ID: nht95-5.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Sinkez -- Vice-President, Mitsubishi Motors of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sinkez:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of our Vehicle Identification Number regulation, which you made in a July 5, 1995, meeting with Dorothy Nakama and Steve Wood of this office. You asked, after Diamond Star Motors Corporation's (DSM's) name is changed to Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (MMMA), whether that company may continue to use the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to DSM. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

We understand the facts as follows. When DSM was formed, shares of DSM stock were split between Mitsubishi Corporation and Chrysler Corporation. In 1994, Mitsubishi purchased all of Chrysler's shares in DSM. Mitsubishi now owns 100% of DSM stock. Effective July 1, 1995, Mitsubishi changed DSM's name to MMMA. We have been informed that no changes other than transfers of shares in DSM stock and the name change were made in MMMA's corporate form.

By way of background information, 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements is intended to simplify VIN information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle defect recall campaigns. Section 565.4(a) provides that a portion of the VIN, called the WMI, must "uniquely identify the manufacturer."

The basic issue raised by your question is, if MMMA continues to use the WMI assigned to DSM, whether the WMI will "uniquely identify the manufacturer." In the factual situation at issue, only the company's name is changed, and not the identity of the manufacturer, i.e., MMMA is the same corporation as DSM. Therefore, MMMA may continue to use the WMI assigned to DSM.

I hope this response is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terrence S. Lockman -- Investigator, Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Attorneys-at-Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM TERRENCE, S. LOCKMAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10855)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lockman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Model Year (MY) 1981 Versa Sweeper road sweeper is a "motor vehicle" and therefore subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that were in effect when the vehicle was manufactured. Further, you ask whether the Versa Sweeper had to comply with requirements for an occupant restraint system or for rollover protection. You explained that you are conducting an investigation, and that "At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway."

I note, before beginning, that your letter had asked for certain information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NHTSA separately answered your FOIA request by letter dated May 22, 1995, from Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law.

Yours is an unusual interpretation request. Typically, questions concerning whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle are raised around the time of manufacture of a vehicle or its importation into the country, and by a person knowledgeable about the intended use of the vehicle, such as the vehicle's manufacturer. In contrast, your question asks about another entity's vehicle 14 years after the vehicle's manufacture, which makes our response more difficult. We cannot say for certain what principles would have applied in 1981 concerning the Versa Sweeper, and our knowledge of the vehicle is limited to the information you provided. Thus, a conclusive answer is beyond our reach.

We can make the following observations, however. NHTSA applies several principles when making a determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act n1 defined a motor vehicle as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." We are not certain, based on the information you provided, that the Versa Sweeper was manufactured for use on public highways. The literature you sent indicates that the Versa Sweeper is intended for "road maintenance sweeping and highway preparation cleaning." It appears that the vehicle might be a construction vehicle. Moreover, you indicated that the vehicle was being used in a construction zone "at the time in question." Construction-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. With regard to the 1981 Versa Sweeper, its use of the highway is unclear.

n1 In 1994, the Safety Act was recodified, without substantial change, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. The motor vehicle" definition is set forth in section 30102(a).

Assuming the Versa Sweeper had regularly used the highway, NHTSA's longstanding position has been that vehicles of unusual configuration that are incapable of obtaining speeds greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) are not required to comply with the FMVSSs. It is unclear how this principle applies to a 1989 Versa Sweeper has "Indefinitely variable speeds from 0-30 miles per hour. . ." It is unclear whether this means each Versa Sweeper can attain a speed of 30 mph or whether some, but not all, can. A Versa Sweeper that had a maximum speed of less than 20 mph is excluded. One that went over 20 mph might not have been.

You ask about requirements for occupant restraints and rollover protection. The agency has stated that "street sweepers" -- that are motor vehicles -- are trucks. In 1981, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), required open-bodied light trucks to have a lap belt system. There was no rollover requirement.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bonnie Ward -- Eagle County School District RE 50J

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/2/95 LETTER FROM BONNIE WARD TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Ward:

This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following up on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and "over-the-road type coaches" (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmation that our safety standards for school buses "are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches."

That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to "buses," and those that apply to "school buses." Since a "school bus" is a type of "bus" under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "school buses" in addition to those that apply to "buses." A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our "bus" standards, but not our "school bus" standards.

We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when making school transportation decisions.

For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards.

If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1995

FROM: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Verification of Seat Belt Regulations for Step Vans Over 10,000 Pounds GVW-Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 207, 208, 209, and 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS K. O'CONNOR (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are requesting written verification on the type of seat belt needed for our step van vehicles in order to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210. At issue is whether a lap-only seat belt versus a shoulder harness seat belt is needed for compliance. In a phone conversation between members of our respective staffs, we were informed that a lap-type belt would comply. We were further informed that written verification of this could be obtained by writing to your office.

In our field work, we use step vans with a Gross Vehicle Weight over 10,000 pounds, equipped with two front seats, a passenger's seat and a driver's seat. The passenger's seat is mounted on a metal pedestal which allows the seat to tilt forward, making easier access to the rear. The driver's seat is stationary. If both the passenger and driver seats are certified by the manufacturer to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, and 210 when properly installed, and if a certified seat belt (FMVSS 209) is properly installed, the question arose as to whether a lap-only seat belt would comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210, or whether a shoulder harness type belt had to be used.

If there are any questions concerning our request for written verification on this matter, please contact Sally Yagol of my staff at (708) 222-4080, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., CST, Monday-Friday.

Thank you for consideration.

ID: nht95-5.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Chuck Chvala -- Wisconsin State Senator

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/24/95 LETTER FROM DOUG BURNETT TO DOROTHY NAKAMA

TEXT: Dear Senator Chvala:

This responds to a letter from U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's "school bus" definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation.

NHTSA defines a "school bus" as a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a "bus" as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3.

We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as "a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator)." Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a "school bus" for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes.

Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as "school buses" without regard to our school bus definition.

However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new "bus" (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified "school bus," regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses.

The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine "school bus" for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a "school bus" -- a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver) -- unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be "school buses" under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not "school buses" under Wisconsin law.

Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses.

We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 18, 1995

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Samuel Dubbin -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: Request for interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/29/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Tilman Spingler (A44; Std. 108)

TEXT: with todays optical and mechanical methods it will be possible to achieve both high- and lowbeam of a headlamp with only one single lightsource. Are there any reservations against on the basis of the requirements in FMVSS 108? If no, which photometric requirements are applicable? Such a headlamp will in any case meet the photometric requirements for lower beam in the lower beam mode and for upper beam in the upper beam mode. The position on the vehicle is the same as for a 2-headlamp-system (e.g. wi th HB1-, HB2-, HB5-bulbs).

ID: nht95-5.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JANE DAWSON TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future reference, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to satisfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a right side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sides at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/13/95 LETTER FROM GEORGE WALTON TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11044)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walton:

This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields.

The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-5.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

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

ID: nht95-5.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Phillips -- International Tire Marketers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/21/95 LETTER FROM TIM PHILLIPS TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10999)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes.

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) @ 574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size."

The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as @ 574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). The agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and retreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR @ 574.5(b)).

In summary, 49 CFR @ 574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN.

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