ID: 7058

Robert S. McLean, Esq.
King & Spalding
191 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-1763

Dear Mr. McLean:

This responds to your March 9, 1992 letter, seeking an interpretation of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.208 and 571.209, respectively). More specifically, you were interested in how certain provisions of these standards apply to a seating position equipped with an automatic shoulder belt certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208 and a separate manual lap belt. Your letter indicated you were particularly interested in whether the automatic belt is considered a Type 2a shoulder belt, as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 209, and whether the automatic belt must provide the warning instructions required for Type 2a shoulder belts by S4.1(l) of Standard No. 209. The answer to both these questions is no.

NHTSA has consistently recognized a distinction between automatic safety belts and the manual safety belts defined in S3 of Standard No. 209 (Type 1, Type 2, and Type 2a belts). The origins and application of this distinction is explained at length in this agency's April 14, 1986 interpretation letter to Mr. David Martin, a copy of which was enclosed in your letter to me. Thus, automatic belts are not treated as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 2a belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209, and are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to each of those types of belts. Since automatic belts are not Type 2a belts, automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts.

Instead, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 defines the term "automatic belt" and sets forth special provisions for such safety belts. S4.5.3.3 specifies that an automatic belt shall conform to S7.1 of Standard No. 208 (the belt adjustment requirements) and have a single emergency release mechanism, and be equipped with a special warning system in place of the warning system required for manual belts. In addition, S4.5.3.4 specifies that any automatic belts that are not subject to the crash testing requirements for occupant protection under Standard No. 208 must comply with the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.4 of Standard No. 209 (webbing, attachment hardware, and belt assembly performance requirements, respectively).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208#209 d:3/30/92

ID: 7064

Mr. Allan Schwartz
President, Tron Industries, Inc.
9130 Wiles Road, Suite 142
Coral Springs, FL 33067

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for "an opinion why the State of Louisiana has not adopted the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive accessory lighting."

Lumitron is described as "an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product." You state that it is "legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle." You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency "confirmed" your findings that Lumitron "falls under" Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has "not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting." It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for "a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state."

Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron.

Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative.

Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/21/92

ID: 7065

L. Louis Raring, Esquire
Raring & Lipoff
4400 MacArthur Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Dear Mr. Raring:

This responds to your request for information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency "approves" motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) 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 motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code.

The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218.

For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:218 d:5/6/92

ID: 7066

Mr. Kevin J. Stoll
Technical Advisor
Russell Products, Inc.
21419 Protecta Drive
Elkhart, IN 46516-9704

Dear Mr. Stoll:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps.

Your questions are:

"1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?"

A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements.

"2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?"

With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps.

With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them.

With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.

"3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?"

The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108.

"4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?"

We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: 7067

Mr. Nathan W. Randall
14195 Westchester Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80921

Dear Mr. Randall:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1992, asking for confirmation that you will be a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles under the fact situation that you outlined and a previous interpretation of this agency.

You intend to assemble replica vehicles which will incorporate new items of motor vehicle equipment except for "previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations." Because "its running gear is not new", you believe that we would consider your vehicle "as 'used' even thought its body and chassis are previously unused." In support you cite a l980 interpretation of this Office under which the then Chief Counsel stated that "the agency tends to view as 'used' a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused." In that instance, the vehicle for which the interpretation was given was to be constructed from new parts except for the front suspension and axle, engine, and transmission.

Your letter has provided an opportunity for the agency to review its position on motor vehicles constructed from a mixture of old and new parts. When the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted in 1966, such motor vehicles were primarily "kit cars." A "kit car" in those days consisted usually of a new body placed upon the chassis of an older Volkswagen from which the original body had been removed. The resulting assemblage generally retained the title of the original vehicle. The agency termed this type of vehicle a "used" vehicle, and stated that the assemblage did not have to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to vehicles at the time they are manufactured. The primary reason for this interpretation was the realization that it would be impracticable, if not impossible, for a motor vehicle to meet all contemporary Federal motor vehicle safety standards if that vehicle used a chassis that was manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the Federal standards began to apply to motor vehicles.

