ID: nht90-4.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-90 from J.R. Mitzenberg to S.P. Wood (OCC 4371)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your company offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking. It is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and t he service brakes are activated. You have asked whether a noncompliance with S4.5.4 would result. This section (now renumbered S5.5.4) states that the stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. You point out that if the stop lamps are activated by the retarder, the stop lamps could be illuminated without the service brakes actually being applied during the initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time that air is actually emitted from the brake p edal and into the service brake system.

In our opinion there is no failure to comply by the system as you have described it. We view application of the brake pedal as evidencing an intent to slow or stop the vehicle. Thus, the operation of the stop lamp is a consequence of the application of the brake pedal.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing safety with the added benefits that the retarder provides in early activation of the stop lamp.

ID: nht90-4.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 104, Rules and Regulations, (5-30-90 Edition), pages 21868-21876 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from S. Nishibori to P.J. Rice (OCC 5027)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). You were uncertain whether your shift lock emergency override system, your emergency key release, and your transmission park lock system comply w ith S4.2 and S4.3, as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). On July 29, 1990, you submitted a petition for reconsideration which the agency is currently considering. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent remova l of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

As explained below, we have made the following interpretations concerning your systems based on our understanding of them from your petition for reconsideration, your July 25, 1990 letter, and your discussions with agency staff.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not app rove any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 pe r violation up to $800,000.

Shift Lock Emergency Override You explained that your shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key posit ion or the key being in the ignition switch. You expressed your opinion that the transmission remains "locked" "park" until it is "unlocked," either by turning the ignition key to the

"on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. This led you to conclude that your emergency shift override would be permissible under S4.2(b).

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing th e key. Given the presence of the emergency shift release override, we do not believe the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-lock ing system. Your alternative shift lock system in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever would also not appear to comply with S4.2 because the presence of a cover would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

Emergency Key Release You explained that your emergency key release system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. That system permits overriding the ignition key lock, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle. You explained that the emergency key release override is activated by removing a cover over the ignition switch and then using a screw driver to activate a hidden lever located inside the exposed ignition switch compart ment.

We do not concur with your suggested interpretation of S4.2. That requirement provides that "the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." The regulatory text does not r efer to alternative methods of key removal such as the procedure you describe. While you state that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures, we do not consider the simple override you describe to be similar to lock disassembly. Therefore, an emergency key release system in which the key could be removed in a position other than "park" would not comply with S4.2, regardless how the key could be removed. Nevertheless, such an eme rgency key release would be permissible if it were operable only while the "transmission or transmission shift lever were locked in the "park" position. You should be aware that we are evaluating such systems in our review of the petitions for reconside ration to the final rule.

Park Lock System You explained that your park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting out of "park". This is accomplished by permitting the transmission lever to be moved out of "park" on ly if the ignition key is in the "on" position and the brake pedal is depressed. You further explained that if the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position. You expre ssed your belief that your park lock system complies with S4.3, as amended.

I agree that your park lock system appears to comply with S4.3. That provision requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine or motor, typically the ignition key, shall not activate the key-locking system described in S4.2(b). Bas ed on our understanding of your key-locking system, it appears to comply with S4.3 because that provision refers to the key-locking system and not a transmission shift lock. As you correctly note, the purpose of S4.3 is to prevent the potentially danger ous situation in which the ignition key of a moving vehicle is turned to the "off" position causing the steering column to lock.

You asked that we continue to consider your petition for reconsideration, if, as we have done, we concluded that some of your suggested interpretations were incorrect. We will notify you of our response to that petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-4.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hiroshi Kato -- Vice President, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from H. Kato to P.J. Rice (OCC 5193); Also attached to drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 4, 1990, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 with respect to two of Mitsubishi's contemplated rear lighting plans.

In the first plan, the rear garnish panel located between the lamps that are mounted at the right and left extremities of the car would be dark but the word "Mitsubishi" in the center would be illuminated. In the second plan, the panel would be illumina ted as a supplemental taillamp, and the word would not. You ask if either plan would create an "impairment" of the required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S5.1.3.

Judging by the photograph of the Pontiac Fiero that you enclosed, which featured a design similar to your first plan, it does not appear that this plan would create an impairment.

We note that the backup lamp is located in the garnish panel, approximately 15 mm from the word "Mitsubishi", and this raises a question with respect to the second plan. When the taillamps are illuminated, so that there is a broad sweep of red light acr oss the rear of the car, we would be concerned that the backup lamps in the garnish panel might not be readily perceived when activated. We would also be concerned that the illuminated panel might detract from the effectiveness of the stop lamps when th ey are activated. To ensure that the lighted panel creates no impairment of either the stop lamps or the backup lamps, it might be advisable to design it with an intensity that is lower than that of the adjacent taillamps.

