ID: nht87-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John Scott Hatt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Scott Hatt 1215 N. Quinn Street, Apt #2 Arlington, VA 22209

This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1987, to this agency asking about the legality of having "a lighten sign on the side of a car door used for advertising purposes." You have also asked whether such a sign would be a safety hazard to other driver s. There is no Federal prohibition against installation of such a sign. Its legality would be determined under local laws where a vehicle with a lighted sign would be registered and operated. You might wish to seek the advice of Arlington traffic officia ls and the Virginia State Police on this subject. It is not possible to say whether such a sign would be a safety hazard. Unlit advertising signs seem permissible in some areas on the sides of buses.

ID: nht87-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Walter Mayr -- Austrian Trade Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Walter Mayr The Austrian Trade Commission 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1114 Washington, D.C. 20009

This responds to your August 5, 1987 letter to my office and August 14 telephone conversation between Ms. Schott of your staff and Ms. Hom of mine, concerning our regulations for motor vehicles. You enclosed a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels, describing a "public utility vehicle." Subsequently, Ms. Schott indicated in her telephone call that Reformwerke Wels has informed her that the vehicles in question have a top speed of 15.53 miles per hour (mph). Based on this information, you asked whether the vehicle is a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our reg ulations. The answer is no.

Under a longstanding policy, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has regarded vehicles not to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and therefore not subject to our motor vehicle safet y standards, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart from typical highway traffic, and (2) have a minimum attainable speed of 20 mph or less. The utility vehicles manufactured by Reformwerke Wels meet these criteria. Thus, the vehicles are not "motor vehicles" under our regulations and the manufacture of those vehicles is not regulated by this agency.

You might wish to contact the Consumer Project Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations applicable to the type of utility vehicle manufactured by Reformwerke Wels. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consum er Product Safety Commission, 1111 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20207. Telephone: (202) 492-6980.

Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Dierdre Hom Chief Counsel's Office Department of Transportation Room 5219 NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 August 5 1987

Dear Ms. Hom,

Further to your telephone conversation this morning with Susan Schott from our office, we enclose a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels.

We appreciate your office to review this brochure which describes the tractor. I understand that if you determine that the tractor qualifies as a motor vehicle, you can advise us of the corresponding regulations.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Walter Mayr Trade Commissioner

Enclosure omitted

ID: nht87-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/87

FROM: RE MORGAN -- MILEAGE TIRE ENGINEERING

TO: R ROGERS -- MANAGER TECHNICAL SUPPORT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

TITLE: GOODYEAR MILEAGE TIRES; BRUCE RUMAGE PHONE CALL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 TO JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE FROM ERIKA Z ZONES REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 09/13/88 TO LARRY COOK FROM JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE; OCC - 2539; LETTER DATE 08/26/88 TO MARVI N ORNES FROM RE MORGAN; UNDATED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION REPORT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rogers;

It has been brought to our attention by our Area Field Manager, Bruce Rumage, that some of your drivers have questioned the use of Goodyear DXT Tires, which have a Max speed of 35 MPH marked on them. The drivers report that they do exceed the max speed on certain areas of their runs.

Goodyear provides two different types of transit tires for stop/start operation, DXT and XT. Both tires are basically the same, primary difference is that the DXT has seven thirty-seconds more undertread than the XT tire. The same carcass with with sam e number of plies for the load requirements. Advantage to more undertread is more miles per tire, an advantage to both RTD and Goodyear to secure a longer lasting safe tire.

City Cruiser DXT Tires are marked Max Speed of 35 MPH to indicate they are not to be used in interstate service. They can be run on a local freeway; but it is not advisable to use in strictly freeway service. RTD did specify the DXT in their specificat ion and there is no reason why they would not be suitable for the RTD operation. Todate there is no sign to indicate a problem. The tire service personnel are knowledgeable to tire related conditions and have not reported any problems with the use of D XT tires in the RTD operation. Also, an advantage to using the DXT is the curbing problems in transit operations. The extra undertread also reinforces the shoulder area. Curbed tires are safe tires; but are removed when ply fabric is exposed.

Enclosed, for your information is a brochure explaining the different Mileage Tires. Please contact me if more information is needed to help ease the drivers the concerns.

