safety equipment, either directly or indirectly (such as a substantial increase in the weight of the vehicle that might affect its crash protection characteristics) in the event NHTSA should so ask.

Finally, we note your remark that NHRA and SEMA are debating whether a policy can "be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards." As I discussed above, the FMVSS would not appear to apply to a replica vehicle such as a Miller racing car from the 1920's that could not be licensed for on road use. However, the FMVSS do apply to vehicles composed of newly manufactured parts that replicate the look of older vehicles. For this reason, 100% authenticity cannot be achieved for a replica required to meet the current FMVSS because of equipment such as the center highmounted stop lamp, side marker lamps and reflectors, and head and other occupant restraints required for safety today. As a general rule, we would not provide temporary exemptions from these standards. In our view, the only viable candidate for an authentic replica is one that is constructed on a "host" chassis of a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the first FMVSS became effective, or entirely from used parts. I would also note that much authenticity could result from use of a "host" chassis manufactured during calendar year 1968. Although the appearance of the interior would be affected by compliance with certain FMVSS, the FMVSS requiring side marker lamps and reflectors and head restraints did not become effective until January 1, 1969.

ID: 1982-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS (CONFIDENTIAL)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked if that standard allows a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims.

Standard No. 120 permits a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger car tires and rims, provided that those tires and rims meet all the requirements of the standard. Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 requires all motorcycles equipped with tires that meet either the requirements of Standard No. 109, which applies to new passenger car tires, or Standard No. 119, which applies to new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Thus, passenger car tires can be used on new motorcycles, as long as those passenger car tires are certified as complying with Standard No. 109.

Motorcycle rims are subject to two requirements. First, section S5.1.1 requires that the rims be listed by the manufacturer of the tires installed on the motorcycle as suitable for use with those tires. If you use rims which are the proper size for the passenger car tires to by used, this requirement is easily met by passenger car rims. Second, rims used on motorcycles must meet the rim marking requirements, because the rim manufacturers do not mold the required information onto passenger car rims. However, if you can obtain passenger car rims marked with the information set forth in section S5.2 and listed by the passenger car tire manufacturer as appropriate for use with the passenger car tires, those rims could be used on new motorcycles.

A copy of this letter with your name and address deleted, along with your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, has been placed in the public docket under interpretations of Standard No. 120. Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

This request for interpretation is with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. We would like to confirm that Standard No. 120 permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorcycle.

We believe that the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorycle is permitted because Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 states that "...each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 ( 571.109) or Standard No. 119 ( 571.119), and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires...". In our opinion, this permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on motorcycles, provided the tires comply with Standard No. 109 and the rims are an appropriate match for the tires and also comply with Standard No. 110.

ID: nht81-3.16

DATE: 09/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Global Link, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Ms. Nancy Nishmura Global Link, Inc. 548 Rose Avenue Venice, California 90291

Dear Ms. Nishmura:

This letter confirms your recent telephone conversations with Joan Griffin of my staff regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked Ms. Griffin what safety standards apply to the manufacture of automotive glazing materials, and whether glazing manufacturers must obtain prior approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) before manufacturing and marketing their products.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). The requirements of Standard No. 205 are set forth in ANS Z26 in terms of performance tests that the various types or "Items" of glazing must pass. There are 13 "Items" of glazing for which requirements are specified in the standard. Copies of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 were sent to you at an earlier date.

NHTSA does not require or offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination. Standard No. 205 sets forth specific certification and marking requirements in paragraph S6. It is our understanding that you represent Asahi Glass Co., a manufacturer of glazing materials. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) such as Asahi are set forth in paragraphs S6.1-6.3. These para- graphs require each prime glazing material manufacturer to mark the glazing materials in accordance with Section 6 of ANS Z26 and Section 114 of the Act. Section 6 of ANS Z26 requires that the glazing be permanently marked with the words "American Standard" or the letters "AS", a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, the manufacturer's trademark or designation, and the "Item" number. Paragraph S6.2 further requires the manufacturer to mark the glazing with the symbol "DOT" and the manufacturer's code mark, which is assigned by NHTSA. The code mark assigned to Ahasi Glass Co. is "20". Section 114 of the Act provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard....

Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation of Section 108. However, Section 108(b)(1) provides that there is no violation of Section 108 if the person establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment did not conform to certain standards. Thus, Asahi does not necessarily have to follow the test procedures set forth in ANS Z26 in determining that glazing complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. As long as the manufacturer acts with due care, he can certify that his glazing materials comply with the standard based on means other than such testing. For example, it should be sufficient to use analytical means alone if they are reliable predictors of how glazing would perform when tested. The procedures set forth in ANS Z26 are the procedures that the agency will follow in doing its compliance testing.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Joan Griffin (202-426-9511) if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 18361.wkm

Mr. Malcolm Prestage
Legislation & Standards Engineer
Hawtal Whiting Engineering Ltd.
Southam Road
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV31 1FQ, England

Dear Mr. Prestage:

Your electronic mail inquiry addressed to Ms. Donna Gilmore of this agency and with the notation "Please forward to Barry Felrice or Administrator for Part 523" was forwarded to this office for reply. You requested clarification of the phrase "static loaded radius arc" found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 523.2, Definitions.

You also requested clarification of the phrase "and the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure," which is part of the definition of "static loaded radius arc" found in 49 CFR 523.2. You asked whether that language refers to the tire inflation pressures recommended by the vehicle manufacturer rather than by the tire manufacturer. Following a telephone conversation with Messrs. John Finneran, safety assurance engineer, and Walter Myers of my staff on February 5, 1999, you sent a telefax to Mr. Myers stating that the tire pressures that you would use are within the tire manufacturers' load ranges, although slightly higher than the tire manufacturer's minimum pressures relative to the loads imposed. You sent a further telefax to Mr. Myers on February 12, 1999 in which you stated that your objective is to ensure that a 4-wheel drive (4WD) vehicle with off-road capability would qualify under Part 523 to be classified as a light truck for fuel economy purposes. You also cited the example of a 195/80R15 tire for which the customary minimum recommended inflation pressure would be 33.4 pounds per square inch (psi). By increasing the inflation pressure to 40.6 psi, the static loaded radius, and therefore the vehicle's ground clearance, would be increased by at least 7 millimeters. The 40.6 psi inflation pressure would then become the minimum pressure recommended on the tire label for that axle.

The term "static loaded radius arc" is defined in 49 CFR 523.2 as:

[A] portion of a circle whose center is the center of a standard tire-rim combination of an automobile and whose radius is the distance from that center to the level surface on which the automobile is standing, measured with the automobile at curb weight, the wheel parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure.

Although the term "static loaded radius arc" does not appear in Part 523 other than in the definitions section, the radius to which it refers is used to determine vehicle classification for purposes of fuel economy standards.

Note that the definition of "static loaded radius arc" includes the criteria by which the radius is to be determined:

1. Measured from the center of the tire-rim combination to the level surface on which the vehicle stands;
2. With the vehicle at curb weight;
3. With the wheel parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle; and
4. With the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure.

The definition of "curb weight" in Part 523 refers to the definition of "vehicle curb weight" found in 40 CFR 86.082-2, which reads as follows:

Vehicle curb weight means the actual or the manufacturer's estimated weight of the vehicle in operational status with all standard equipment, and weight of fuel at nominal tank capacity, and the weight of optional equipment computed in accordance with 86.082-24; incomplete light-duty trucks shall have the curb weight specified by the manufacturer.

This agency has stated by interpretation that "curb weight" is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant and the weights of the air conditioner and optional engine, if the vehicle is so equipped. No other optional items of equipment are included, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options, nor are occupants and cargo included in calculating the curb weight.

Paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 110, Tire selection and rims, applicable to passenger cars, and paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, require vehicle labeling to include the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for the tires, such that the sum of the load ratings of the tires on each axle is appropriate for the vehicle's gross axle weight rating.

