ID: 17374.drn

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
131 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Clyde L. Simpson, General Manager of Autotech USA in Park City, asking about requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that apply to Autotech's spare wheel covers for sport utility vehicles. I sincerely regret that Mr. Simpson's earlier letter to the agency was lost.

Mr. Simpson describes Autotech's spare wheel cover, called "The Original Brilliant Cover," as consisting of a stainless steel outer ring assembly, with a stainless steel latch with an integrated lock, and a plastic faceplate assembly with a continuous safety strap. The strap fits the faceplate by passing the strap through two slots which are located opposite each other at the outer perimeter of the faceplate. The strap is placed behind the spare tire and wheel assembly, preventing the faceplate from falling off if the ring assembly should become unlatched or if the spare tire should deflate. Mr. Simpson explains that the product has European approval, and describes some specifications that the product had to meet to receive the approval. He also states that the product has a locking mechanism to ensure its faceplates do not fall off and become a safety hazard.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

While "The Original Brilliant Cover" is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards for spare wheel covers. However, there are certain responsibilities that apply to Autotech, which are briefly described in the enclosed information sheet. For example, Autotech, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is responsible for ensuring that its products are free of safety-related defects. This responsibility is set forth in sections 30118-30120 of our statute (at Title 49 of the United States Code). In the event Autotech or NHTSA determines that the wheel cover contains a safety-related defect, Autotech would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the wheel cover is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

Other legal requirements may apply depending on how "The Original Brilliant Cover" is sold. If the wheel cover were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the spare wheel cover, meets all safety standards. In addition, if the spare wheel cover were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business on a new or used vehicle, 30122(b) of our statute prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition subjects the violator to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install Autotech's spare wheel cover on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to somehow result in the vehicle no longer meeting a safety standard. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so Autotech may wish to consult State regulations to see whether its product would be permitted.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your constituent's questions. If there is anything else I can do, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.3/13/98

ID: 1737y

Ms. Juanita P. Davison
1516 E. Hernandez Street
Pensacola, FL 32503

Dear Ms. Davison:

Thank you for your letter describing your impressions of the automatic safety belts on your 1987 Toyota. I apologize for the delay in this reply. You said that this motorized automatic belt system "takes away the roominess of the front," because it is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or package and that it is cumbersome to get out of the belt system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Before I respond to your specific concerns, I would like to give you some background information on our requirement for automatic occupant protection systems in new cars. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts showed their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The decision required further that automatic protection be phased in during the three years preceding that model year. Each manufacturer was required to equip 10 percent of its model year 1987 cars with automatic restraints. That percentage rose to 25 percent for model year 1988, and 40 percent for model year 1989. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

You had three specific concerns with your automatic belt system. First, you asked if the motorized automatic belt system in your car was installed to meet some safety regulation. The answer is yes. As explained above, our Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic occupant crash protection. Please note that this requirement permits manufacturers to install any automatic occupant protection technology that meets the occupant protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208. Thus, manufacturers may choose to install motorized, or nonmotorized, automatic safety belts, air bags, other technologies such as "passive interiors," or any combination of these technologies.

Your second question was whether you can legally disengage the motorized mechanism on the automatic belts in your car. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic belts in your car are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Disengaging the motorized mechanism would render the automatic belts inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Toyota, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you, yourself, from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You may wish to contact the State of Florida to learn if they have exercised their authority to prohibit the disabling of automatic belts. Even if neither Federal nor State law prohibits you from disabling your automatic belt, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to improperly disengage the motorized mechanism, you would put yourself, other occupants of your car and subsequent owners and users of the car at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Third and finally, you said that you have been told it is not safe to wear your automatic belts without also fastening the manual lap belt, because of the possibility of choking. The manual lap belt was voluntarily provided by the manufacturer of your car to provide an even higher level of crash protection for those occupants who choose to use the lap belt. However, the manufacturer of your car has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208. Hence, the suggestion that the automatic belt by itself is somehow unsafe is simply not true.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important question and appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/22/89

ID: 17380.ztv

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Mr. Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of February 23, 1998, asking several questions about reflex reflectors.

As we understand your first question, a vehicle would be designed with two rear side reflex reflectors, one on the body and one on the tailgate. You ask whether it is permissible to mount two reflectors on each side, and whether each reflector is required to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We assume that both reflectors would be red in color. Table IV of Standard No. 108 specifies that a red reflex side reflector be located "as far to the rear as practicable." Thus, the reflex reflector mounted on the tailgate would be the reflector located "as far to the rear as practicable," and the reflector that is required to comply with Standard No. 108. It is permissible to add a second reflector. This would be the reflector located on the body. Supplementary reflectors need not comply with Standard No. 108.

