ID: 23257.ztv

Mr. Larry Hughson
Vehicle Services Division
2835 N. Kerby Avenue
Portland, OR 97227





Dear Mr. Hughson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of June 18, 2001, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Region 10 asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have been informed by a member of the public that Portland's police cars do not comply with Standard No. 108. You cite that portion of S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 which states that "the high-mounted stop lamp on each vehicle shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." You state that S5.5.10 does not list the center high-mounted stop lamp, backup lamps, stop lamps, and headlamps (for purposes other than signaling) as lamps that are allowed to flash. You also cite S5.5.10(d) which, in effect, requires these lamps to be steady burning when in use. You ask if there is an alternate standard that applies to police vehicles, or whether police cars are exempt from this requirement.

We surmise from your letter that the police vehicles are equipped with a system that flashes headlamps, stop lamps, the center high-mounted stop lamp, and backup lamps for emergency purposes.

You did not relate whether this lighting system is installed as original equipment or after the vehicles are delivered to the police. I will first address its installation as original equipment. I enclose a copy of a letter that we sent Col. W. Gerald Massengill of the Virginia State Patrol on July 3, 2001, which we believe is applicable to the questions you raise. In brief, the system you describe on Portland's vehicles does not comply with Standard No. 108. However, we traditionally defer to the judgment of a State as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. The drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the warning system only under certain circumstances, such as to alert motorists of the presence of stopped vehicles in the roadway ahead. In all other circumstances, the headlamps, stop lamps

and backup lamps will operate consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 108. The noncompliances are temporary in nature and are necessary for the mission of the police. We believe, then, that the emergency system you describe is permissible as original equipment because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement.

If the system is added after the vehicles are delivered to the police department, please note that Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), does not prohibit a vehicle owner from adding equipment that may create a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, installation of the warning system by a city-owned and operated garage is not prohibited under Federal law if installed only on city-owned vehicles. If the installation of the warning system is by a motor vehicle repair business, other than one that is city-owned, we would also consider that permissible for the same reasons as we would allow the system as original equipment.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263)..

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:108
d.7/30/01

ID: 23277.ztv

Mr. John J. Sobotik
Assistant General Counsel
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Rm. 1158
P.O. Box 7910
Madison, WI 53707-7910

Re: State Motor Vehicle Safety Standards                      Stop Lamp Colors





Dear Mr. Sobotik:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 2001, asking whether legislation recently introduced in Wisconsin would violate Federal law. The legislation would be similar to that adopted in 1999 by Minnesota.

Specifically, Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 169.64, subdivision 4 was amended to add a new paragraph (c) which reads: "A motorcycle may display a blue light of up to one inch diameter as part of the motorcycle's rear brake light." Wisconsin 2001 Assembly Bill 102 would amend 347.14(2) of the statutes to include the sentence "The stop lamp for a motorcycle may emit, in addition to red or amber light, a blue light that is located in the center of the lamp and that comprises less than 10% of the surface of the lamp."

Your initial analysis is that Wisconsin could not adopt this legislation, but you are unsure of this conclusion because of uncertainty whether the U.S. Department of Transportation has challenged the Minnesota law. Accordingly, you have asked four questions:

If Wisconsin adopts a law permitting the use of blue color on all or part of a motorcycle stop lamp, is the state prescribing a standard that is not identical to the federal standard for motorcycle stop lamps?

The answer is yes. Table III of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) allows only red as a color for motorcycle stop lamps. A state standard permitting a stop lamp to emit either blue or amber light would not be identical to the Federal standard for motorcycle stop lamps, and hence would not be permitted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Assembly Bill 102 indicates that Wisconsin law may already permit amber as a color for motorcycle stop lamps.

Would permitting the use of blue color on all or part of a motorcycle stop lamp constitute the establishment of a standard higher than the otherwise applicable federal standard?

No. Permitting the use of blue color (or amber) would establish a state standard that is not identical to the Federal standard covering the same aspect of performance as the federal standard. Even if the use of blue (or amber) was regarded as establishing a higher standard of performance than the use of red, the exception in 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) that a state may enact a standard of higher performance than the otherwise applicable Federal standard is not an exception of general application but one that applies only to vehicles a state or one of its political subdivisions obtains for its own use.

