ID: 2858o

Mr. Derek Nash
Artech Corporation
2901 Telestar Court
Falls Church, VA 22042

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologize for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of this letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories modifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, l968, the date on which the first Federal safety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a copy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the modification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are established by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and specify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles will perform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle's ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore ensure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g., the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for inclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufacturer may test in any manner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#301 d:4/29/88

ID: 2858yy

Mr. J. C. Brown
President
MidAmerica Design Service
10206 Lima Road
Ft. Wayne, IN 46618

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in reply to your letter of February 8, l99l, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company has been asked to "develop a high mounted stop light and turn signal to be installed into the door of over the road trailers." You have not found a reference in Standard No. l08 to such a lamp, and you have concluded that, as long as you add to the trailer's existing lamps without eliminating any of its lighting devices that are standard equipment, you will be in compliance. You have asked us for our opinion on this matter.

You are correct that the requirement for a center high mounted stop lamp does not extend to trailers. Moreover, trailers are not included in the agency's pending rulemaking to extend the requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. Although your design appears to combine the stop lamp and turn signal, a combination prohibited for passenger cars, you are under no Federal legal obligation to design a center high mounted stop lamp for trailers that complies with Standard No. l08.

As the lamp is not intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. l08, it is permissible under section S5.1.3 of the standard as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. The judgment of whether impairment exists is initially that of the trailer manufacturer, who certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review it and inform the manufacturer accordingly.

Assuming that the trailers for which the lamp is intended have an overall width of 80 inches or more, your lamp would be mounted in closest proximity to the three-unit identification lamp cluster, which Table II of Standard No. 108 requires to be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Identification lamps indicate to following drivers the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead. It is possible that an activated center stop lamp or adjacent turn signal could mask the light from these lamps. However, these trailers are also equipped with clearance lamps, which serve the same purpose of identifying a large vehicle. Thus, it would appear that your device would not impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps within the prohibition of section S5.1.3.

We assume that the turn signal portion of the lamp is a supplement to others on the trailer that are located to comply with the 83-inch maximum mounting height imposed by Table II.

I hope that this is responsive to your concern.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/7/9l

ID: 2859o

Mr. Michael Pomerantz
38th Floor Tower
35 E. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Pomerantz:

As you requested in a May 27, 1988, telephone conversation with Ms.Fujita of my staff, I am enclosing a copy of our November 27, 1972, letter to Mr.David Humphreys concerning paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems.

Please note that a portion of our letter to Mr. Humphreys regarding seat cushion restraints has been superseded, as explained in our September 2, 1976, letter to Mr. Tokio Iinuma. Although you were concerned only with the language of S4.3 excepting seats "having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants," I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Iinuma for your information.

I understand that you might be contacting us with further questions on Standard No. 207. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosures ref:207 d:6/7/88

ID: 2859yy

Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki
Executive Vice President
Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Dear Mr. Ozeki:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1990 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that one of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 millimeters. You asked whether, for purposes of positioning the loading device used in the quasi-static test of side door strength, the "lowest point of the door" referred to in S4(c)(2) of the standard would be the bottom of the door moulding or the bottom of the door itself when the moulding extends lower than the door itself.

For the quasi-static test of side door strength under Standard No. 214, S4(c)(2) currently provides that the loading device must be positioned so that ". . . (2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door." Under the current standard, we believe that door moulding should be considered part of the door. Therefore, the "lowest part of the door" would be the lowest part of an attached door moulding. Under the current standard, that would be the reference point to be used in making the five-inch measurement. For your further information, the agency is considering proposing for public comment a possible amendment to the standard concerning the positioning of the test device.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:2l4 d:3/l2/9l

ID: 2860o

Mr. Robert Cuzzi
Breda Transportation, Inc.
275 Madison Avenue, Suite 1711
New York, NY 10016

Dear Mr. Cuzzi:

This responds to your letter asking whether buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as municipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard.

You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) for their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your buses. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:301 d:6/17/88

ID: 2860yy

Mr. Billy S. Peterson
President
Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.
at TRC of Ohio, Bldg. 20
Rd. 152 & SR 33
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, l99l, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. l08, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. l08 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2861o

Mr. Charley Erickson
Charley's Off Road Center, Inc.
14190 E. Firestone Blvd.
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Dear Mr. Erickson:

This responds to your letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the "bikini sun shade," an accessory you wish to sell for both new and used open-body type passenger vehicles. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302 and the bikini shade may be sold to vehicle owners for their installation in their own vehicles without regard to the product's conformance with the standard. However, as explained below, Federal law places limits on the installation of the bikini shade by some commercial businesses.

Standard No. 302 establishes flammability requirements that must be met by new motor vehicles. The requirements apply to particular components within these vehicles, including shades. However, the requirements of the standard apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. They do not apply to shades manufactured for aftermarket sale and installation in a a vehicle after its first purchase. It would not violate Standard No. 302 for you to sell aftermarket bikini sun shades that do not comply with the standard.

However, the installation of the shades by certain parties other than vehicle owners could violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (copy enclosed) specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. That element of design would be rendered inoperative in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed a bikini sun shade in a new vehicle and thereby caused that vehicle to fail to comply with Standard No. 302. There would also be a rendering inoperative when one of these parties installed the shade in a used vehicle if the shade would have caused the vehicle, when new, to fail to comply with the standard. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

You should be aware also of an additional aspect of the Act. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that the bikini shade had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you as the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either repair the shade so that the defect is removed, or replace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

To summarize, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to vehicle equipment such as the bikini sun shade, depending on the identity of the person installing the shade in new and used motor vehicles. If the shade does not afford at least as good a level of flammability resistance as that specified by Standard No. 302, the shade cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Shades that do not meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. However, NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles. To repeat, you as the shade manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:302 d:6/24/88

ID: 2861yy

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter noting that Headstart facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether "privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities" for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial.

The definition of "schoolbus" set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#571 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2862o

Mr. M. Arisaka
Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation Sec.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of June l0, 1988, describing a "flash to pass" headlighting feature and asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Enclosed is a copy of the agency's letter of June 17, 1987, to MMC Services, Inc. commenting on a similar device. The fact that Stanley's passing beam would project through an amber lens rather than a clear, or noncolored one, does not affect this interpretation. The address of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is now 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 33203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/Enclosure ref:108 d:6/30/88

ID: 2862yy

AIR MAIL

Mr. A. Kling Hamadbik, Ltd 16, Beit Alfa St. Tel-Aviv 67219 Israel

Dear Mr. Kling:

This responds to your inquiry about the color coding requirements in section S5.1.14 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids. (49 CFR 571.116). After noting that DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid must be colorless to amber, you asked what is the color coding range for amber. As explained below, the agency has decided not to specify a numerical or chromatic "range" for the color coding requirements. Instead, the appropriate method for determining compliance to the color coding requirements is through visual inspection.

The purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit easy identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. At one time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had proposed color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. (38 FR 32142, November 21, 1973). However, when the agency later determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate, the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. (39 FR 30353, August 22, 1974)

In a subsequent notice, the agency explained that

The specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids). (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975)

Thus, the generally interpreted meaning for "amber" (which is defined as "yellowish-brown" by the Random House Dictionary of the English Language) should be used to determine if a brake fluid complies with the color coding requirements for DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, 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

ref:ll6 d:3/8/9l