ID: nht94-9.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, MCI/TMC (Manitoba)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 7/30/93 from C.N. (Norm) Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 8951)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, andy device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered an new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a new engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would consider the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-9.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Table II Minimum Static; Breaking Energy (inch pounds) D.O.T. 119

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to Adam A. Freund (A42; Std. 119)

TEXT:

Further to our telephone conversation of this date, please find enclosed a copy of subject matter for your perusal. As we had discussed I believe there is a typo in the highlighted columns marked respectively MOTORCYCLE and ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE. If I am correct the first column MOTORCYCLE should show a plunger diameter of 5/16" and the column marked ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE should show a plunger diameter of 3/4".

I would appreciate your qualifying my interpretation of above subject matter. If my interpretation is incorrect, please advise me how the respective columns should be marked.

Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. would greatly appreciate any expedited consideration you may allow us on this request.

ATTACHMENT

(Table omitted.)

ID: nht94-9.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht95-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Andrew Grubb

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/12/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ANDREW GRUBB (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: To whom it may concern,

I am writing in regards to motor vehicle regulations as applicable to two products I am currently selling. I have a copy of a letter dated April 1st of 1991 from Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, of your office dealing with a small push scooter like product, eq uipped with a 37cc engine called a "Walk Machine". In this letter, Mr. Rice had written "NHTSA has stated in many interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered a motor vehicle if such vehicles have a maximum at tainable speed of 20 mph or less and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other motor vehicles." He then went on to say since the "Walk Machine" fit this description, and that it was not a "motor vehicle", that none of the NHTSA's standards would apply to it.

The products I have in question both seem to fit into these guidelines, however I would like to get an official ruling on that by your office. Enclosed you will find sales brochures for both products which may prove helpful in understanding what each one entails.

The first product is a scooter called the "California Go-Ped". The Go-Ped resembles a small push scooter, with a 22.5cc 2 cycle motor mounted above the rear wheel. It is a small, foldable scooter with 6" diameter non-pneumatic tires, weighing 20 lbs . This scooter cruises at an average of 15mph, with a maximum of 20 mph.

The other "scooter" type product is called "TSi Power Scooter". Similar to the Go-Ped it too resembles a push scooter, however it has a slightly larger wheel diameter (14" inflatable tires), and is not foldable. This scooter is driven by a 21cc 2 cy cle motor mounted above the rear wheel, with a top speed of approximately 15mph. TSi Powered Sports also produces a few other models including a motorized "skateboard", and motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle. Any input on these other product s would be appreciated.

I want to try and clear up where exactly these products fit into MV regulations, so I can tell my customers exactly wher they can and can not opperate them. I have also written to get more information on state MV laws, and federal safety regulations applicable to these scooters. I appreciate and await a reply dealing with these products.

Brochures omitted.

ID: nht95-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald Orlando -- Orlando World Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/21/94 letter from Donald Orlando to Ed Glancy

TEXT: Dear Mr. Orlando:

This responds to your letter concerning whether your "Seat Belt Buddy" would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency. You describe the product as "a stuffed toy animal with a slit in the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt through and then into the automobile's buckle."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. We also have a standard (Standard No. 30 2, Flammability of Interior Materials) that sets forth flammability resistance requirements for the originally installed safety belts of the vehicle. However, since your product would not be part of a new seat belt assembly, these standards would not ap ply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 con cerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-r elated defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation doe s not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. For example, they must ensure that the Seat Belt Buddy does not impair the function of the safety belt or belt retractor, or vitiate the compliance of the belts with Standard No . 302. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensu re that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. We urge you to carefully evalu ate whether your product would in any way compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system, and whether instructions to the consumer are needed to advise about the proper use of the product. Among other things, you should evaluate wh ether children are likely to play with the "Seat Belt Buddy" in a manner that either introduces excessive slack in the shoulder belt, thereby reducing the protection provided by that belt in the event of a crash, or the inadvertent unlatching of the belt system. Finally, since the originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, we encourage you not to degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/29/94 LETTER FROM ALBERTO NEGRO TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10403)

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. I apologize for the delay in our response. Section 583.5 (g) provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. You asked whether the 1000 unit threshold applies to the Alfa Romeo and Ferrari marques separately or collectiv ely, as those marques are both owned by Fiat S.p.A. You stated that Fiat S.p.A. is the stockholder of Fiat Auto S.p.A., which produces Alfa Romeo cars, and of Ferrari S.p.A. which produces Ferrari cars. As discussed below, the 1000 vehicle threshold ap plies to Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles separately, since they are produced by different companies.