Your second question is whether Standard No. 108 permits mounting reflex reflectors only on the tailgate. Yes, that is acceptable as long as the reflector is located in accordance with Table II.

Your third question relates to a two-compartment lamp containing stop and turn signal bulbs. In the event that either bulb fails, you ask whether there is "any regulation which must be passed."

The only requirement that must be met under Standard No. 108 is that failure of the turn signal bulb be brought to the attention of the vehicle operator by the turn signal pilot indicator, an item of motor vehicle equipment required on new vehicles by the standard.

Under the fact situation in your final question, the stop lamp is optically combined with the turn signal lamp. You have asked which lamp will have priority if the stop lamp and hazard warning signal lamp are activated simultaneously or in succession. The SAE standards for stop lamps and turn signal lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, state that "when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing." Because hazard warning signal lamps operate through the turn signal lamp system, many vehicles are wired so that the stop signal cannot be turned on if all the turn signal lamps (i.e., the hazard warning lamp system) are flashing. However, Standard No. 108 and the SAE have no requirements per se for the hazard warning system. This means that a vehicle may be wired with a separate hazard warning system circuit so that it is subordinate to, and overriden by, the stop signal when both are operated simultaneously.

But the stop lamp must not override the individual turn signals when they are operating simultaneously, or if the brake pedal is applied when the individual turn signals are flashing.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: 17382.ztv

Tadashi Suzuki, Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153,
Japan

Re: Motorcycle Headlamp Arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1998, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of the motorcycle headlamp requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Stanley is considering developing a two-lamp motorcycle headlamp system, each of which contains an upper beam and a lower beam light source. The upper beam would be provided by the upper light source or by both light sources. The lower beam would be provided by the lower light source. The upper light source is outboard of the lower light source. You believe that this would be an acceptable arrangement because we have previously said that two headlamps with HB2 bulbs were acceptable if mounted symmetrically about the vehicle's vertical centerline.

Stanley's arrangement is permitted by Standard No. 108. Since Stanley is currently developing this system, however, we would prefer that the lower beam be provided by the upper light source, although this is not a requirement of Standard No. 108. This rearrangement of light sources would make Stanley's new system consistent with the two lamp motorcycle headlamp system permitted by S7.9.1(b) which requires a motorcycle headlighting system using half of a passenger car headlighting system to mount the lower beam as high as practicable. This is also consistent with requirements for two-lamp headlamp systems on other motor vehicles in which the lower beam is to be provided by the most outboard light source (or by all light sources) and the upper beam by the most inboard one(see S7.4(b). The reason for these specifications is that the lower beam will provide greater seeing distance at a higher and more outboard mounting location.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98

ID: 17384.drn

Steve Cox, President
Cox Chevrolet
2900 Cortez Road West
Bradenton, FL 34207-1191

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter regarding the use of 15-passenger vans by a dance studio to pick up school children from school "five days a week" to transport to the studio. You ask whether the vans are "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new 15-passenger van leased for such a purpose is a school bus. When your dealership leases new buses to the dance studio for this purpose, the dealership must lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that your dealership leases three 15-passenger vans to Ms. Ellen Meade, who owns Ellen Meade Studios, a "Professional School for the Performing Arts."⁽¹⁾ You also provided copies of the three passenger van lease agreements, with each lease agreement describing the vehicle as "new."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new van is sold or leased to transport students (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis), the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans cannot be certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

In your situation, Ms. Meade writes that she is using the vans to "retriev[e] children from the area schools for our after school program." It is therefore clear Ms. Meade's studio is using the vans to pick the students up "from school."

Whether the buses are "used significantly" to transport the students is an issue that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. In your case, we note Ms. Meade's letter states that the vehicles are used "five days a week" in picking up students from schools. In our view, such regular use of the vehicle to pick up students "from school" (even if the same students are not transported each of the five days), would constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, when leasing new buses to Ellen Meade Studios for the purpose of picking up students from school, you must lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."

As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event," and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin in view of your letter. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they are hereby superceded.