If adopting a law permitting the use of a blue color on all or part of a motorcycle stop lamp is considered by NHTSA to be the establishment of a standard that is not identical to or higher than the federal standard, what actions could theoretically be taken by NHTSA in response to Wisconsin adopting such a law?

Because 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) allows a state to prescribe a state standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard, the Department of the Transportation could seek to enjoin Wisconsin from giving effect to a law permitting the use of a blue color on a motorcycle stop lamp, or from continuing in effect a law permitting the use of amber for a motorcycle stop lamp.

What repercussions could befall individuals or entities that buy or sell motorcycles bearing stop lamps that have been altered to have a blue center?

We understand that a lighting accessory is available that consists of a clear blue circle which can be inserted in the middle of a red lens through which a blue light is emitted when the tail or stop lamp is activated. A motorcycle dealer must ensure that a motorcycle continues to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time the motorcycle is sold to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Thus, a dealer selling a new motorcycle whose stop lamp has been altered to have a blue center would be considered under Federal law to be violating Standard No. 108. The dealer must also ensure that replacement lighting equipment that it sells is designed to conform to Standard No. 108. We are authorized to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, up to $15,000,000 for any related series of violations, such as would occur with sales of noncomplying vehicles or replacement equipment. However, sale of an accessory that alters lamp color is not prohibited, even if its installation in a stop lamp would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. There are no Federal restrictions that apply to the sale of a motorcycle subsequent to its first purchase, even if it were originally equipped with a noncomplying stop lamp.

As for modifications of vehicles and equipment originally manufactured to conform, after their first sale for purposes other than resale, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers (and manufacturers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses as well) from making inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the statute does not prohibit a motorcycle owner from such alterations. Thus, an owner would not violate Federal law either by installing a stop lamp altered to have a blue center, or by inserting a blue center in the original stop lamp. The validity of owner modifications affecting compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is determinable under state law. Under your hypothetical scenario, there would be no violation of a state law permitting a stop lamp with a blue center. However, as noted earlier, we would view the sale of such a stop lamp as a violation of Federal law.

In closing, let me note that this Office was not aware of the 1999 Minnesota amendment until you brought it to our attention.

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.9/28/01

ID: 23299.rbm

Ms. Rebecca D. Plank
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
11211 N. Nebraska Avenue, Suite A-5
Tampa, FL 33612





Dear Ms. Plank:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about NHTSA's position on vehicle conversions that require a lowered floor. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) most likely to be affected by a modification that lowers the vehicle floor is FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity. Your question is in response to a magazine advertisement that claims NHTSA has recommended dealers purchase completed lowered floor vehicles when such a conversion is needed.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must self-certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified at 49 CFR Part 595. While portions of several FMVSSs were included in the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, was not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

FMVSS No. 301 is a vehicle standard that addresses a vehicle's fuel system integrity. How and if the standard applies to a particular business is dependent upon the product or services that the business provides. Producers of equipment that is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾ although any manufacturer or alterer using the product would be. Final stage manufacturers or alterers of vehicles that modify a vehicle system that the previous-stage manufacturer had certified as compliant must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

Since NHTSA has not included FMVSS No. 301 as part of the exemption from the make inoperative provision, a business cannot modify a vehicle in a manner that negates compliance with that standard, even if it is a modifier rather than a manufacturer or alterer. Accordingly, vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the vehicle fuel system in a manner that takes it out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301.

The surest way to provide such assurances would be to purchase vehicles where the floor has already been lowered by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, this is not necessarily the only way to assure a vehicle with a dropped floor still complies with FMVSS No. 301. Another way to provide assurance that compliance has not been compromised is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that your organization, the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. If the resulting protocol were carefully followed, a modifier may be able to satisfy itself that the vehicle has not been taken out of compliance. Finally, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether specific types of modifications would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This is the responsibility of the modifier. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202)366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.2/22/02




---

¹ As a practical matter, component suppliers often assume some responsibility to the vehicle manufacturer for the compliance of their products to applicable FMVSSs. This is done through a contractual relationship between the supplier and the vehicle manufacturer that certifies compliance.

ID: 23312.drn

The Honorable Fred Upton
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2206

Dear Congressman Upton:

Thank you for your letter asking for information about the use of buses and other vehicles to transport Michigan's school children. Your letter was referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

You state that "Federal law prohibits the use of school vehicles to provide transportation to eleven or more students, unless it meets the safety standards of a school bus." You inform us that many Michigan school districts use vans to transport smaller student groups and would like to continue using vans.