Part 583 incorporates the statutory definition of "manufacturer" (see section 583.4 (a) and 49 U.S.C. 32304 (a) (7)), which reads as follows:

"Manufacturer" means a person --

(A) engaged in manufacturing or assembling new passenger motor vehicles;

(B) importing new passenger motor vehicles for resale; or

(C) acting for and under the control of such a manufacturer, assembler, or importer in connection with the distribution of new passenger motor vehicles.

The term "person" is defined at section 583.4 (b) as "an individual, partnership, corporation, business trust, or any organized group of persons."

Under these definitions, both the European producer and the importer are considered manufacturers of Alfa Romeo and Ferrari passenger motor vehicles. Therefore, both the producer and the importer are subject to Part 583.

In applying section 583.5 (g) in the context of your question, we would focus on the European producer rather than the importer. This is because that section provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. Since Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles are produced by different European companies, the 1000 vehi cle threshold applies to them separately. I note that, as discussed in the final rule preamble, only passenger vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are counted toward the 1000 vehicle threshold.

This interpretation is limited to section 583.5(g). The statutory provisions for other programs administered by NHTSA have different purposes and different definitions of "manufacturer." Also, the CAFE statute has special provisions concerning manufactu rers that are within a control relationship. Therefore, this interpretation should not be applied outside the context of section 583.5(g).

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

ID: nht95-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Amin Ahmadi

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/15/94 letter from Amin Ahmadi to Office of Rule Making

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ahmadi:

This responds to your letter requesting that the Federal government require all motor vehicles to be equipped with your mirror, which you believe reduces blind spots. You state that part of your mirror is shaped at a straight angle while another part ha s a three to five degree outward variance. As explained below, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), does not believe it should require all vehicles to be equipped with your mirror. Nevertheless, NHTSA does not prohibi t you from marketing your mirror, provided the mirror complies with the Federal standard on rearview mirrors and other safety considerations are met.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a November 29, 1994 telephone conversation between you and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, about your request for the information in your letter be treated as confidential. Mr. Shaw explained that letters requestin g interpretations of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) are public information. Nevertheless, he further explained that we would only include a general description of your mirror in our response. Accordingly, we will return your sketche s to you and make only the cover letter publicly available. You agreed that this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111, copy enclosed), to set performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors. FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehic le. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.

Assuming that the straight mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111, vehicle manufacturers could install this new mirror system on their vehicles.

However, even though your mirror may be installed as original equipment, NHTSA does not agree with you that new vehicles should be required to be equipped with a mirror system that has a portion that is at a slight variance. As explained in the enclosed notice about convex mirrors, while a convex mirror reduces blind spots by increasing a driver's field of view, such mirror systems also "increase distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgement about another vehicle's closing distance." Like the mirror referenced in that notice, your mirror has both potential advantages and disadvantages: it would increase the driver's field of view, but it would to some extent increase the potential for confusing the driver, since it combines two diffe rent orientations.

Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA"S enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defe cts. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective eq uipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." Based on our understanding of your mirror system, it appears that its install ation would not make inoperative compliance with the standard. Nevertheless, if the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair busi ness that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation o f the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of wh ether that mirror makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I hope this information is helpful. For your future reference, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/14/94 letter from Randal Busick to Mary Versailles

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1994, concerning whether a belt design would comply with S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994 and effective on September 1, 1997 (59 FR 3 9472). As described in your letter, for this belt design, "the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance be tween the two extreme adjustment positions of the system is more than 5 cm."

The August 3 final rule amended Standard No. 208 to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. After the effective date, S7.1.2 will, in pertinent part, read as follows:

. . . for each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a movable component which has a min imum of two adjustment positions. The distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

As illustrated in the drawing provided with your letter, the inboard anchorage on your seat design is the "the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt."

