ID: 16613.ztv

Mr. Yanichi Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Dep't.
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500,Kitawaki
Shmimzu-Shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This is in reply to your letter of November 28, 1997, to the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, asking for an interpretation of the humidity test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel.

After a humidity test, paragraph S7.4(h)(6) of Standard No. 108 requires the inside of a headlamp to "show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification." You ask whether moisture is nevertheless permissible if it is located in an area of the interior where it cannot affect the photometric performance of the headlamp.

The requirement is absolute: no moisture that is visible without magnification is permitted on the interior of a headlamp after the humidity test, whether or not it is located in an area related to the photometric performance of the headlamp. Thus, moisture is not permissible in the situation shown in your Case 1 (moisture on the lens area of the turn signal lamp portion of a single compartment lamp) or your Case 2 (moisture in a location outside the photometric effective area of the headlamp).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.1/8/98
ref:108

ID: 16614-1.pja

Mr. Shane K. Lack
Mechanical Engineer
Human Factors Division
National Transportation Safety Board
490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
Washington, DC 20594

Dear Mr. Lack:

This responds to your request that we review your draft summaries and interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 (49 CFR 571.205, Glazing materials) and 217 (49 CFR 571.217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release). We apologize for the delay in responding.

Because your documents are lengthy (36 pages) and contain so many statements, questions, and interpretations, we are unable to address each individual point in this letter. Instead, we will confirm that, in general, your summaries and interpretations of our standards are correct. We offer the following answers to your questions and corrections to a few of your interpretations, with reference to the page number and line number of your summary. For brevity, we have paraphrased the relevant portions of your letter in italics.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials

Questions on page 1, lines 1 through 9, and lines 22 through 27: Will any material that meets the tests for a specific item of glazing be considered to be that kind of glazing, or do materials specifications (e.g., rigid plastic) restrict the choice of material?

The answer to the first part of your question is yes. The material of which the glazing is constructed is not specified. Both Standard 205 and the American National Standard, Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways -- ANSI Z26.1-1977 (hereafter referred to as ANSI Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in the CFR) may refer to specific kinds of glazing in headings. Examples of this are in paragraph S5.1.2.3 of the standard, which refers to "flexible plastics," and the column headings of Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which lists materials such as "laminated glass." These headings are for illustrative purposes only, to indicate the material and construction that typically is used to meet the enumerated tests. See note 1 to Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which specifically states that future materials that meet the enumerated tests may be used. Therefore, any material that meets all the tests for a particular item of glazing complies with the standard, regardless of composition or construction.

Question on line 28 through 33: What about paragraph S5.1.2.2, which in the text of the standard itself seems to restrict item 12 glazing to safety plastics?

Again, the mention of safety plastics is illustrative. The words "safety plastics" should not have been included in the standard. However, the performance-based method (i.e., whatever meets the tests) of determining compliance is maintained even for item 12 glazing.

Question on page 1, lines 34 and 35, and page 2, lines 1 and 2: Are the glazing materials approved for the side windows of buses the same regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating and whether the bus is a school bus or a non-school bus?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Question on page 2, line 8: Is the list on lines 9 through 22 showing approved glazing types for side windows of buses correct?

The list of approved glazing types on page 2 is correct.

Question on page 2, line 25: Does each piece of glazing material have to be stamped with "AS" followed by the item no. of the glazing?

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 26: Does Standard No. 205 allow glazing materials that shatter to be placed in the side windows of buses, as long as those materials shatter into small pieces.

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 28: Does Standard No. 205 require a measurement of the dynamic force deflection curve of glazing materials?

No, it does not.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release

Interpretation at page 1, line 27: To be counted as an emergency exit, an exit must be in compliance with all emergency exit requirements for that type of exit.

We assume when you say "to be counted" you mean whether a particular exit would count for determining if the bus has the correct number of exits specified in Standard No. 217. When conducting a compliance inspection of a new vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would normally have the manufacturer's certification data showing which exits are designated as emergency exits. If an exit did not comply in some way, this agency would not "uncount" that exit for meeting exit number and exit area requirements. Instead, the vehicle would be considered to have failed only the requirements that were not fulfilled. For example, if an otherwise compliant exit were not labeled, the bus would fail only the S5.1.1 labeling requirement. The area for that exit would still be counted for meeting the emergency exit number and area requirements.

