ID: 7468

Ms. R. Marie McFadden
Cable Car Concepts Inc.
P.O. Box 6500
Deltona, FL 32728

Dear Ms. McFadden:

This responds to your June 23, 1992 letter requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the "Mini Trolley," the "Road Train," and the "Trolley Tram." You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, 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. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Your literature indicates that the "Mini Trolley" has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a "bus" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The power unit of the "Road Train" has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991.

1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

As explained below, buses such as the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position; trucks such as the power unit of the "Road Train" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position; and trailers such as the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have safety belts.

2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram," and all "occupant seats" in the power unit of the "Road Train" must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material; therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard.

As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the "Mini Trolley" or the power unit of the "Trolley Tram." If the jump seat is in the power unit of the "Road Train," and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an "occupant seat" as defined in that standard.

Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an "occupant seat" as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." A "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as

any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207.

I hope you find this information 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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:207#208 d:8/20/92

ID: 7479

Mr. Richard Hamlin
401 Redding Road, #21
Lexington, KY 40517

Dear Mr. Hamlin:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1992 to Secretary Card, inquiring whether maintenance of school buses in safe operating condition is prescribed by Federal law or regulation. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it applies to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA does not have authority over the use and maintenance of school buses. However, the individual states do have such authority. For details on what requirements your state has in this area, you may wish to contact Mr. Mike Roscoe, Director of Pupil Transportation, Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, KY 40601. School buses used in interstate commerce may also be subject to standards issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on those standards, you may contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Suite 3404, this address.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:#571 Schoolbuses d:9/l4/92

ID: 7495a

Mr. Lyle Walheim, Lieutenant
Motor Carrier and Inspection Services
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
P.O. Box 7912
Madison, WI 53707-7912

Dear Mr. Walheim:

This responds to your letter seeking a clarification of whether Wisconsin's current requirements for the activation of stop signal arms on school buses would comply with the stop signal arm requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Your letter was prompted by my June 17, 1992 interpretation to Blue Bird Body Company. After evaluating the information provided in your letter, together with the information previously supplied by Blue Bird, we have reconsidered our assessment of the Wisconsin requirements. Subject to the qualifications discussed below, it is our reconsidered view that the Wisconsin requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 131 and that Blue Bird can continue to supply buses meeting Wisconsin's specifications, with the addition of the audible warning device described in Blue Bird's letter.

The distinguishing feature of Wisconsin's requirement is that it ties the operation of the stop arm to the opening of the service door, not to the operation of the red flashing lamps. In practice, the lamps on a Wisconsin bus equipped with a four-lamp system would operate like those on a bus equipped with an eight-lamp system, with the red lamps (instead of yellow lamps) flashing while the bus is coming to a stop. Since S5.1.4(b)(ii) of Standard No. 108 requires the yellow lamps on an eight-lamp system to turn off automatically and the red lamps to turn on automatically whenever the entrance door opens, and since the red lamps on the Wisconsin buses would operate whenever the entrance door is open, the Wisconsin buses would conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108. That standard does not prohibit the flashing of red lamps on a four-lamp system while the service door is closed.

For purposes of Standard No. 131, the question is whether there is any circumstance in which the stop arm may be deactivated while the red lamps are flashing. From the standpoint of practicality, we agree with you that the stop arm should not function before the bus has stopped and the driver has opened the service door. We further believe it is consistent with the purpose of the standard for the stop arm to be deactivated on a Wisconsin bus before the bus stops, even though the bus's red lamps may be flashing. To reconcile this view with the language of the standard, however, requires us to address the requirement of the standard that the arm must extend "at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated. . . ."

Standard No. 131 expressly contemplates a situation in which the stop arm would not automatically extend despite the operation of the red lamps. The final clause of S5.5 provides that "a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The question in Wisconsin's situation is whether the manual switch that activates the red signal lamps but not the stop arm would qualify as such a device. In our view, it does. Since the only time the red lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to operate is when the entrance door is open, and since the Wisconsin system would automatically extend the stop arm when the entrance door opens, we believe that the manual switch in the Wisconsin system can be fairly characterized as an override device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm until the red lamps are required to operate. For an override to be permitted, the device must comply with the other provisions set forth in S5.5, including the presence of a continuous or intermittent signal.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:131 d:9/14/92

ID: 7505

Captain Robert A. Dewey
Rochester Police Department
Research and Evaluation Section
Civic Center Plaza
Rochester, NY 14614

Dear Captain Dewey:

This responds to your letter of July 6, 1992, inquiring whether a device on your newly acquired police vehicles "which requires the operator to depress the brake pedal in order to remove the car from the park position with the shift lever" is required by Federal law or regulation, and whether you may deactivate the device.