As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30112 et seq. (Chapter 301) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.

The parties subject to Chapter 301 are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Chapter 301 requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. By regulation, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. A person may sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

In the event a Michigan school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under Federal law to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks civil penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold for pupil transportation.

Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles. Michigan state law would thus establish the requirements for how schools must transport school children. For further information, please contact Michigan's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Claudette Nelson, Supervisor
Michigan Department of Education
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, MI 48909
Telephone: (517) 373-8374

In closing, I wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that it is therefore strongly recommended that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, your constituents may wish to consult with their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/11/99

ID: 23329ogm

Mr. Gary Rudnik
Practical Innovations
1900 Edmunds
Brush, CO 80723






Dear Mr. Rudnik:





This is in response to your letter requesting NHTSA "approval" of a new product being introduced by your company. As described in the informational materials included with your letter, the product is a brake controller designed to supply and modulate electric power supplied to trailer brakes. This "EZ Brakes" device is plugged into the tow vehicle wiring harness through a standard trailer connector and activates the electric brakes of the trailer when the tow vehicle's brake lights illuminate as a result of the brake pedal being depressed.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued several standards applicable to brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems; and Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Standard No. 135 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems for new passenger cars built after September 1, 2000 and for new multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less built after September 1, 2002. Of these three standards, Standard No. 121 is the only standard that applies to trailers.

Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121) specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions. We note, however, that Standard No. 121 only applies to vehicles with air brake systems. An air brake system is defined in S4 of the Standard as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, including an air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

The device described in your letter appears to use electricity to actuate or control the brakes of a trailer. While the driver may have the ability to activate the electric brake controller through depressing the tow vehicle brake pedal with enough force to activate the tow vehicle brake lights, air is not used as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake on the trailer. Accordingly, the system you describe is not, under Standard No. 121, an air brake system and is not subject to the requirements of that Standard.

Even though your product is not regulated by Standard No. 121, as an accessory or an addition to a motor vehicle, it is "motor vehicle equipment" as we define it (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). This means that, if either you or we determine that it contains a safety-related defect, you, as its manufacturer, must notify and remedy the defect as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.10/22/01

ID: 23345ogm

Jean-Yves Le Bouthillier
Standards Manager
Les Enterprises Michel Corbeil Inc.
304 12^th Avenue, Luarentides (Quebec) Canada J0R 1C0

Dear Mr. Bouthillier:

This replies to your letter regarding certification of seats and their accompanying seat belts for compliance with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I regret the delay in responding. You indicate that your company manufactures school buses and wishes to equip these buses with seat belts attached to the seat frames of the passenger seats. Your letter further indicates your understanding that Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," requires that school buses with seat belts must conform to certain portions of Standards No. 207 through No. 210.

You ask about the means you intend to use to verify that the design of the seats and the seating systems complies with the requirements of the aforementioned standards. Your letter states that in order to verify the design, Corbeil intends to build a model or "mock-up" of a portion of the section of the vehicle using the materials and components that will be used in production vehicles. The "model" or "mock up" will be used for testing rather than a complete vehicle. Corbeil wishes to know if this use of a model for testing purposes is acceptable.

Background

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration follows these specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test their products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer and will be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it had no reason to know despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). In addition, a manufacturer is prohibited from selling or making available for sale any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Please note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to discontinue sales of vehicles or notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

Discussion

Your letter refers to the requirements of Standard No. 207 in the context of school bus seats. S4.2 of Standard No. 207, which sets forth the general performance requirements for seats, does not apply to side-facing seats or passenger seats on a bus. As you are aware, Standard No. 222 applies to school bus seating systems. S5 of Standard No. 222 incorporates certain provisions of Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 210.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a representative section of a vehicle rather than the completed vehicle. As a legal matter, the standards in question apply to vehicles, rather than to seats, so the compliance and certification responsibilities are borne by the vehicle manufacturer rather than the seat manufacturer. However, we realize that certification testing is often performed by the manufacturers of components.

As noted above, manufacturers certifying products must exercise "reasonable care" when doing so. If performed correctly, testing through use of a representative model or incomplete vehicle may meet this "reasonable care" standard. However, I cannot provide you with any assurance that the procedure you describe would be sufficient to demonstrate "reasonable care." This, in effect, is a request for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat and seat attachments did not fail when an incomplete vehicle or partial model of the complete vehicle is used would constitute "reasonable care" in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:207

d.5/24/02

ID: 23415

[       ]






Dear [       ]





This responds to your letter in which you ask whether a vehicle you are developing could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our answer is provided below.