Interpretation on page 1, line 31: The minimum size of an emergency exit window in a non-school bus is the area of an ellipsoid having a major axis parallel to the ground of 50 cm and a minor axis of 33 cm. This minimum total area of an emergency exit on a non-school bus is 510.5 square centimeters.

The first sentence of your interpretation is correct. Your computation in the second sentence is incorrect. The minimum emergency exit opening computes to 1296 sq. cm for a 33cm X 50cm ellipsoid. The area of an ellipse = 3.14 times the product of the major and minor semi-axes.

Interpretation on page 2, line 24: For non-school buses with a GVWR > 10,000 lb, there is no prohibition against placing side emergency exits vertically above one another.

While it is true that there is no prohibition explicitly stated in the standard, NHTSA interprets its regulations consistently with their purposes. The purpose behind the emergency exit requirements, which is clearly reflected paragraph S2 and in its preambles on the subject, is to provide readily accessible emergency egress. It is highly unlikely that a manufacturer would actually place emergency exits in such an unusual configuration. If it did, NHTSA would not regard the emergency exit placed on top of another as being accessible, and would not count it toward meeting the requirements.

Interpretation on page 2, lines 29 through 30: There are no guidelines on lateral or longitudinal placement of roof emergency hatches.

Paragraph S5.2.1 allows manufacturers of non-school buses to meet the specifications for non-school buses in S5.2.2 or the specifications for school buses in S5.2.3. If S5.2.2 is followed and a roof exit is needed because a rear exit cannot be provided, then paragraph S5.2.2.2 specifies that the roof exit is to be located in the rear half of the bus. If S5.2.3 is followed, then S5.3.2.2(b) specifies both the longitudinal and lateral position of all roof exits.

Interpretation on page 4, line 1: An emergency release mechanism is defined in previous NHTSA interpretations as a mechanism that prevents an exit from opening.

We do not know to which interpretation you are referring. A computerized search of all our previous interpretation letters did not reveal an interpretation with those words. It is true, however, that the provisions specifying that the release mechanisms can only be actuated by applications of a certain magnitude of force in certain directions are designed to prevent inadvertent opening of an exit.

I hope this is helpful. Again, my sincere apologies for the delay in our reply.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205# 217
d.2/17/99

ID: 16619.ogm

Ms. Susan Ohara
Safety Engineering
Mitsubishi Motors of America
Ann Arbor Laboratory
3735 Varsity Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Ms. Ohara

This is in response to your letter requesting information regarding the requirements of Standard No. 201, Head Impact Protection. Specifically, your question relates to locating the B-pillar reference point (BPR) where the specific characteristics of the vehicle interior create difficulties in locating that point. Your letter and accompanying drawings indicate that in the vehicle in question, a groove or indentation is formed at the intersection of the side rail trim and the edge of the interior surface of the roof. You note that S10.2(a) directs that BPR is the point "located at the middle of the line from Point 3 to Point 4 in Plane 7, measured along the vehicle interior surface." The presence of the groove presents the choice of locating BPR either through measuring along the actual surface of the side rail and roof or by using a flexible tape to bridge the groove and measure along the "nominal" surface between Point 3 and Point 4. You further note that if the latter course is followed that BPR will be located on a point in space and ask how you should proceed in relocating BPR so that it is located on the surface of the vehicle interior.

If, as is the case with the vehicle represented in the drawings attached to your letter, the radius of curvature of the groove or indentation located between Point 3 and Point 4 is such that the forehead impact zone of the FMH could not contact any point beneath the nominal surface, BPR should be located by measuring along that nominal surface.

NHTSA stated, at page 16723 of the final rule published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), that measurements along trim with small convolutions, gaps or depressions would be made nominal to the surface. If following that direction and measuring along the nominal surface results in BPR being located at a point in space rather than on the interior surface of the vehicle, target BP1 must be relocated but BPR must remain in its original location.

In cases where the forehead impact zone of the FMH cannot make contact with a target point, S10(b) provides a procedure for relocating targets within a 25 millimeter sphere centered at the original target:

(b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of angles.

If it is still not possible for the forehead impact zone to make contact within the sphere described in S10(b), S10(c) provides that the sphere may be expanded in 25 mm increments until contact can be made.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263 or through electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.5/13/98

ID: 16653.ztv

Mr. Filmore Bouldes
5607 High Ridge Drive
Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Dear Mr. Bouldes:

We have received your letter postmarked November 25, 1997, which asks the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "if it's legal to use any other colors, on the front approach of your vehicle, other than yellow and clear/can you use blue, red etc. inside or outside of your vehicle?"