ID: nht87-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas D. Turner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937

Dear Mr. Turner:

Thank you for your letter concerning Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that there is a conflict in the standard about the correct ground clearance of the contoured impact surface used in the school bus impact test of the standard. You s tated further that S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the dimension between the ground to the lower edge of the impact surface as 5.25 + 0.5 inches, while Figure 2 of the standard shows the ground clearance to be 12.25. As discussed below, and as Mr. Oesch of my staff discussed with you in a phone call earlier this year, the correct dimension is 5.25 + 0.5 inches.

As you noted in your letter, the agency adopted the use of the contoured barrier in a final rule issued on April 16, 1975. The preamble to that final rule stated that "The contoured barrier would incorporate the moving barrier specifications of SAE Recom mended Practice J972a (March 1973). However, the impact surface of the barrier would be at a height 30 inches above the ground level, rather than 37 inches as specified in the SAE provision. Studies have shown that a 30-inch test height is more represent ative of actual collisions. This would be a typical engine height of vehicles that might impact a schoolbus." Thus, in S7.5.1 of the standard, the agency adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches + 0.5 inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the agency apparently incorporated the barrier dimensions directly from the SAE Recommended Practice J972a, without changing the ground clearance dimension.

We will publish an amendment to the standard that will correct the ground clearance dimension set out in Figure 2 of Standard No. 301. Thank you for bring this matter to the agency's attention.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 20, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571; 3O1-75 Fuel System Integrity

Section S7.5.1 of the standard specifies . . ." The contoured impact surface which is 24.75 inches high and 78 inches wide, conforms to the dimensions shown in Figure 2, and is attached to the carriage as shown in that figure. The ground clearance to the lower edge of the impact surface is 5.25 + 0.5 inches"...

Figure 2 shows dimension D, ground clearance to the lower edge of the impact surface, is 12.25 inches while the text says it is 5.25 + 0.5 inches.

In reviewing the history of Standard 301-75, I found the height of the impact surface was specifically discussed in Federal Register Volume 40, Number 74, Wednesday, April 16, 1975, with regard to school buses. The highlighted areas on the attached copy of this discussion indict the intention was to use the 5.25 inch dimension, making the overall height of the impact surface 30 inches, for school bus moving contoured barrier crash tests.

Based on this history and recent discussions with NHTSA personnel, it is our understanding that the 5.25 + 0.5 inches is the correct dimension and dimension D in Figure 2 should be corrected to show this value. Please confirm that our understanding is co rrect. We are currently obtaining quotations from test laboratories for FMVSS 301 Certification testing and must have this issue resolved before finalizing testing plans. If written confirmation can be provided by December 11, 1986, it would be appreciat ed. If not, please have one of your staff verbally advise us by December 11, 1986, and then follow-up with a letter of confirmation. Thank you for a timely response to this request.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

fvc/1839

c: FHVSS 301-75

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht87-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: STEVE KRATZKE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE #217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K. BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kratzke,

Pursuant to our telephone conversation regarding Coons Manufacturing, Inc.'s desire to provide adequate emergency escapes per FMVSS Code #217 in our Diamond VIP mini buses, I write.

Mr. S. T. Messina, Chief Motor Carrier Inspections and Investigations of the State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation has denied certification for a 25 passenger bus recently delivered to the State of New Jersey. Please refer to the attached letter dated August 28, 1987.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the FMVSS Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door, which is labeled and equipped with the p roper emergency release mechanisms per the above referenced regulation, as an emergency side exit. Please refer to the attached sample materials of two competitors. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door as well as photos for your ref erence. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why this is unacceptable to use as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have in the past, considered the driver's window which is 20" x 20" clear open ing or 400 square inches as an additional emergency side exit.

Please respond as soon as possible as to whether or not our existing emergency exits provide adequate escape per FMVSS Code #217. If they do not, please state what would be required in addition to what we are already providing. It is our desire to c ooperate to the fullest regarding this matter. Thank you for your assistance.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Short -- Chief, Enforcement Services Division, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

L.M. Short, Chief Enforcement Services Division Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento, CA 95804

This responds to your letter to our office concerning our certification requirements for manufacturers of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

According to your letter, California's school bus regulations require vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law to be certified as "school buses" under Federal law. Vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law include multipurpose pa ssenger vehicles (MPV's) used to carry two or more handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. Consequently, under California's school bus regulations, an MPV cannot be used to carry handicapped students unless it is certified as meeting our school bus s afety standards. Because manufacturers have informed you that NHTSA prohibits them from certifying an MPV as a school bus, you request that we remove this restriction by permitting the school bus certification for MPV's.