Over the years, the body-on-chassis type of construction has grown less, and more complex fact situations have arisen with respect to motor vehicles constructed from old and new parts. Yet with the introduction of an increasing number of new parts, including the construction of a new chassis, the agency has applied the same rationale. With respect to the use of an older engine, NHTSA realized that compliance with two specific standards could be affected by the design of the engine and its components: Standard No. 124 Accelerator Control Systems, and Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity.

Your letter affords the opportunity to review that rationale. Standard No. 124 has been in effect since September 1, 1973. Standard No. 301, initially effective January 1, 1968, contains upgraded performance requirements applicable to passenger cars as of September 1, 1977. Given the substantial number of motor vehicles that have been produced in accordance with these standards, and the probability that engines from these motor vehicles, though "used", are likely to be incorporated into the manufacture of vehicles that are otherwise new, we have concluded that this rationale no longer supports an interpretation that relieves the manufacturer of a motor vehicle that uses all new components, except engine and drive train, from the responsibility of producing and certifying a motor vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Although you are correct that your situation appears analogous to the one in the 1980 letter, the passage of time has rendered that opinion untenable today. In a somewhat similar situation, on April 22, 1991, we informed Memory Motors, a replica manufacturer, that its product would be considered a "new" vehicle for purpose of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where the previously used chassis was retained in modified form, and the only used components retained included the rear axle assembly and front end components.

As a small volume manufacturer of new motor vehicles, however, under 49 CFR Part 555 you become eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for a period of up to three years if immediate compliance with the standard(s) would create substantial economic hardship. Although NHTSA does not grant blanket exemptions from the standards, it is sympathetic to small manufacturers who appear to have attempted in good faith to meet the standards but whose economic circumstances do not permit total compliance before manufacture of the vehicle is scheduled to commence. If you are interested in pursuing this possibility, we shall be pleased to advise you accordingly.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:5/21/92

ID: 7079

Mr. Mark A. Sedlack
Product Design Manager
Century Products Co.
9600 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056

Dear Mr. Sedlack:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). More specifically, you asked how compliance testing would be conducted for a rear-facing child restraint labeled for use by children weighing up to 25 pounds.

The initial question we must address is what size test dummy would be used for compliance testing. S7.1 of Standard No. 213 provides that the six-month-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds. S7.2 of Standard No. 213 provides that the three-year-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing more than 20 pounds. Since the rear-facing child restraint in your example is recommended for use both by children weighing less than and more than 20 pounds, either the six-month-old or the three- year-old dummy could be used in the agency's compliance testing, as provided in S6.1.2.3 of the standard.

Your letter stated that you understood that this rear-facing child restraint would be subject to testing using the three- year-old dummy. However, you indicated that neither your company nor a testing facility understood how the three-year- old dummy could be installed in a rear-facing child restraint. You asked for clarification of how the three- year-old dummy could be installed.

At the outset, I must note that it is impossible for me to offer any guidance for how to install the test dummy in your particular rear-facing child restraint because I do not know the details of your design. I can offer general guidance that you should be able to apply to your particular design. The procedures to be followed in positioning the three-year- old dummy in any child restraint other than a car bed are set forth in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the three-year-old dummy to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1, then that rear-facing child restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for use in the rear-facing position by children weighing more than 20 pounds. This conclusion is similar to the agency conclusion announced in a July 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Donald Friedman that an infant restraint so small it cannot accommodate the six-month-old test dummy cannot be certified as complying with Standard No. 213.