We assume that you mean the color of front lamps, such as headlamps, parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and fog or other supplemental lamps. The question of colors that you are permitted to use for lamps on the front of your vehicle must be answered under the laws of the states in which the vehicle will be licensed and operated. I am sorry that we are not conversant with state laws, but the Michigan Highway patrol will be able to furnish you an answer. However, we believe that most states restrict the use of blue or red front lighting to emergency vehicles.

This agency's motor vehicle lighting standard requires vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps that are white (headlamps), or amber (parking and turn signal lamps) in the color of light they emit. Federal law does not prohibit the owner of a vehicle from personally changing these colors, but state laws very likely will.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/13/98

ID: 16660-1.pja

Ms. Jeanne Isbill
TarasPort Trailers, Inc.
P.O. Box 327
Sweetwater, TN 37874

Dear Ms. Isbill:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether two trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. You enclosed photographs of two flatbed trailers with rear extenders that slide out as much as 36 inches from the rear of the chassis. In the case of one trailer, the extension is full width, meaning that the extension forms a continuous plane from one side of the trailer to the other. On the other trailer, the extensions are only on the sides, like the small shelves that slide out from office desks on either side of the chair. Although no dimensions are given, it appears from the photographs that the extenders are more than 560 mm above the ground, near the top of the trailer tires. You ask if these trailers are special purpose vehicles and, if so, whether their bumpers need to be labeled stating that they are excluded. As explained below, these trailers are not excluded special purpose vehicles, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is that of "special purpose vehicles."

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ S5.1.2 states that "[t]he vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member. . . ." We can see no part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, would reside in or pass through an area described in S5.1.2.

In addition, to be a special purpose vehicle the guard area would have to be occupied or passed through by work-performing equipment. NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. There is no work-performing equipment at the rear of your trailers. Therefore, these vehicle do not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. No other exclusion applies to them, so the vehicle would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.223 in order to be certified. The guard would have to be labeled as specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 223.

When deciding how to mount the guard, please keep in mind that a vehicle would have to meet the requirements of the rule in every configuration in which it can be operated on the road. Standard No. 224 does not specify the position the rear extenders would have to be in when the agency determines compliance. When a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we begin with a presumption that the requirements must be met in every test condition in which the vehicle can be operated. See, for example, NHTSA's October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda. Starting from this presumption, we look to the language of the standard and its purposes for guidance to decide whether some limitation on the test condition should be implied. We see no language that would imply a limitation. As to the purposes, with the trailer configured in the flatbed mode with its rear end at a height above 560 mm, a colliding vehicle would likely underride the trailer rear extenders. This safety concern is one that the agency considered extensively in the January 24, 1996 final rule (see 61 FR 2016-18), and it is this kind of situation the regulation was intended to prevent. Therefore, NHTSA could determine whether the vehicle complied with the rear extenders in any position they could be placed in transit.

S5.1.3 of Standard No. 224 states that the horizontal member of the guard must be as close as practicable to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but in no case farther than 305 mm from the rear extremity of the trailer. Your trailer's rear extremity with the extenders out would be the rearmost surface on the extenders themselves. To comply with S5.1.3, the rear face of the horizontal member of the guard would need to be no farther forward than 305 mm from the extenders, when the extenders are in any position in which they can be placed when in transit.

We cannot provide a specific opinions on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the standard specifies only the guard's horizontal member position, and therefore there is a great deal of flexibility in how you attach the guard to the trailer, so long as the strength and energy absorption requirements are met. There is no requirement that the guard be suspended from the bed area. A guard attached to the extenders would move in and out with them, thus complying with the S5.1.3 no matter what position the extenders are in. However, we emphasize that it is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you expect to encounter unusual difficulty redesigning your trailers, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submission.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 512, 555
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 16666-3.ztv

Mr. Peter Stroosma
Small Business Development Center
Skagit Valley College
2405 East College Way
Mount Vernon, WA 98273-5899

Dear Mr. Stroosma:

This is in reply to your fax of December 10, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office re "VW Beetle Restoration/Regulations." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You write that your client Stephen Callero "is considering [sending] the chassis of an original Beetle to Mexico where it will be equipped with a new body and an engine (that is really a new engine but billed out as a used engine)." You ask whether this would create "a new vehicle," and, if so, what modifications "would qualify the vehicle to be registered under its original model year?"