The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer in its certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not ques tion it.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild -- Esq., Shutler & Low

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from R.C. Fairchild to P.J. Rice (OCC 4968)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109, 110, 119, and 120 on tires and rim selection (49 CFR 571.109, 571.110, 571.119, and 571.120), asking about the applicability of certain provisions in the Tire and Rim Associa tion (TRA) Year Book, which those Federal safety standards incorporate by reference. As explained below, we agree that the adjustment factors in the TRA Year Book for inflation pressures and load ratings at different speeds are not applicable in determi ning compliance with Federal safety standards.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety st andards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not appro ve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Section S4.3 of Standard 109 requires a new pneumatic tire for passenger cars to be labeled with certain information including one size designation, the maximum inflation pressure, and the maximum load rating. S6.5 of Standard 119 has similar marking req uirements for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars. In particular, section 4.2.1(c) of Standard 109 and section 6.5(d) of Standard 119 require tires to be labeled with a maximum load rating not less than the lowest of any specified values in the manufacturer's submission or in a listed publication such as the TRA Yearbook, for tires of that size designation, type and each appropriate inflation pressure. For passenger car tires, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in tables in section one of the TRA Yearbook entitled, "'P' Type Tires Used on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons" and "'T' Type Spare Tires for Temporary use on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons." For tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, these inflation p ressures and load ratings are specified in the tables in section 2 of the TRA Yearbook.

Question One You first asked whether the Federal safety standards incorporate an independent vehicle speed adjustment factor in determining the "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load." Your question was based on provisions in the TRA Year Book which apply s uch a vehicle load adjustment factor for certain tires rated for a maximum speed above 130 mph. As you

are aware, S4.2 of Standard 110 provides that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating marked on the tire, and the vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in St andard 109's high speed performance test.

You are correct that an adjustment factor based on the vehicle's maximum speed capacity is not required to be used in determining compliance with Standard 110 and 120. As you noted, Standard 110's requirement, as specified in S4.2.2, takes into account an adjustment for high speed use by requiring that the normal vehicle load on a tire must not exceed the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test in S5.5 (i.e. 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating). Based on this provision an d Standard No. 110's use of the terms "vehicle maximum load" and "maximum loaded vehicle weight," we interpret S4.2 as applying to normal vehicle uses and not special high speed applications. In fact, incorporating a load adjustment factor based on spee ds of 130 to 168 mph, as the TRA provision does, would be contrary to motor vehicle safety if it encouraged vehicle operation at speeds far exceeding safe operating speeds. Therefore, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pres sures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

Question Two You also asked about a vehicle speed adjustment factor for the inflation pressure with passenger cars. As you explained, the TRA Year Book requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle (i .e., actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA)." TRA sets forth two speed categories: speeds up to 210 km/h (130 mph) and speeds above 210 km/h (130 mph).

As with the vehicle load adjustment factor which concerns normal vehicle applications, you are correct that an adjustment factor for inflation pressure based on the vehicle's maximum speed is not required to be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal sa fety standards.

Question Three You then asked about the applicability to the Federal standards of TRA's recommended adjustments for tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle. As with the adj ustment factors for passenger car tires, these adjustment factors are not relevant for compliance with Standard 119 or 120. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone withou t applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions,

please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Lawrence W. Rusk -- Project Engineer, Drum Brakes, Allied-Signal, Inc., Bendix Automotive Systems

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref: FMVSS105, Revision to Standard Effective September 1, 1991

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated November 7, 1990 from P.J. Rice to L.W. Rusk (A36; Std. 105)

TEXT:

This standard is being modified to no longer permit the "locking out" of drum brake automatic adjusters. In the past, release type automatic adjusters used on duo-servo rear drum brakes were made inoperative during the 105 test to prevent the tendency o f such mechanisms to overadjust during the test procedure. Overadjustment can cause poor cooling in the rear brakes, and eventually may lead to dragging rear brakes. An apply type auto adjuster is not subject to overadjustment during the 105, but most Bendix current production duo-servo drum brakes are fitted with the release type. Apply type adjusters have more piece parts than release type, and therefore do cost more in any brake they are used in.