It would appear that, under the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, the seat would be considered part of the anchorage for your design. Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as any component, other t han the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure cau ses separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the seat is part of the anchorage, and if the seat can be adjusted more than 5 cm, measured linearly, it appears that your design will meet the requirement of S7.1.2.

While not directly relevant to your question, agency technical staff raised concerns about a device in the drawing enclosed with your letter. The drawing of the system shows a device labeled "Slider Bar" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt anchorage is attached. While no detail is provided on this device, agency staff are concerned that the device (which appears to function as the lower outboard anchorage) allows the seat belt webbing attachment to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally . If our interpretation of the drawing is correct, this device may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 o f Standard No. 210. Finally, the device may introduce slack in the belt system, preventing the belt from adequately securing a child safety restraint in the seat or providing complete protection to an adult.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ms. Robin R. Miller -- DaRosa and Miller

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/22/94 letter from Robin R. Miller to Mary Versailles (OCC 10327)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Miller:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1994, requesting information on what type of occupant protection systems (seat belts and/or air bags) were required in four passenger cars. The passenger cars were manufactured by Excalibur Automobile Corpora tion (Excalibur) between January 10, 1994, and May 6, 1994.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor ve hicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in co nformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation req uirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture.

For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by mea ns that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test d ummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts a re not used).

In addition, for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints." Type 1 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for p elvic restraint."

You should be aware that Excalibur has applied for temporary exemption (49 CFR Part 555) from the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 which would, if granted, apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the ex emption. Excalibur has also asked that it apply to those vehicles already manufactured but unsold and in dealer inventory. In addition, the manufacturer has also applied for an exemption from notification and remedy of its noncompliance with the automa tic crash protection requirements on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR Part 556). If granted, this would relieve Excalibur of the obligation to notify and remedy the noncompliance in vehicles already man ufactured and not covered by the safety exemption petition. Prior to acting upon either of these applications, NHTSA will publish notices in the Federal Register requesting comments.

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

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Ralph T. Welch

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: 1991 Coachmen RV Class C Motorhome, Model: Leprechaun 248 DD MM Ser:1TCC03677M1001007

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RALPH T. WELCH (A43; STD. 101)

TEXT: On Dec. 15, 1994, I wrote to your office regarding incorrect date of manufacture posted on the outside of this motorhome.

I had another question regarding this motorhome, but overlooked including it in that letter.

Would you please advise me if there are any federal laws or regulations pertaining to the type of odometer installed on a motor vehicle sold in the United States?

We were not told when we purchased this vehicle that it had an odometer that registered kilometers instead of miles per hour. As a result I had to make a number of trips to the dealer's shop for repair. In addition a statement had to be filed with DMV regarding replacement, and the title had an endorsement stating that the mileage was not correct. I have no way of knowing the extent that this affected the value of the coach, but suspect that it did.

The dealer who purchased the coach from the factory, has stated that he did not order this coach to be equipped with this type of odometer.

If further information would be helpful please let me know.

PREVIOUS LETTER:

Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th St. S W Washington, D C 20590

December 15 1994

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RE LABEL, DATE OF MANUFACTURE ON EXTERIOR OF MOTORHOME

Would you advise if it is a violation of Federal Law, or Regulations to place a false date of manufacture on the exterior of a motorhome? When we purchased this motorhome we noticed a label on the outside of the coach stating that the coach was manufact ured 5/91. However after we agreed to purchase the vehicle, we found on closer inspection that the coach manufacturers label on the door post showed a different date. This date was 10/80. This label is only visible when one opens the right hand door a nd bends over to read the label. The label on the outside of the coach is readily observable when one enters the coach.

A photograph of the coach showing the label is enclosed. Also enclosed is a photocopy of letter from Coachmen Industries with a copy of a label, this one with a corrected date. Additional correspondence is enclosed from the manufacturer, furnishing var ious explanations for this false label.

I do not know the reason why this incorrect date was placed on the coach, but I do know that it misled me into thinking that I was buying a coach just over a year old, when I was really getting a coach almost two years old.

Yours truly,

RALPH T. WELCH 840 SE SUMMIT DR ROSEBURG OR 97470 503-673-0586

cc: Coachmen Industries, Thomas Corson, Chairman of Board Coachmen Industries, Michael Pangburn Esq. (w/o enc.)