You requested that certain information be kept confidential, to protect specific future product plans. As Mr. Dion Casey of my staff explained to you in a telephone call on March 8, 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide confidential interpretations. All of our interpretations are publicly available. In situations where future product plans are at issue, we can limit our discussion of the product to the minimum necessary to support the interpretation. We can also withhold the identity of the requester. In the aforementioned telephone conversation with Mr. Casey, you agreed to this approach and to the description below (to be made public) of the vehicle at issue.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) 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 classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe the vehicle would be classified for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements regarding classification are based solely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle described in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or 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." Thus, to meet the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, a vehicle must be constructed either (1) on a truck chassis, or (2) with special features for occasional off-road operation.

The vehicle you are developing would be constructed on a chassis that is substantially the same as the chassis used for a current 4-door SUV that is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The current 4-door SUV is available in both 4WD and 2WD. The manufacturer can classify the current vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle because it is constructed on a truck chassis. This chassis uses a ladder-frame construction and was developed to provide the vehicle with cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off-the-road vehicle operation. The new vehicle would use the same basic body but would be an electric vehicle. Other than the powertrain, only minor modifications to the chassis of the current vehicle would be made. For example, brackets would be added to hold the batteries. The new vehicle would have substantially lower running clearance due to the use of the space beneath the vehicle to provide storage for the vehicle's batteries.

Given the similarities between the existing SUV and the new vehicle, it is our opinion that, assuming that the existing SUV is properly classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis, the modifications between the existing SUV and the new vehicle are sufficiently minor that the new vehicle can also be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.4/5/02

ID: 23381ogm

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager
Government Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center
5075 Venture Dr.
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your electronic mail message of July 9, 2001, regarding the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter asks whether seat belt anchorages must meet the location requirements found in S4.3 of Standard No. 210 after the anchorages have been subjected to testing to determine if they comply with the anchorage strength requirements found in S4.2. Your message indicates that Hyundai believes that the anchorages are not required to meet the anchorage location requirements after testing for compliance with S4.2. You ask the agency to confirm that your company's interpretation is correct.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) agrees with your interpretation.

Standard No. 210 applies to new vehicles and does not require that anchorages remain in their original positions after being subjected to the severe loads that may occur in a crash. Strength requirements for seat belt anchorages are found in S4.2 of the Standard. These requirements specify that seat belt anchorages must withstand a certain amount of force when tested in accordance with procedures found in S5. As you point out in your message, S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 indicates that deformation of a seat belt anchorage or the surrounding area is not considered to be a failure if the forces required by S4.2.1 are maintained for a specified time. Therefore, Standard No. 210 anticipates that some deformation of an anchorage or the nearby structure is likely when an anchorage is subjected to the loads it would be exposed to in a crash. Such deformation may cause changes to the location or geometry of anchorages that complied with S4.3 prior to being tested for compliance with S4.2. NHTSA would not consider the post-test position of the anchorages to determine compliance with S4.3.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:210
d.1/17/02

ID: 23394.jeg

William Kurtz, Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering Department
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350





Dear Mr. Kurtz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135. You asked for our concurrence that "S5.3.2 Controls, which prohibits 'a control to manually disable the ABS, either fully or partially' does not prohibit the transmission's electronic control unit from automatically disengaging the ABS when the central differential is locked in an off-road driving mode." You asked your question in connection with the G-class multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

By way of background information information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with your attorney, James Chen, Esq., and stated in this letter.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that S5.3.2's prohibition of a control that manually disables ABS does not apply to a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations. Since, based on the information provided in your letter and by Mr. Chen, the G-class MPV cannot, as a practical matter, be driven on paved roadways when the central differential is locked, the S5.3.2 prohibition does not apply in this situation.

I will now explain our position.

S5.3.2 reads as follows:

For vehicles equipped with ABS, a control to manually disable the ABS, either fully or partially, is prohibited.

In proposing this provision in July 1991, we included the following discussion:

Some manufacturers have argued that [an antilock disabling switch], which would enable a driver to turn off the ABS, would be useful in conditions such as mud or deep snow, where a locked wheel could produce shorter stops than a rolling wheel. However, NHTSA agrees with the position taken by the GRRF that such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial. 56 FR 30538, July 3, 1991.