This is a complicated area. We have addressed a similar issue in a letter of July 28, 1997, to Miguel Padres. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. I note that your client's plan differs in that a new engine would be installed as well as a new body. In our view, this would result in the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that would have to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be admitted into the United States. Furthermore, as a condition of its importation into this country, the vehicle would have to be certified by its Mexican assembler as conforming to the Federal standards.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263) will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:591
d.5/22/98

ID: 16689b.nhf

Mr. George W. Hicks
Ingenium Services
3889 Mildred Avenue
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4269

Dear Mr. Hicks:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1996 Braun Windstar II (Windstar) for a client who has progressive muscular dystrophy (MD). I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you need to replace the power seat base originally installed in the Windstar with the smaller power seat base from a 1989 Kneelcar your client drove for six years. You explain that the size of the Windstar's power seat base interferes with your client's ability to drive and requires her to exert considerable physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat, which you state is problematic due to your client's physical condition. You explain that, with the smaller power seat base from the Kneelcar, your client will only have to exert minimal physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat. Further, you explain that, due to its smaller size, the Kneelcar's power seat base does not interfere with your client's ability to drive.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat base on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with the power seat base from the 1989 Kneelcar could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with a smaller one could affect the vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria specified in Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that replaces the original power seat base with the Kneelcar's power seat base to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to safely install and secure the power seat base to the Windstar. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/113/98

ID: 1668y

William F. Canever
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
The American Road
Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Canever:

In your letter of July 14, 1988 and in subsequent conversations, you have requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program. You also requested confidentiality, to protect future product plans of the vehicles in question. The agency has agreed to protect your identity as well as details of the request which may reveal specific new or innovative features that the product may contain when produced. In the spirit of this agreement, we have described the content of your letter only to the extent deemed necessary to provide a coherent context for our response.

Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that this vehicle would be classified as a light truck for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program. The vehicle has multiple purposes. You describe several features of this multipurpose vehicle, including that both the second and third seats are removable, by quick release levers in the case of the second seat, and by the use of simple tools in the case of the third seat, and that the vehicle has a variety of different seating/storage configurations. You also indicate that "[r]emoval of the second and third seat will create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle." You also describe other features of the vehicle, which need not be discussed in order to answer your letter.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether the vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. The definition of light truck (/523.5) provides, in relevant part: (a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) Transport more than 10 persons; (2) Provide temporary living quarters; (3) Transport property on an open bed; (4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Your letter clearly indicates that both the second and third seats are removable easily, and when they are removed, what remains is a flat, floor level surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle. It appears from the description you have provided the agency that your vehicle would qualify as a light truck under /523.5(a)(5).

We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in /571.3 of 49 CFR.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref: 523 d:2/3/89

ID: 16695.jeg

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking about our regulation implementing the American Automobile Labeling Act (AALA), 49 CFR Part 583, as it pertains to an electric vehicle that has no gasoline or diesel-fueled engine. You ask several questions about the manner in which country of origin of engine parts and country of origin of transmission parts should be determined for electric vehicles.

In asking these questions, you note that many of the components used in electric vehicles are not the same as those used in a gasoline-powered vehicle. By way of example, you note that an electric vehicle does not have an "engine" in the traditional sense; rather it has an electric motor. Your questions are addressed below.

1. What is the "engine" in an electric car for AALA purposes? Is any component other than the electric motor to be included in the AALA determination of country of origin for engines with respect to an electric car?

The term "engine" is not defined by either the AALA (now codified as 49 U.S.C. 32304) or Part 583. We note that Ford, in a submission dated November 19, 1997, took the following approach in applying the provisions of Part 583 to electric vehicles:

In applying these provisions to electric vehicles, we sought to employ a common-sense approach. Since the motor is the component of an electric vehicle most analogous to the engine in a gasoline-powered vehicle, we are indicating the country of origin of the motor on labels affixed to electric vehicles. In order to make it clear to consumers that the label is referring to the motor rather than to an engine, the word "motor" will be inserted in parentheses after the country of origin. For example, the relevant portion of the label for a motor originating in Germany would look roughly as follows:

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:

ENGINE: Germany (motor)

We concur with the basic approach adopted by Ford. However, we note that 583.5 specifies the use of the term "engine parts" on the label, rather than just "engine." Also, for purposes of clarity, we would suggest placing the word "motor" in parentheses directly after "engine," the term it is explaining, rather than after the country of origin. Thus, in the example provided by Ford, we would suggest the following:

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:

ENGINE (MOTOR) PARTS: Germany

No component other than the motor would be included in the AALA determination of country of origin for engines with respect to an electric car.