You explained in your letter that the Rochester Police Department has recently acquired 46 new police vehicles, each equipped with a device that requires the brake pedal to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of the park position. You stated that you were told by a local Ford dealer that the device was required by a Federal safety standard. You indicated that you recognize the safety advantage of such a feature for the general public, but you see some negative safety implications for police vehicle operators. For example, you believe that an officer under fire could be delayed by this device in responding to the situation. You are also concerned that the presence of the device on some but not all of your vehicles may cause confusion among your officers who drive different cars every day.

Please be advised that the device in question is not required by Federal law or regulation. However, the vast majority of new passenger cars have this safety feature, which is intended to ensure that the driver's foot is on the brake pedal before the automatic transmission can be shifted from the "park" position. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent article concerning these devices which appeared in the Detroit News.

Since these devices are not required by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, there is no Federal requirement that prohibits you or a dealer from deactivating the device. If you decide to deactivate the device, however, we suggest that you consult with the manufacturer concerning how the device can be deactivated without otherwise affecting the vehicle.

I trust this will clarify the matter for you. If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:102 d:8/20/92

ID: 7514

Mr. Mark V. Schwartz
Account Executive
Entran Devices, Inc.
10 Washington Avenue
Fairfield, NJ 07004

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies. Specifically, you were interested in the provisions for the Hybrid III test dummy set forth in Subpart E of Part 572. You noted that 572.36(g) provides that the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers "shall have the dimensions and characteristics of Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent." You provided a sheet setting forth dimensional and electrical response information for an accelerometer model produced by your company, the Entran EGE-72C-750. You then asked if the Entran EGE-72C-750 was "equivalent" to the Endevco Model 7231c, within the meaning of 572.36(g). I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulation for you.

Part 572 sets forth specifications with which all test dummies must comply if those dummies are to be used in this agency's compliance testing. In NHTSA's compliance testing to date, we have used only the Endevco Model 7231c for the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers. This should not be misinterpreted as suggesting that this agency believes that only this particular make and model of accelerometer will perform acceptably in compliance testing. Instead, it means that the agency has found that the Endevco Model 7231c performs acceptably in the intended shock environment, in terms of frequency response characteristics, damping, linearity, transverse sensitivity, reliability, repeatability, durability, etc.

The dictionary defines "equivalent" as "equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc." As noted above, NHTSA has used only the Endevco Model 7231c for the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers in the compliance testing to date. Thus, the agency has not made any determination of which accelerometers are equivalent to the Endevco Model 7231c. Until such time as the agency makes a determination about equivalent accelerometers, the issue of equivalency of your EGE-72C-750 model and the specified accelerometer model is a matter to be worked out between your company and prospective users of your company's accelerometers. As long as you can satisfy prospective users about the equivalence of your company's accelerometers, NHTSA will not review the use of any particular accelerometers in certification testing, unless the test results indicate a problem or problems caused by those accelerometers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:572 d:29/92

ID: 7532

Mr. David H. Milligan
7287 S. 300 E.
Midvale, UT 84047

Dear Mr. Milligan:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Car Seat Support," an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints.

Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear-facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars.

Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The "standard seat assembly" used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward- slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck.

The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as "blocks of wood" and "rolled up towels" to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support.

NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213

applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket supporting devices.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your device contain a safety- related 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 '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of '108(a)(2)(A) 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 we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear-facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product.