Your understanding is correct that our regulations prohibit MPV's to be certified as "school buses." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, manufacturers classify their new motor vehicles in accordance with the def initions we issued for our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.31 and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Under the definitions of Part 571.3, the issue of seating capacity makes the s chool bus and MPV definitions mutually exclusive. The passenger seating capacity of an MPV must be 9 or less, while that of a school bus must be 10 or more. A manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a "school bus" in compliance with Federal school bus s afety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category. Adopting your suggestion that we permit some MPV's to be certified as School buses could not be accomplished without changing either our "School bus" definition, our regulations for certifying vehicles, or the application of our school bus safety standards. As explained below, we must decline your implicit request to make these changes because of a statutory restriction and because we believe their adoption is n ot warranted by a safety need.

We are precluded from adopting the suggestion that we expand our school bus definition to include some MPV' s because our" school bus" definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 , Congress added a "school bus" definition to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is based on the design and intended use of a "bus." Congress directed that upgraded school bus safety requirements be applied to buses that carry more t han 10 passengers and that are determined by NHTSA likely to be significantly used for the purpose of school transportation.

Your second implicit suggestion is that we change our certification regulations to permit manufacturers to certify a vehicle as both an "MPV" and a "school bus." Such a change would not be practical. A manufacturer's certification of a vehicle is a decla ration that the vehicle is manufactured to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Since our performance requirements for MPV's are not identical to those for school buses, an MPV cannot be manufactured to m eet the standards applicable to both vehicle types.

The third suggestion implicit in your letter is that a dual certification can be effectuated by extending the application of our school bus safety standards to some MPV's. We are not aware of any data suggesting a safety reel for such a change. MPV's alr eady have their own safety standards to ensure adequate levels of safety performance for those vehicles. Because of those standards, we do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to transport school children. Further, we do not believe the change you suggest is n ecessary to address the issue raised in your letter. Federal law does not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily manufacturing MPV's to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits and joint strength. California may thus specify performance standards now applicable to school buses for MPV's used to transport handicapped children, provided that the MPV's can continue to comply with MPV standards. Of course, the vehicles would still be certified only as MPV'S.

In your letter, you mentioned that you examined the definitions set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles. As you know, Standard No. 17 was issued under the Highway Safety Act as a standard for State highway safety programs. Since the "standard" consists of our recommendations for the operation of school vehicles, the Type I and Type II School Vehicle definitions found in Standard No. 17 are relevant for determining the o perational recommendations applicable to different school vehicles. Those definitions do not, however, change the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a school bus or the Act's requirements for a manufacturer to certify school buses to all applicable Feder al motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

The California Highway Patrol has been informed by a school bus manufacturer that a new vehicle originally designed to accommodate 12 seating positions but reduced to a seating capacity of ten or less must be certified as a multipurpose vehicle in accord ance with Federal standards. Mr. George Shifflet of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) verified this and added that NHTSA does not recognize a vehicle with seating for 10 or less persons as a school bus.

The school bus definition found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571, Section 3. does not specify a minimum number of students to be transported.

Highway Safety Program Manual No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. United States Department of Transportation, NHTSA was searched for relevant material. This document. which is a guide for all states to use in developing pupil transportation programs, st ates that a "Type II school vehicle -- is any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. The minimum number of pupils is not specified and we note that the word "vehicle" is used rather than "bus".

The California school bus definition is identical to the NHTSA definition of a bus in that both specify a vehicle designed for "more than 10 persons" However. California Vehicle Code Section 545 (copy enclosed) also provides that a motor vehicle that tra nsports two or more handicapped pupils confined to a wheelchair is a school bus. Many of these special buses will transport some pupils "confined to wheelchairs and some ambulatory pupils for a total of less than 10. Even though this seating configuratio n does not meet the definition of a bus, we feel that the school pupils being transported should always be provided with all the safety features provided by Federal and State Law for school buses. Chief Counsel $5 September 16, 1986

There are school bus manufacturers that are willing to certify that a motor vehicle with a seating capacity for 10 or less meets school bus standards but they are prohibited from this certification due to the requirements of Title 49, CFR. Some school bu s operators have been unable to purchase small four-wheel-drive vehicles for use as school buses to operate in snow and rough terrain. They have been forced to purchase larger four-wheel-drive buses in order to obtain the school bus certification label. A smaller four-wheel-drive vehicle may be more appropriate in rural areas under certain driving conditions.