2. How should a manufacturer determine whether electric car "engines" are "of the same displacement" for purposes of aggregating data for "engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant" as required by 583.8(a)?

Section 583.8(a) specifies in relevant part:

Each supplier of an engine or transmission shall determine the country of origin once a year for each engine and transmission. The origin of engines shall be calculated for engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant. . . .

The term "engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant" is taken directly from the AALA. The purpose of the provision is to provide a specification to ensure that all engines of the same type, produced at the same plant, are grouped together in making country of origin determinations for engines. However, just as the term "engine," in its traditional sense, does not apply to electric vehicles, the term "displacement" does not apply to motors. We believe that a common-sense way of ensuring that all motors of the same type, produced at the same plant, are grouped together is to make calculations for motors with the same power rating and same physical dimensions that are produced at the same plant.

3. What parts are considered components of the "transmission" in an electric car for AALA purposes?

The term "transmission" is not defined by the AALA or Part 583, and we realize that not all electric vehicles have transmissions. As to the meaning of the term, we note that the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary defines "transmission," in definition 4, as follows:

Mach. a. transference of force between machines or mechanisms, often with changes of torque and speed. b. a compact, enclosed unit of gears or the like for this purpose, as in an automobile.

We would consider definition 4b to reasonably apply to transmissions for electric vehicles. We note that, assuming an electric vehicle has a transmission, it would generally include the components between the motor and the differential.

4. How should a manufacturer determine whether electric car "transmissions" are "of the same type" for purposes of aggregating data for "transmissions of the same type" as required by 583.8(a)?

The AALA specifies that "transmissions of the same type produced at the same plant" are grouped together for determining country of origin of transmissions. Section 583.8(a) defines the term "transmission of the same type" as follows:

. . . Transmissions are of the same type if they have the same attributes including: Drive line application, number of forward gears, controls, and layout. . . .

So far as we know, this definition can be applied directly to the transmissions of electric vehicles.

5. Is the electric battery part of the engine, transmission or neither for AALA purposes?

It is our opinion that the electric battery is neither part of the engine nor the transmission for AALA purposes.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:583
d.3/5/98

ID: 1669y

J.W. Lawrence, Manager, Compliance
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
7825 National Service Road
Airpark West, P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is a response to your letter of October 5, 1988, asking this agency to "reconsider and rescind" an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR /571.124). The interpretation which was the subject of your request was addressed to Mr. Leon Steenbock and dated March 17, 1988. Mr. Steenbock asked whether it is permissible under Standard 124 to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. In our response to Mr. Steenbock, we stated that while nothing in the Standard prohibits installing a hand-throttle control in a new vehicle, "'locking hand throttle controls' are expressly prohibited by Standard 124."

In your letter, you stated that most (and perhaps all) heavy truck manufacturers install hand throttles for engine warm-up, extended idle periods; and for vocational applications such as pumping, compacting, and mixing. You also stated that your company installs only locking hand throttle controls and that these locking hand throttle controls hold the driver-selected engine idle speed until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed, or disengages the throttle.

In support of your position that the letter to Mr. Steenbock was incorrect, you referred to the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 124. NHTSA's response to requests that special provisions be made for hand throttles was as follows:

Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand-throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position." Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within the same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the use of throttle positioners. (37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.)

In accordance with this stated intent, the definition of "idle position" in S4.1 of Standard 124 was amended to read:

(T)he position of the throttle that will provide the lowest engine speed for existing conditions according to the manufacturers' recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning equipment, and emission control equipment, and the use of throttle setting devices.

Because of this language, we agree with your position that Standard 124 permits the installation of hand throttles, including locking hand throttle controls, provided that the vehicle's engine returns to the lowest engine speed threshold as adjusted by use of the hand throttle within the time and under the conditions set forth in S5 of Standard 124. To the extent that our March 17, 1988 letter is inconsistent with this interpretation, it is incorrect.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

/ref:124 d:2/l0/89