In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear- facing restraint that needs a "support" to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:9/27/92

ID: 7535

Ms. Becky Plank
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
909 East Skagway Avenue
Tampa, FL 33604

Dear Ms. Plank:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that your association consists of dealers that modify vehicles for the disabled, and that one modification that they perform is lowering a floor on a full size van. You noted that wheelchair drivers sit higher than other drivers and that this modification is made to provide them a clear view through the windshield. According to your letter, a problem has arisen in making this modification in certain new Ford vans because their fuel tank is larger and mounted mid-ship. You stated, however, that upon realizing this situation, Ford designed an aftermarket fuel system that it believes complies with Standard No. 301. Noting that the OEM fuel fill line needs to be changed, along with the mounting brackets, as well as other fuel lines, you asked whether this lowered system must be crash tested due to the original system being changed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, 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.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Assuming they are done prior to the first consumer purchase, the operations your members anticipate conducting to lower a Ford van's floor would make these companies alterers, and the operations would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 301.

An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to a Standard like Standard No. 301 that specifies dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may also be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body builder's guide."

In the situation at hand, if one of your members made the modifications recommended by Ford (the original vehicle manufacturer), then that member could base its certification of continuing compliance on Ford's representations that the van, with the modified fuel system, would comply with the applicable standards. If one of your members made modifications that differ from those recommended by Ford, then that member would need to base its certification of continuing compliance on some other facts that lead it to conclude that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with the standard.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301 d:9/l5/92

ID: 7544

Mr. Bill Traylor
Waste Processing Equipment, Inc.
160 Dilbeck Road
P.O. Box 1047
Rainsville, AL 35986

Dear Mr. Traylor:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1992, concerning certification of the trucks you are constructing on WCA Series Volvo GMC Class 8 truck chassis. As I understand it, you are planning to install your own coach body on the standard chassis purchased from Volvo.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., "the Safety Act") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we "certify" individual manufacturers. 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. In addition, each manufacturer is required to notify NHTSA of the types of vehicles it is constructing.

Waste Processing Equipment, Inc. is considered a final-stage manufacturer under 49 CFR 568.3 because it "performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." In other words, when your company purchases a standard chassis from Volvo, i.e., an incomplete vehicle, it upgrades the chassis to a completed vehicle, i.e., one which requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function (other than adding readily attachable parts such as mirrors or minor operations such as painting).

As a final-stage manufacturer, under 49 CFR 568.6, Waste Processing Equipment must complete each vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all relevant federal standards, and then must affix a label to the vehicle according to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.5. Your precise certification responsibilities would be dependent on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer; or

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

I have enclosed sections 567 and 568 for your convenience.

This means that, if your company completes these vehicles in accordance with the specifications Volvo GMC furnishes with the chassis, your certification of the completed vehicle may be based entirely upon Volvo GMC's specifications. However, if the Volvo GMC chassis does not include specifications for all safety standards or if your company chooses to complete the vehicle outside of the specifications provided by Volvo GMC, your company would be responsible for the certification of the completed vehicle. Accordingly, you should review the Volvo GMC specifications to see if you can complete the vehicle in accordance with those specifications.

As a general matter, final-stage manufacturers are also responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and items not in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420), and are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. In addition, each manufacturer is responsible for furnishing to NHTSA information regarding vehicles they manufacture under 49 CFR Part 566, a copy of which is enclosed.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:9/4/92

ID: 7548

Ms Carrie Minna
1942 Port Albans
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Dear Ms Minna:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1992, with respect to your wish to import certain motor vehicles for use off main highways, in "small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities, and possible elderly communities." The vehicles appear to be of Asian origin, are three-wheeled and carry from three to eight passengers. The top speed of the vehicles is 80 kph.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (the "standards") are promulgated. The Act defines a motor vehicle as one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." You will see from this that the primary determinant of whether the vehicle you wish to import is a "motor vehicle" is the manufacturer's intent, rather than your intent as the purchaser. It is clear to us from the speed capability of the vehicle (not to mention that one of them carries a "taxi" sign) that these vehicles are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act and are therefore required to meet all applicable standards in order to be imported into the United States, notwithstanding your intent to use them in traffic off the public roads.

The standards that the vehicles are required to meet are those that apply to motorcycles, specifically to brake hoses, brakes, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, rearview mirrors, vehicle identification number, controls and displays, and glazing. If the motorcycles are originally manufactured to conform with the standards, and bear a certification to that effect affixed by their manufacturer, they may enter the United States as manufactured in compliance with the U.S. standards of this agency.