We note that you have included a letter from Ms. Meade to you in which she seeks advice about "what to do." Requirements for the use of a motor vehicle are determined by State law, so Florida's requirements should be consulted to determine how students must be transported to and from school or school-related activities. In addition, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the 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, you and Ms. Meade may wish to consult with an attorney or insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Ellen Meade
Ellen Meade Studios
1323 63rd Avenue East
Bradenton, FL 34203
cc: Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director
Grace After School
10221 Ella Lee at Sam Houston Tollway
Houston, TX 77042

ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/1/98

1. It is unclear whether the dealership's representative arranging the leases knew that Ms. Meade owned a studio and that she intended to use the vans to transport her dance students from schools.

ID: 17385.wkm

Mr. William Daws
B & W Farm Center
7581 East Monroe Road (M-46)
Breckenridge, MI 48615

Dear Mr. Daws:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff asking whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), would apply to your truck glider kits. The answer is yes.

The agency's regulation with regard to the combination of new and used components is found at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)(as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

By its terms, therefore, paragraph 571.7(e) applies to specific situations in which a new cab or body is combined with used chassis components. Stated another way, the resulting vehicle will constitute a new vehicle unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)are used and any two of those component came from the same vehicle. If, on the other hand, either the engine, transmission, and/or drive axle(s) are new or no two of them are from the same vehicle, then the vehicle is new. If the vehicle is considered new, it must be certified to meet all applicable safety standards (including ones requiring ABS) in effect as of the date of its manufacture (not the date the vehicle was ordered or delivered). See 49 CFR Part 567.

You also asked whether a truck is required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards even if approximately 80 percent of its use will be off-road, in this case, farm use. The answer is yes.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.)(hereinafter Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle.

Nothing in your letter suggests that your trucks should be treated any differently from any other trucks, which are clearly motor vehicles. We note that a particular customer's planned use would not ordinarily affect whether a vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. Moreover, even if your particular customers' planned use were relevant, 20 percent would represent a substantial amount of time on-road.

I am also enclosing for your information fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:121#567#568#571
d.12/4/98

ID: 1738y

Conrad S. Brooks, Engineering Manager
Fisher Engineering
12 Water Street
P.O. Box 529
Rockland, ME 04841

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your December 1, 1988, letter concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below.

Question One: "Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle safety standard."

Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR /571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety standards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial businesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Question Two: "Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?"

Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term "vehicle payload." We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its "payload." If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth in 49 CFR /571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, "unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as:

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added).

In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D.J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the "unloaded vehicle weight."

If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation.

Question Three: "Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?"

Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR /571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces." The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings.

NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any determination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised.

Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle.

Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of "gross axle weight rating" and "gross vehicle weight rating," specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference what proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle.

We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehicle can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle complied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in "rendering inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modification were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the modifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish some limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the modifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses.

When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engineering analyses.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /ref:571#105#120 d:3/20/89

ID: 1739y

Mr. Keith A. McDowell
Vice President - Engineering
Transportation Products Group
American Seating Company
901 Broadway, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

Dear Mr. McDowell:

This responds to your recent letter asking this agency to "provide guidelines for the design and installation of seat belt assemblies on large buses (over 10,000 pounds GVW)." You explained that you were interested in this information for passenger seats of large buses used in transit service, not as school buses. I am happy to be able to explain our requirements to you.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. That section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210) also includes requirements applicable to the anchorages for any belt assemblies installed at the driver's seating position on large buses. Specifically, section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly are required by S4.1.1." As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 210 exempts passenger seats in large buses from its requirements.

Finally, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209) sets forth requirements applicable to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, including large buses. Thus, any seat belt assembly installed at the driver's position in a large bus would have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, as would any seat belt assembly voluntarily provided by a manufacturer for passenger seating positions in a large bus.

In short, our standards do not require seat belt assemblies to be installed in passenger seats of large buses, but any seat belt assemblies that are installed at those positions would have to comply with Standard No. 209. Your letter indicated that you were generally aware of the fact that seat belt assemblies were not required to be installed at passenger seating positions of large buses. Nevertheless, you asked us to provide you with "guidelines" for such installations, in response to the continuing demand for such installations by your company's customers. As a policy matter, NHTSA does not provide the sort of guidelines you have requested.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) sets forth certain specific requirements that must be satisfied by each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards established by this agency. Among these requirements are that each safety standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms (section 103(a) of the Safety Act) and each standard shall be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicle for which it is prescribed (section 103(f)(3) of the Safety Act). NHTSA has determined that the current requirements of Standards No. 208 and 210, which do not apply to passenger seats in large buses, meet all of the statutory criteria.