In view of the foregoing information, we respectfully request that the merits of this case be studied and that a decision be made to permit a bus manufacturer to certify a vehicle designed to seat 10 persons or less as a school bus. Perhaps a new vehicle definition or classification is needed, such as "special school bus". If this request is granted, we feel it would be a positive step to further ensure the safe transportation of school pupils. Very truly yours,

L. M. SHORT, Chief Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Y. Osaki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Y. Osaki Manager, Truck Engineering MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 501 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Osaki:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between the maximum load ratings for the tires on a medium duty truck and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified for that truck pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked if the GVWR specified for a truck could slightly exceed the sum of the gross axle weight ratings specified for the truck. While none of our regulations prohibit your company from assigning a GVWR that exceeds the sum of the gross axle weight r atings for this medium duty truck, we recommend that you not do so, for the reasons explained below.

Your letter correctly notes that paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.120) requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each truck axle shall b e not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for the axle system, as specified on the vehicle certification label required by Part 567. However, Part 567 does not limit the GVWR that can be assigned to the sum of the GAWR's specified for a vehicle . Instead, 5567.4(g)(3) requires that the vehicle certification label specify the GVWR of the truck and requires only that the specified GVWR shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicl e's designated seating capacity.

Although, Part 567 does not prohibit such a practice, we note that assigning a GVWR to a vehicle that exceeds the sum of the GAWR's assigned to the vehicle (other than a semitrailer) would be encouraging the user of that vehicle to overload it. If the ax les of a medium duty truck cannot safely bear the load specified in the GVWR, the vehicle will be overloaded whenever it is loaded to the specified GVWR. Such overloading poses a serious safety hazard for the affected vehicle in particular and for the mo toring public in general. Several past interpretations on this subject have stated if a vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction while in use that can be traced to the overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect p rovisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and under common law product liability doctrines. To avoid giving rise to a potential safety hazard and the accompanying liability, we recommend that you specify a GVWR not greater than 17,19 6 pounds for the medium duty truck in question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: SPECIFICATION OF GVWR AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING OF THE TIRES

This is to inquire about the relationship between maximum load rating of the tires and GVW.

We are planning to develop the medium duty truck installing LT235/85R16 tires. According to FMVSS 120.5.1.2, the sum of the maximum load rating of tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's ce rtification label.

In our case, the sum of the maximum load rating of LT235/85R16(E) tires are 6,084 lbs. (front) and 11,112 lbs. (rear). TRA So, we can specify at most these values for each GAWR on the certification label as follows:

GAWR: Front - 6,084 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 80 psi cold single GAWR: Rear - 11,112 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 30 psi cold dual

Question: In this case, is it possible for us to specify 17,200 lbs. as GVW on the certification label raising up the fraction, or should we specify 17,196 lbs. strictly?

Your kind advice will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht87-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K. Shimamura -- (Shiramura) -- Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mazda (North America), Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Dear Mr. Shiramura: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You described a proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display and asked whether controls mounted on such a unit must be illuminated. As discusse d below, the answer to your question is no.

By war of background 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 manufac turing to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standard. The following represent our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 55.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states that "(e)xcept for foot-operated control; or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or 55.2.2 of any con trol . . . shall be illuminated . . . ."

The primary issue raises by your letter is whether the controls mounted on your proposed steering column/dashboard display come within section @5.3.1's exception for controls mounted upon the steering column and therefore need not be illuminated. You des cribed your proposed design as follows:

". . . In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays ( such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base on the upper section and on top of thy lower column. . . ."

A drawing enclosed with a subsequent letter indicates that the upper section described above is mounted by brackets onto the energy absorbing shaft, below the steering wheel and above the pivot used to adjust the steering wheel.

Thus, as the steering wheel is adjusted, the upper section is also adjusted, maintaining the same relative position to the steering wheel.

You suggest that the proposed integrated unit can be considered to be a "steering column," citing the definition of that term used in Standard No. 204. We note that Standard No. 204's definition of steering column' does not apply to Standard No. 101. Mor eover, the upper section itself need not be considered a steering column in order to come within Standard No. 101's exception. In a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1971, NHTSA stated the following about similar language in an earlier version of Standard No. 10".