It is probable, however, that the vehicles have not been manufactured to conform with the standards. In order for a nonconforming vehicle to be imported, the Administrator of this agency must have determined that they are capable of being modified to comply with the standards. Such determinations are most frequently made on the petition of the manufacturer or an entity known as a "Registered Importer." A Registered Importer is one that has been recognized by the agency as capable of performing conformance work. Once the Administrator has determined that a vehicle is eligible for importation, it may be imported only by Registered Importers, or those who have contracted with a Registered Importer to perform the work necessary to bring the vehicle into compliance with the standards. No eligibility determinations have been made that cover the vehicles you wish to import.

If you are interested in pursuing this matter further, you may write Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr. Hellmuth can provide guidance on the motorcycle standards and other obligations, as well as a list of Registered Importers and information on the eligibility determination procedures.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:7/31/92

ID: 7556

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emissions & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
46401 Commerce Center Drive
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter asking about the side door strength test procedures of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, as they apply to a certain pickup truck design. You described three alternative methods of fixing the vehicle in position and asked whether they are consistent with the standard's test procedure.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

S4(a) of Standard No. 214 sets forth the following procedures for fixing a vehicle in position for the quasi-static side door strength test:

Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the rear wheel centerline. (Emphasis added.)

The side door strength test is then conducted by applying a loading device to the outer surface of the door, until the loading device travels 18 inches. See S4(d).

You asked about these procedures in connection with a certain pickup truck design, which can be described as follows. The cab of the truck is attached to the frame by means of flexible rubber mountings. The rear body is installed separately on the frame. The cab of the truck is over the front wheels, and the rear body is over the rear wheels.

You requested our comments on three alternative methods of testing the pickup truck at issue. The first would involve fixing the frame of the vehicle at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and real wheel centerlines. You stated, however, that the rear portion of the cab would not be rigidly fixed by this method, and that the application of the Standard No. 214 loading device would result in the stretching of the cab's rubber mountings and upward tilting of the cab as a whole.

Your second alternative would involve adding a third fixing of the vehicle, in addition to the front and rear fixings of Alternative 1. This additional fixing would be at the rear of the cab, on both sides. You indicated that this would permit the side door strength test to be conducted without tilting the vehicle, but that the relative cab to frame fixing would not be the same as on an actual vehicle.

Your third alternative would involve fixing the cab alone to a test fixture, at three locations. You stated that a problem with this method may be that the cab itself, and not the vehicle, is tested.

In considering how the Standard No. 214 quasi-static test should be conducted for a particular vehicle, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to measure the crush resistance of a side door. The agency is not measuring the extent to which a vehicle's suspension or other design features permit the vehicle to tilt when specified loads are applied. In order to measure the crush resistance of a door in a test, it is necessary that the vehicle be fixed rigidly in position. Otherwise, the application of a load to the side door could simply result in movement of the vehicle as a whole.

Standard No. 214's test procedure was developed initially for cars. As noted by your letter, the combination of tying the vehicle down at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and rear wheel centerlines and placing the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface is sufficient to rigidly fix a passenger car in position for test purposes. Your letter raises the issue of how the Standard No. 214 test should be conducted if the specified procedure does not result in a particular vehicle, such as one with a divided body, being rigidly fixed in position.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would take the following actions. First, the agency would examine whether the procedure set forth in S4(a) would result in the vehicle being rigidly fixed in position. This could involve considering various tiedown arrangements within the areas specified by S4(a). If the agency determined that the procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix a vehicle in position, e.g., the entire cab of a pickup truck would tilt upward during a test, it would then follow the specified procedure but also add an additional tiedown attachment as necessary to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. In making this additional attachment, the agency would take care to ensure that the attachment did not interfere with the side door strength test.

I can offer the following comments on the three alternative test methods you described. NHTSA would not follow the Alternative 1 test procedure since the vehicle would not be rigidly fixed in position under that procedure. The agency would also not follow the Alternative 3 test procedure since it does not include one of the tiedown arrangements specified by S4(a). The agency might follow an approach along the lines of Alternative 2, assuming that it determined that the S4(a) procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix the vehicle in position.

I hope you find this information 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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214 d:10/5/92