Thus, the purpose of the provision is to prevent situations where a vehicle's ABS is needed but is not available because the driver has turned it off.

According to your letter, when a driver of the G-class MPV locks the central differential for off-road operation, the ABS system is disengaged. You suggest that this type of system should not be considered to be prohibited by S5.3.2, because the ABS system is disengaged "automatically," as a result of the vehicle having its central differential locked, rather than manually.

We disagree with the view that the ABS system is not being disengaged manually in this situation. The word "manually," as used in S5.3.2, has reference to action by the driver. If activation of a particular control by the driver results in the ABS being disengaged, we would consider the control to manually disable the ABS, regardless of whether the control also does something else, such as locking the central differential.

In light of other information provided by you and by Mr. Chen, however, we nonetheless believe that the S5.3.2 does not apply in the situation you describe. As noted above, the purpose of the S5.3.2 prohibition is to prevent situations where a vehicle's ABS is needed but is not available because the driver has turned it off. In light of this purpose, we believe it is appropriate to interpret the provision as not applying to a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations.

According to your letter, the ABS system of the G-class MPV is disengaged only when the central differential is locked. We also understand from Mr. Chen that if the central differential is unlocked, the ABS system is always engaged again.

You stated that with the central differential locked, a vehicle setting intended only for off-road use, all four wheels rotate at the same speed. Operation of the vehicle in this manner on hard road surfaces would result in serious wheel chatter, hard steering and risk of serious damage to the transmission. There is also a yellow warning label adjacent to the differential lock switches which states: "Warning! Never use differential locks on paved roads! Engaged differential locks limit the ability to move around curves."

Given the above facts, we conclude that, for the G-class MPV, locking of the central differential is a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations. Accordingly, the S5.3.2 prohibition does not apply in this situation.

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




cc:

James Chen, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
555 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Fax: 202-637-5910





NCC-20 :EGlancy :mar :10/16/01 :62992 :OCC 23394
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
interps/135/23394.jeg
concurrence: NPS, NSA, Redbook (2), interp. Std. 135

ID: 2342y

Mr. Jim Evans
Quality Control Department
The Bargman Company
129 Industrial Avenue
Coldwater, MI 49036

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1989, with respect to whether the installation of "yellow" reflex reflectors on the rear of motor vehicles is permissible under Standard No. l08. Because the standard uses the term "amber" instead of "yellow", I shall refer to yellow as amber also.

As you note, the standard requires two red reflex reflectors to be mounted on the rear, but is silent as to whether additional reflectors, amber in color, are permitted. One of your customers has asked you to manufacture an amber turn signal lens that would have an amber reflex reflector area around the outer edge. The turn signal lamp would be adjacent to a lamp of apparently identical size and shape with a red lens and reflex reflector area, providing stop and tail lamp functions. The State of Michigan apparently allows only red reflex reflectors on the rear. You have asked whether reflectors of other colors may be mounted on the rear as long as the required red ones are present, and if it is illegal, whether Standard No. l08 may be amended to eliminate the confusion.

Because an amber reflector is not a required item of lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 specifies to be installed on the rear of a motor vehicle, its acceptability is subject to the general provisions of section S5.1.3. This states, in pertinent part, that no additional reflective device may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. It does not appear to us that an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflector would create an impairment. Under Standard No. l08, amber is a permissible color for rear turn signal lamps, and its presence on a reflector surrounding the lamp should not create confusion. Therefore, manufacture, sale, and installation of an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflector would not constitute a noncompliance with Standard No. l08.

However, an interpretation by NHTSA that its lighting standard does not forbid the installation of an amber reflex reflector does not mean that a State could not adopt and enforce a law prohibiting such a reflector. Under section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a State may impose its own safety requirements covering any aspect of performance that is not covered by Standard No. l08. We construe this provision narrowly, as allowing a State to regulate all lighting equipment that is not specifically required by Standard No. l08. Noting that Section CI 257.691 of the Micigan vehicle lighting code that you enclosed specifies that reflectors "mounted on the rear shall reflect a red color to the rear", the appropriate remedy would be to seek an amendment of the Michigan law. This agency presently has no plans to specify yellow as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08#VSA d:2/26/90