Ford has asked whether steering-wheel mounted controls are exempt from illumination requirements. Since the steering wheel itself is mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls ext ends to those mounted on the steering wheel as well. 36 ER 8297, May 4, 1971. Since the upper section in your proposed design is, at the least, mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the upper section as well. Therefore, cont rols mounted on the upper section need not be illuminated. We note that it is unnecessary for us to reach a determination of whether the upper section can be considered to be a steering column for purposes of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20550

Re: Request for Interpretation-Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Sections 571.100 and 571.101; Controls and Displays Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America), Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration consider an interpretive question relating to the above captioned Safety Standard. Although Mazda is aw are that the agency is not authorized to pass on the conformity of and specific product design prior to introduction of that product into the marketplace. the comments of you and your staff have in the past been extremely helpful in better understanding the requirements of the various safety Standards. It is this assistance that is again requested.

The question Mazda submits relates to the provisions of FMVSS 100/101, S5.3.1. Illumination. This section states, "(except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor. Floor console, or steering column, or in the windshiel d area, the identification required by 55.2.1 or @5.2.2. or any control...shall be illuminated..."

Mazda has conceived a proposed steering column design that incorporates several unique features. In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currently encloses the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays (such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.

Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The turn signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The haz ard warning control will be at the base of the upper section and on top of the lower column trim panel. These controls will not be illuminated. 49 CFR Part 571.204, Steering Control Reward Displacement explains in @1. that a "steering column" is a "struc tural housing that surrounds a steering shaft (a component that transmits steering torque from the steering wheel to the steering gear.) Mazda's question, therefore is twofold. Does the proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display constitute a s teering column and, based on the answer to the first question, must controls mounted on this unit be illuminated?

We have considered this question internally and have tentatively concluded that the proposed integrated unit can be defined as a steering column applying the criteria of FMVSS 204. To our knowledge, FMVSS 204 provide; the only official definition of stee ring column provided through the public record. Insofar as this term is specified in FMVSS 100/101. it would seen reasonable to apply this definition. By so doing, it is apparent that the integrated steering column molding is a "structural" housing in th at it provides for the location,

June 17, 1987

Mr. Edward Glancy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC. 20590

Re: Supplemental Information - Request for Interpretation Regarding FMVSS 100/101, Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Glancy:

Please find attached a rendering of Mazda's new steering column design which is the subject our April 8, 1987 request for interpretation. The illustration depicts the relevant assemblies and corresponding mounting locations that you indicated would be he lpful in your deliberations.

We trust this information will be useful. However; if you should have any other further questions related to the structure and configuration of our new system or on any other topic applicable to this question, please do not hesitate to contact me at this letterhead or telephone the number above.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Steve L. Underwood Assistant Manager Safety Engineering

ID: nht87-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/87

FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

We are writing to you to request an official interpretation of portions of FMVSS 208 and 209 with regard to a Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly designed by a customer and ordered by him for installation at a static (non-suspension) driver's seat in a vehicle wit h a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds.

The proposed seat belt assembly incorporates an automatic locking retractor to be mounted at the left of the driver's seat and a free-sliding latchplate engineered to remain in view and easy reach when not in use. The webbing is continuous from the retr actor to the anchored end of the upper torso restraint which would be installed above, slightly behind and to the side of the seat occupant. The strengths of all components and the strength of the assembly itself comply with FMVSS 209.

The latter half of 49CFR 571.209 S5.2(i) deals with automatic-locking retractors and their tendency to cinch the seat belt assembly webbing against the occupant while riding on rough roads. In addition, 49 CFR 571.208 S4.2.2, S4.1.2.3, and S7.1, though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal upper torso restriction. These sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 have been discussed with our customer.

In our opinion, two modifications to the customer's design will convert the continuous webbing feature into separate lap belt and upper torso restraints which will allow his proposed design to comply with the sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 referenced abov e: 1. sew the latchplate to the webbing at a specified location in order to create a standard lap belt 2. place a manual adjusting device in the upper torso restraint.