It is this agency's interpretation, therefore, that the static loaded radius arc is determined by making the measurement prescribed in Part 523 with the vehicle at curb weight and the tires inflated to the recommended inflation pressure specified on the vehicle's label. However, in no case may the inflation pressure used to determine the static loaded radius arc exceed the maximum rated inflation pressure specified on the tire sidewall.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:523
d.4/21/99

ID: nht90-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/90

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

TO: LOWELL W. SUNDSTROM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12-9-89 TO OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA, FROM LOWELL W. SUNDSTROM ATTACHED; [OCC 4251]

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1989 to this office, asking us to confirm your opinion that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302) does not apply to the "HOOD LOCKER" product you describe in your letter. You state that this product will be a plastic box to hold tissues which consumers may use to wipe off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil. According to your letter, the product can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender wel l, on the under side of the hood, on the side or top of the air cleaner, or in another location near the dipstick. You believe that Standard No. 302 does not refer to the product because it will not be placed within the occupant compartment of motor vehi cles and will not be placed within one-half inch of any occupant's air space. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the Na tional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability r esistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle manufacturer that installs your "HOOD LOCKER" as original equipment in its vehicles must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety

standards, including Standard No. 302, with the "HOOD LOCKER" installed. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipmen, as your "HOOD LOCKER" appears to be. Hence, you are not required to certify that this produ ct complies with Standard No. 302 before offering it for sale. Parenthetically, I note that your observation is correct that Standard No. 302 applies only to materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, and not to materials used in an e ngine compartment that is separated from the occupant compartment.

However, there are other statutory requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as this "HOOD LOCKER" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concernin g the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that the "HOOD LOCKER" contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of t he defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.

Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the "HOOD LOCKER" a nd compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the "HOOD LOCKER" in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standards would seem to be Standards No. 113, Hood Latch System, and 302. If the installation of the "HOOD LOCKER" would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the "HOOD LO CKER" can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

I trust that we have been responsive to your questions. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standar ds. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ENC.

ID: 2344y

Mr. Lowell W. Sundstrom, Jr.
P.O. Box 2427
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110

Dear Mr. Sundstrom:

This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1989 to this office, asking us to confirm your opinion that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302) does not apply to the "HOOD LOCKER" product you describe in your letter. You state that this product will be a plastic box to hold tissues which consumers may use to wipe off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil. According to your letter, the product can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender well, on the under side of the hood, on the side or top of the air cleaner, or in another location near the dipstick. You believe that Standard No. 302 does not refer to the product because it will not be placed within the occupant compartment of motor vehicles and will not be placed within one-half inch of any occupant's air space. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability resistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle manufacturer that installs your "HOOD LOCKER" as original equipment in its vehicles must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 302, with the "HOOD LOCKER" installed. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, as your "HOOD LOCKER" appears to be. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 302 before offering it for sale. Parenthetically, I note that your observation is correct that Standard No. 302 applies only to materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, and not to materials used in an engine compartment that is separated from the occupant compartment.

However, there are other statutory requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as this "HOOD LOCKER" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that the "HOOD LOCKER" contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.

Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the "HOOD LOCKER" and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the "HOOD LOCKER" in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standards would seem to be Standards No. 113, Hood Latch System, and 302. If the installation of the "HOOD LOCKER" would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the "HOOD LOCKER" can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

I trust that we have been responsive to your questions. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:VSA#302 d:3/22/90

ID: nht76-3.45

DATE: 03/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rockwell International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Rockwell International's February 17, 1976, question whether the addition by a manufacturer of a computer power relay unit (CPR) to an antilock system already installed on a vehicle in satisfaction of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, is prohibited by @ 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)). Section 108(a)(2) provides that, with one exception, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As you describe the CPR function, it is added to a functioning antilock system to sense improper electrical signals and to prevent them from causing the antilock system to release the brakes when they should remain applied. The CPR acts by discontinuing power to the antilock system and warning the driver.

Section 108(a)(2) has been construed by the NHTSA to apply to situations where a system installed in compliance with a safety standard is defeated so that it no longer possesses the performance capabilities considered necessary by the agency and set forth in its standards. The agency has determined that some modifications can be made (e.g., substitution of a bumper that meets current requirements in place of a bumper that meets earlier requirements) as long as the performance required by the standard is met. In the case of your CPR, the issue is whether the addition of a device that shuts off the antilock function under some malfunction circumstances would be considered "knowingly [rendering] inoperative" an element of Standard No. 121.