Both current and revised standards allow for manual adjustment of the rear brakes after the initial burnish, and after each of three subsequent reburnishes. With inoperative adjusters, this is done to compensate for lining wear that occurs during the te st. Therefore, such manual adjustments were to expand the drum brake shoes to be closer to the drum. Since the revised standard still allows for adjustment at each burnish, with operative release type adjusters, manual adjustments could be made to back the shoes away from the drum and therefore counteract the release adjuster's tendency to overadjust.

In summary, it seems to us at Bendix Automotive Systems that duo-servo brakes with release type adjusters could be made to pass the revised 105 by making manual brake adjustments to offset overadjust tendencies. On September 26, 1990, I discussed this p roposal with Zach Fraser in the Enforcement Group. He suggested that I request a written interpretation from you on this proposal. Please consider this our formal request for an NHTSA position on the concept described herein.

If you or other representatives of NHTSA would like to discuss this issue further, I can be reached at (219) 237-2074. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht90-4.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Takahiro Maeda -- Assistant to the Vice President, Engineering Divison, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.; Signature by Michael Schmitt

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-90 to T. Maeda from P.J. Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The purpose of this correspondence is to obtain your interpretation of minimum "edge to edge" separation between the tail/stop lamp and turn signals pursuant to FMVSS 108 Table IV.

Tail/stop lamp design may feature a housing whereby the bulb reflector subassembly does not extend outward to the edge of the entire assembly. Can "edge to edge" be construed as the edge of the bulb reflector or is it necessarily the outer edge of the en tire tail/stop lamp assembly. Please refer to the attached illustration.

We thank you for your insight into this question.

Attached illustration. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-4.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. -- Vice President, Public Affairs, General Counsel and Secretary, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-2-90 from P.A. Hutchinson, Jr. to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry inquiring about the status of Volkswagen's exemption from certain provisions relating to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Administrator has asked me to respond. Your letter requeste d NHTSA's position on the status of Volkswagen's exemption from the provisions of section 503(b)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and indicated that Volkswagen considers the exemption moot and terminated. As explained below, NHTSA considers the exemption terminated as of the beginning of model year (MY) 1989.

In 1981 (46 FR 54453, November 2, 1981), NHTSA granted Volkswagen's petition seeking an exemption from the general statutory provision that a manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger automobiles and non-domestically manufactured passenger autom obiles be placed in separate fleets for purposes of determining compliance with CAFE standards. Such an exemption is authorized under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the statute. The statute prohibits a manufacturer so exempted from earning CAFE credits during the period of the exemption.

At Volkswagen's request, NHTSA granted the exemption for the indefinite future, reserving the agency's right to reconsider its action if it appeared that the exemption was no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act.

Your letter indicates that Volkswagen terminated the production of "domestically manufactured" vehicles (i.e., vehicles whose domestic content exceeds 75 percent) on June 30, 1987, and that Volkswagen's U.S. production was terminated entirely effective J uly 14, 1988. You believe the exemption (including its prohibition on the accumulation of CAFE credits) should have ended on June 30, 1987, but in no event later than July 14, 1988.

The primary legal issue raised by your letter is how exemptions can be terminated. Although the agency expects that exemptions will normally terminate only after affirmative agency action, automatic terminations are not precluded. However, we do not be lieve that an exemption terminates "automatically" merely because a manufacturer terminates its production of vehicles with more than 75 percent domestic content or halts all U.S. production. To conclude otherwise could create confusion and result in ex emptions being terminated in instances in which the exempted manufacturer wanted its exemption to continue. The possibility of such problems may be seen in a number of circumstances, e.g., if a manufacturer

temporarily halts U.S. production and then resumes it, or if it permits domestic content to fall below 75 percent temporarily and then raises it. We note that, in situations in which a manufacturer allows the percent domestic content to fall below 75 per cent and continues to produce vehicles in the U.S. with that level of domestic content, it is likely to be relatively easy for the manufacturer to raise the level back above 75 percent.

There are circumstances in Volkswagen's case, however, that lead us to conclude its exemption terminated at the time Volkswagen's U.S. production terminated in its entirety (July 14, 1988). We believe it was evident at that time that Volkswagen was not merely halting U.S. production, but doing so with an intention to permanently abandon such production. We note, for example, that Volkswagen actively sought purchasers for its U.S. production facility in advance of its termination of U.S. production. W hile a manufacturer could change its mind after permanently abandoning U.S. production, resumption of U.S. production would be relatively difficult. Further, subsequent events, up to and including Volkswagen's February 1990 letter, have confirmed the ap pearances in 1988 of permanent termination of production.