Our customer has agreed to postpone the order on his original design and use the option we are suggesting until we have received an official opinion from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have further questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT

[DRAWING OMITTED] ALR, 3PT. SYSTEM

ID: nht87-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: J. Douglas Hand -- General Motors Legal Staff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to G.T. Doe (Std. 208; Std. 216); 2/5/87 letter from G.T. Doe to Erika Z. Jones (occ 176)

TEXT:

J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Specifically, you asked whether General Motors Corporation (GM can be deemed the manufacturer of passenger cars produced by Lotus Car s Limited (LCL) for the purposes of S4.1.3.5, the manufacturer attribution provisions of Standard No. 208. After we received your letter, you made us aware of certain changed circumstances. In your letter, you stated that GM did not own the entity that w as the exclusive importer of Lotus Vehicles, and that GM owned 96 percent of LCL. Subsequently, you have told us that GM wholly owns the companies that import and market Lotus vehicles in the United States and that GM wholly owns LCL. This letter of inte rpretation is based on the GM -Lotus corporate relationship described in this letter. To the extent that the description in this letter differs from the description set forth in your August, 1986 letter, if reflects our understanding of the change circum stances. Our conclusion is that, since GM sponsors the importation, distribution, and marketing of these cars, GM may be considered the manufacturer of cars produced by LCL for the purposes of standard No. 208.

You explained that LCL is a part of Group Lotus, a United Kingdom company that provides engineering services to various motor vehicle manufactures and produces fewer than a thousand passenger cars a year. Group Lotus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, a lthough LCL designs, builds, and certifies its cars without GM's advice. Approximately 200 Lotus Performance Cars, Limited Partnership (LPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Lotus cars are marketed and distributed in the United States by Lotus Cars USA, Inc., another wholly-owned subsidiary of GM. Hence, GM owns the company that designs and assembles these cars, and GM owns the companies that import and market the vehicles.

Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines "manufacturer" as many person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor ve hicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Under this definition, both LCL and LPC are statutory manufacturers of Lotus passenger cars. LCL designs and assembles the cars, and has filed a designation of agent for service of process with this agency, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1399(e). By filing a designation of agent, LCL has acknowledged that it is offering its cars for importation into the United State. LPC imports those cars into the United States.

Section S4.1.3.5 of Standard No. 208 sets forth provisions for instances in which passenger cars have more than one statutory "manufacturer." That section provides that the manufacturers may execute an express written contract to specify the manufacturer s to which the cars shall up attributed. In the absence of such a contract, S4.1.3.5.1(a) provides that imported passenger cars will be attributed to the importer. Since there is no such contract in this instance, application of this provision means that the Lotus passenger cars, which are produced in the United Kingdom, would be attributed to LPC, the GM subsidiary which imports the cars into the United States.

In the April 11, 1985, proposal to establish attribution requirements in the case of vehicles that have more than one statutory "manufacturer" (50, FR 14589), NHTSA stated that it considers the statutory definition of "manufacturer" to be sufficiently br oad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. See 50 FR 14596. The agency stated that if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer of those vehi cles, applying basic principles of agency law. On the other hand, the agency stated that the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles.

Applying these principles to your case, we conclude that GM sponsors the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Both LCL, the actual assembler, and LPC, the actual importer, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of GM. By itself, GM's ownership of both the producer and importer of these care might not be sufficient to establish that GM was the sponsor of these vehicles for the purposes of Standard No. 208. In addition, however, another GM wholly-owned subsidiary distributes and markets the vehicles in the United St ates. GM coordinates the activities of all these subsidiaries. Since GM wholly owns the actual producer of these vehicles and is actively involved in the importation, distribution, and marketing of these vehicles, we believe that GM should be considered to sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Accordingly, GM rather than LPC, may be considered the importer and manufacturer of these vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely.

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

August 29, 1986 Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: Interpretation of Multiple Manufacturer

Provision of FMVSS 208 Phase-In

This letter is written to request an interpretation of S4.1.3.5 of FMVSS 208. As you will recall, this portion of the standard provides that where more than one manufacturer is involved in the production of a passenger car, the manufacturers are permitte d to determine between or among themselves, by express written contract, which of them shall be deemed the manufacturer of the vehicle for purposes of meeting the phase-in requirements of FMVSS 208. In the absence of such an agreement, domestic passenger cars produced by more than one manufacturer are attributed to the manufacturer marketing the vehicles, and imported ones are attributed to the manufacturer importing them.