As you describe the CPR function, it would not. As in other standards, Standard No. 121 contemplates failure of the regulated system and provides for the safest operation of the system under such circumstances. For example, the standard calls for low-air and antilock-failure warning signals (S5.1) and for uninterrupted operation of the air brake system in the event of electrical failure in the antilock system (S5.5). Antilock manufacturers have also provided logic circuits in their systems to sense certain malfunctions and take corrective action. The fact that the Rockwell CPR is additional protection against malfunction that is being added to systems already installed is not a significant distinction. From your description, the CPR does not defeat the designed performance called for by Standard No. 121, and its installation by a manufacturer would not constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(2).

YOURS TRULY,

February 17, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of Defects Investigation

Subject: Rockwell SKID-TROL(R) Request for Interpretation

Under the date of July 10, 1975, Rockwell International wrote to NHTSA advising of a safety related anti-lock problem that existed on some units. Also included in that letter (copy attached) was a reference to a Rockwell developed in-vehicle diagnostic aid that would enhance the operation and safety of the wheel anti-lock device.

This unit is known as the Computer Power Relay (CPR Unit) and its function is to detect unwanted intermittent signals that may be encountered due to mechanical problems, such as loose wheel bearings or misadjusted wheel end parts.

A more detailed description of its function is as follows:

* The CPR unit has been designed to operate in conjunction with Rockwell's SKID-TROL(R) wheel anti-lock system and detects improper sensor-to-rotor gap as soon as it occurs without the brakes being applied. Further, it gives the operator warning of the condition and returns the vehicle to the manual braking mode. A return to manual braking occurs when the unit detects an abnormal solenoid switching that occurs before the brake pedal is depressed. If such a condition should occur, the CPR removes the power to all wheel anti-lock units on the vehicle until the unit is purposely reset and the condition causing the abnormal switching is corrected.

Since July 1975, the unit has been regularly installed with Rockwell SKID-TROL(R) systems with successful results. We have, however, been asked by a customer as to conflict with Sec. 103 (2) (A) of the Safety Act, Public Law 93-492, which reads in part "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard."

The effect of the CPR unit is the same as that of the normal fail-safe portion of an anti-lock device, except that it has the added advantages of detecting unwanted intermittent signals and is resetable.

In any event, Rockwell International would appreciate NHTSA's interpretation that the unit does not conflict with Sec. 103, paragraph (2) (A) of the Safety Act.

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS

G. J. Flannery Director - Government Relations

ATTACH.

July 10, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of Defects Investigation

Attached is a copy of our letter to vehicle manufacturers in connection with a safety related wheel anti-lock problem that exists on some units in use and could exist in the future as the result of misassembly in maintenance. Also attached is a listing of vehicle manufacturers to whom this notice has been sent.

The wheel anti-lock system is performing as designed and the malfunction results from mechanical causes rather than electrical. It is expected that the individual vehicle manufacturers receiving this notice will advise NHTSA of the actual number of units released to the field. Rockwell International estimates that the major number of suspect units were assembled during the first few weeks of production of FMVSS #121 type units. A cutoff date of July 1, 1975 has been established to insure that all suspect units are corrected. Rockwell International will advise NHTSA of the total units shipped to vehicle manufacturers as soon as it is available.

Included in the attached notification is a recommendation that wheel bearings should be properly adjusted and wheel ends checked with a Service Aid Tester after maintenance.

Rockwell International has also developed in-vehicle diagnostic equipment that will be available in the near future that detects mechanical problems affecting the wheel anti-lock system.

Rockwell International will, in the interest of highway safety, provide this diagnostic equipment without charge to operators for use in conjunction with Rockwell International wheel anti-lock systems unitl they can be incorporated into new production vehicles.

Rockwell International will continue to make an all out effort to assist vehicle manufacturers in remedying the problem contained in the attached notification.

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS

G. J. Flannery Director - Government Relations