While it would have been preferable for those appearances to have been confirmed essentially contemporaneously, we conclude that Volkswagen terminated U.S. production with an intention to permanently abandon it, and that its exemption became moot at that time. Since Volkswagen could receive no benefit from the exemption, and clearly had no intention of resuming U.S. production, I conclude that the exemption should be considered terminated effective with the beginning of the first model year following t he company's cessation of U.S. production, i.e., MY 1989.

This decision is consistent with section 503(b)(3)(F) which provides that in any model year in which an exemption is effective, no credits may be earned. We interpret that section as requiring the bar to continue to the end of the model year in which th e exemption terminated. Hence, the prohibition against earned credits is deemed to have ended with the beginning of the 1989 model year. I note that during MY 1989, Volkswagen accrued a CAFE credit excess of $28,798,575 for its passenger cars, and $56, 310 for its light trucks.

I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter.

ID: nht90-4.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen R. Darling -- Presvac Systems (Burlington) Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Part 575, (11-27-89 Edition), pages 48745-48749 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 5-11-90 from S.R. Darling to NHTSA (OCC 4805); Also attached to letter dated 5-31-90 from S.P. Wood to S. Nishibo ri (Part 575.6)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about an amendment to 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, requiring vehicle manufacturers to include information in the owner's manual (or on a one-page document if there is no owner's manual) about the Nation al Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Auto Safety Hotline and its defect investigation and remedy and recall authority. (54 FR 48745, November 27, 1989; copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained that you are involved in three types of activities: the manufacture of liquid cargo vessel trailers; the fabrication of liquid cargo tanks; and the installation of these tanks onto existing or modified truck chassis. While you acknowledged your obligation to furnish the consumer information for the trailers you manufacture, you were uncertain about your responsibilities to furnish this information for the liquid cargo tanks you fabricate and install. You asked whether you are required to supply the specified consumer information in these instances. Your questions are responded to below.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i), as amended, provides that "At the time a motor vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the manufacturer shall provide to the purchasers a specified sta tement about this agency's activities related to motor vehicle defects. Among other things, the specified statement indicates that if an owner believes the vehicle has a defect which could cause a crash or an injury or death, the owner should inform NHT SA in addition to notifying the manufacturer. The manufacturer's name must be indicated in the statement.

In responding to your questions, I note that section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies to manufacturers of new motor vehicles. As a manufacturer of trailers, you are, of course, responsible for providing the specified consumer information to the first purchaser of such trailers (for purposes other than resale). On the other hand, in situations where you are not a vehicle manufacturer, e.g., where you may be installing tanks on used motor vehicles, the requirements would not apply.

Your letter also raises the issue of how section 575.6(a)(2)(i) applies in situations where there is more than one manufacturer of a motor vehicle, i.e., where vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages. While it is not clear from your letter, it i s possible that you may be a final stage manufacturer under 49 CFR Part 568. (The term "final stage manufacturer"

is defined in 49 CFR Part 568.3.)

As indicated above, section 575.6(a)(2)(i) specifies that, at the time a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, "the manufacturer" must provide specified consumer information to the purchaser. Since the regulation re quires information to be provided at the time of first consumer sale, we construe it to require the manufacturer of the completed vehicle, i.e., the final stage manufacturer, to meet this requirement. As a general rule, the final stage manufacturer is t he manufacturer that has the closest relationship to the dealer which sells the vehicle to the consumer. It is also the manufacturer that the consumer will typically contact first in the event of problems.

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

ID: nht90-4.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tonda Anderson

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter asking for an explanation of the legal requirements that would apply to a product you would like to market. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not p ublicly disclose the details of this product. We hereby grant this request. Your letter, which contains the details of this product will not be made available to the public. As Steve Kratzke of my staff explained to you in a telephone conversation on September 19, all of our interpretation letters are available to the public. Thus, this letter will be publicly available. However, I will not discuss any specific features of your product in this letter.

Your letter indicated that your proposed product would alter the alignment of the shoulder belt to increase comfort for the person wearing the shoulder belt. This agency has discussed the legal requirements that might apply to devices that realign the s houlder belt in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. You should also note that your proposed product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on such manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevan t laws and regulations.

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

ID: nht90-4.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Danny Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Utilimaster

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to Danny Pugh from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 208; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are updating our files on FMVSS 208 in relationship to van conversions under 10,000 pounds GVW.

Is a van conversion classified as a passenger car, truck or a multi passenger vehicle?

On what date did van conversions require seatbelts, what type, and at what location?

Did van conversions ever require Type II seatbelts? At what location in the van?

Your help with these questions will be appreciated.

(Attached is a brochure from Aviator Conversions listing van conversion specifications and options. (Text and graphics omitted.))