In our letter to Mr. Friedman, the agency indicated that rulemaking could be initiated to sanction the use of an additional test dummy to evaluate the performance of a child restraint. However, that rulemaking would have to include an agency determination that this additional test dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring the system's performance in an actual crash. We can make the same statements with regard to the situation described in your letter. You stated in your letter that you have tested your company's existing convertible seats in the rear-facing position "with a CAMI dummy modified to 25 pounds with satisfactory results." If you have any information or test data showing that the CAMI dummy so modified is a reliable surrogate for measuring the performance of your convertible systems in the rear-facing position, such information might be helpful to this agency in deciding whether to initiate rulemaking in this area. Until such a rulemaking action were completed and amended provisions in effect, however, you cannot recommend that a child restraint be used for children weighing more than 20 pounds if that child restraint cannot accommodate the three- year-old test dummy.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:213 d:4/22/92

ID: 7113

Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara
Manager, Information Services
Ichikoh America, Inc.
Suite 220
3025 Boardwalk Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-1777

Dear Mr. Aihara:

This responds to your letter of March 16, 1992, requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the moisture prohibition of S7.4(i)(6) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Initially, we would like to call your attention to the fact that S7.4(i)(6), which you quoted in its entirety, was amended on March 11, 1991, to delete the requirement that a headlamp meet the photometric requirements after a humidity test. S7.4(i)(6) now states in pertinent part that, after a humidity test conducted in accordance with S8.7, "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification."

You have attached a drawing of a vented headlamp with an onboard aiming system. The headlamp is available with two different types of bubble indicators. Your first question is: "After the humidity test, both types . . . show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. * * * Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test?" Your second question is whether "'the inside of the housing' means the lens and reflector portions" or "the entire inside portion of headlamps?"

The humidity test was adopted for replaceable bulb headlamps in l983. Allowing humidity or water in headlamps causes slow degradation of the reflector over the long term. The presence of humidity results in spots on the reflector and lens, and eventual photometric failure. The humidity test is designed to assure that the vents in vented headlamps eliminate moisture in the headlamp when exposed to air flow with the headlamps off, thus assuring adequate performance in long term use. The provision for onboard headlamp aiming devices was not adopted until 1989, and, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, did not specify that they be located within the headlamp. From the foregoing, it is evident that the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps was not adopted to address a problem inherent in the exposure of onboard aiming devices to moisture. These devices were not in use at the time the humidity test was added to Standard No. 108, and they do not contribute directly to the photometric performance of the headlamp.

From the diagram you enclosed, the aiming device appears located behind the reflector. It is not possible to determine from your letter whether moisture forms on the exterior or the interior of the aiming device. Although S7.4(i)(6) prohibits moisture "inside the headlamp" and the aiming device is located inside the headlamp, we would not read the prohibition as extending to the aiming device if the moisture occurs inside that device.

Even if the moisture occurs on the exterior of the aiming device, it does not affect the photometric properties of the headlamp. The agency does not wish to impose inadvertent design restrictions that are not directed towards safety, and therefore regards any moisture that may occur on the exterior of the aiming device as outside the prohibition of S7.4(i)(6). This interpretation, however, is limited to the specific design that you have presented.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/6/92

ID: 7114

Mr. John W. Phillips
Project Engineer
Transportation Research Center of Ohio
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:202 d:5/5/92

ID: 7117

Mr. George F. Reuss
Reuss Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 22
Waltz's Mills
Madison, PA 15663

Dear Mr. Reuss:

This responds to your letter addressed to Barry Felrice, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning your recently patented vehicle that is designed to transport passenger cars. You requested information about which specific regulations and standards would be applicable to your vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing the agency's general information fact sheet for new manufacturers and a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to various vehicle types.

You explained that your vehicle consists of a chassis with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and a structural frame between the cab and rear wheels. This frame includes moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath a passenger car's tires. The forks can be raised and retracted into the framework, thus allowing your vehicle to transport the passenger car.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. I note that you may be considered a "final-stage manufacturer" under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you purchase the chassis. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Based on the description in your letter, it appears that your vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. More specifically, it appears that your vehicle would be considered a "truck" under the agency's regulations. The term "truck" is defined, at 49 CFR Part 571.3, as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

Accordingly, your vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and be certified as conforming to those standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: VSA d:4/29/92

ID: 7135

Mr. Michael J. Sens
Researcher
S.E.A., Inc.
7349 Worthington-Galena Road
Columbus, OH 43085

Dear Mr. Sens:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . [C]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571#567#206 d:4/17/92