The issuance of "guidelines" specifying measures beyond those required by our standards could readily be misinterpreted as an agency decision that these additional measures are necessary to satisfy the criteria of the Safety Act, or indirectly force manufacturers to comply with the "guidelines," in addition to the standards issued under the Safety Act. Either or both of these results would be inappropriate for passenger seats on large buses, because the information currently available to NHTSA indicates that no additional requirements are necessary in this area.

Indeed, if the agency were to learn of additional information suggesting the current requirements no longer meet all the statutory criteria, and that requirements for the installation of seat belt assemblies at passenger seats of large school buses would meet all the statutory criteria, we would have an obligation to consider changing the applicable standards. Any such change would be required to be made through the ordinary, notice-and-comment rulemaking process, rather than through issuance of supplemental guidelines.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208#209#210 d:3/22/89

ID: 1740y

Mr. Keith E. Madden
Research Associate
College of Engineering
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering
125B Chemistry Building
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Dear Mr. Madden:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, l989, with respect to importation of ethanol-fueled trucks from Brazil. You have requested assurance that "there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation."

I am happy to provide the assurance you seek. Your letter indicates that you are well versed in our importation procedures, and that you have discussed this matter with Messrs. VanOrden and Vinson of this agency. The University of Iowa is permitted to import trucks that do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for purposes of test and experimentation, pursuant to Title l9, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(i)(vii). When the trucks reach the United States, the importer of record makes the appropriate declaration (in this instance, Box 7 of the HS-7 Form). If vehicles imported for testing and experimenting will be used on the public roads, the importer must attach a sheet to the Form stating the purpose for which the vehicles are imported, the estimated amount of time that the vehicles will be used on the public road, and whether after testing they will be exported, abandoned to the United States, or brought into compliance. Permission for the noncomplying vehicles to remain in the United States for the purposes of testing and experimenting is renewable annually for a maximum total of three years. Thus, for example, at the end of the first year, if the importer requires more time for on-road testing, it must write this Department of that need. Generally, permission is granted for an additional year. If a third year is needed for on-road testing, the importer must again request permission of this agency.

We see no legal or administrative impediments to this importation. Further, under these circumstances, the Brazilian manufacturer of these trucks has no responsibilities to the Department of Transportation under any of its laws or regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:MIS d:3/24/89

ID: 17433.drn

L. W. Camp, Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This responds to your February 27, 1998, request for an interpretation of requirements specified in Standard No. 221, School bus body joint strength. In that letter, you ask that we reconsider our November 28, 1997, interpretation letter to Ford of which joints "fall within the definitions of 'body panel joint' and 'bus body' as defined in Paragraph S4." You also ask for further guidance on how to "objectively test curved, compound, and reinforced body joints in accordance with paragraph S6."

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) has not yet issued a rulemaking document making a final decision about the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11142) on Standard No. 221. As previously stated in our November 1997 letter, until and unless Standard No. 221 is amended, the applicable requirements are those that are currently in Standard No. 221. Our earlier letter to you reiterated a longstanding agency position about which joints are subject to the standard.

As for testing curved and compound body joints, we have reconsidered the views in our earlier letter to you about testing these joints. There are two relevant provisions in Standard No. 221, S6.1.1 and S6.1.2. S6.1.1 specifies that if a body panel joint is 8 inches or longer:

cut a test specimen that consists of any randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint, together with a portion of the bus body whose dimensions, to the extent permitted by the size of the joined parts, are those specified Figure 1, so that the specimen's centerline is perpendicular to the joint at the midpoint of the joint segment.

S6.1.2 provides: "If a joint is less than 8 inches long, cut a test specimen with enough of the adjacent material to permit it to be held in the tension testing machine specified in S6.3."

Our current view on testing curved and complex joints is that if NHTSA cannot cut a test specimen as described in S6.1.1 or in S6.1.2 (with adjacent material), the tension testing machine can not be used to test the joint. In these circumstances, if the test device specified in Standard No. 221 cannot be used to test the joint, NHTSA will not test that joint. Again, bear in mind that this and other issues relating to the performance and testing of curved and complex joints will be addressed in the pending rulemaking document on Standard No. 221.

I am very sorry for the delay in responding to your concerns. If you have any further questions at this time, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/17/98
ref:221