The specific subject matter of the interpretation we are requesting in this letter was discussed at a meeting held at the NHTSA on August 27, 1986. Messrs. Wood, Oesch, and Vinson of your staff represented the agency; Mr. R. F. Humphrey of General Motors Washington Office and I represented GM; and Mr. G. E. Atkin represented Lotus Cars Limited. After a discussion of the issues involved, the members of your staff suggested that a written request for interpretation would be appropriate. This letter is a r esult of that suggestion. The facts comprising the issue we are concerned with, and our specific request for an interpretation of the phase-in provisions of FMVSS 208, are as follows.

Lotus Cars Limited (Lotus) is part of Group Lotus, a United Kingdom firm that provides engineering services to various motor vehicle manufacturers and itself produces several hundred passenger cars each year. Lotus passenger cars are imported into the Un ited States under a contract between Lotus and Lotus Performance Cars (LPC), an American limited partnership. The contract gives LPC the exclusive right to distribute Lotus passenger cars in the United States, and LPC is the importer of record of Lotus p assenger cars. GM has recently purchased substantially all of the shares (approximately 96 percent) of Group Lotus. Neither GM nor Lotus owns any interest in LPC.

Of the somewhat less than 1,000 passenger cars produced by Lotus each year, approximately 200 are imported into the United States. In light of this fact, the phase-in requirements of FMVSS 208, which would obligate Lotus to install passive restraints on approximately 20 vehicles in model year 1987, 50 vehicles in 1988, and 80 vehicles in 1989, can be seen to impose an inordinate financial burden on Lotus.

The multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208 was promulgated to give manufacturers the flexibility to deal with the uncertainties and anomalies created by the phase-in scheme for passive restraint requirements. In furthering this purpose, we believe that the agency should use reasonable flexibility in its interpretation of statutory and regulatory terms and definitions, viewing the business arrangements between manufacturers so as to fulfill the intent of the multiple manufacturer provision.

It is clear that Lotus, the designer and producer of Lotus passenger cars, is a manufacturer of those cars under the Safety Act and safety standards. It is also clear that LPC, the importer of Lotus passenger cars, is a statutory manufacturer. The interp retation we request from the agency is that General Motors, by virtue of its nearly total ownership of Lotus, may also be deemed a manufacturer of Lotus passenger cars for purposes of the multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208.

Because it owns 96 percent of the shares of Group Lotus (an ownership level which will reach 100 percent within the foreseeable future), GM has a substantial and abiding concern in the long-term viability of Lotus, a concern that extends to the extraordi nary difficulties imposed upon Lotus by the phase-in provisions of the passive restraint rule. By permitting GM to substitute its vehicles for those of Lotus in determining compliance with the phase-in requirements, the NHTSA would do no violence to the language or spirit of the Safety Act, which is expansive enough to encompass the changing business relation-ships among manufacturers. The agency would also be fulfilling the intent of the multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208, and would be rectif ying a particularly egregious example of the kind of inequity implicitly recognized by the adoption of the multiple manufacturer provision. Finally, this interpretation would not result in any reduction in the number of vehicles required to be equipped w ith passive restraints during the phase-in period. For all these reasons, we ask that the NHTSA issue the interpretation of the multiple manufacturer provision of FMVSS 208 that we have requested.

The other issue discussed during the August 27 meeting was the situation of Lotus in the event that the agency finds itself unable to concur with the interpretation of FMVSS 208 that I have outlined above. Lotus has concluded that if the agency is unable to issue our requested interpretation, Lotus finds it necessary to file a petition for exemption from the first year of the phase-in requirements of FMVSS 208 (that is, the requirement that 10 percent of the vehicles produced by each manufacturer during the period September 1, 1986 through September 1, 1987 be equipped with passive restraints). We are therefore enclosing with this letter a petition by Lotus for exemption from those requirements, as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 555. If the NHTSA is able to render the interpretation of FMVSS 208 that we have requested, the enclosed petition will be moot, and in that case, GM and Lotus request that the agency disregard the petition. If, however, the agency does not issue the interpretation we have requested above, Lotus requests that the agency act upon the enclosed petition and determine Lotus' entitlement to an exemption as expeditiously as possible.

If you have any questions about our request for an interpretation of FMVSS 208, please direct them to me. If the enclosed petition is not rendered moot by your interpretation of FMVSS 208, and you have any questions about the petition, please direct them to Mr. Graham Atkin of Lotus. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, J. Douglas Hand JDH: kt Attorney

Enclosure