ID: 20935.ztv

Scott R. Elkin, D.O.
P.O. Box 4595
Austin, TX 78765

Dear Mr. Elkin:

This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1999, informing us that there is no audible indication when the turn signal system in your 1997 Saab is operating. Further, you report that the "light signals are often obscured by the steering wheel." You have asked us for a response.

Your Saab was required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," upon its manufacture and sale to you. Standard No. 108 requires a passenger car to be equipped with a turn signal system. The turn signal system in your car is required to meet the specifications of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965. These specifications have been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. SAE J590b requires a "visible pilot indicator" to be incorporated in the turn signal system. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, "Controls and Displays," requires the pilot indicator to be a pair of arrows that illuminate with a green color in the direction of the turn when the turn signal system is activated. Standard No. 101 requires that the indicator be visible to a vehicle operator when the driver is seated at the wheel and the driver's seat belt is fastened. We interpret this to require that the indicator be visible when the steering wheel is in the straight ahead position. There is no requirement that the indicator be visible under all operating conditions.

Standard No. 108, through SAE J590b, also permits, but does not require, an audible signal indicator when the turn signals are operating. For many vehicles, replacement turn signal flashers are available that are intended to be audible. You may wish to check your local auto parts retail stores to see if one is available for your car.

In summary, although the turn signal operating indicators in your car may not satisfy you, your vehicle appears to comply in this respect with Federal requirements.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/30/00

ID: 20937.ztv

[       ]

Dear:

This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1999, asking whether a lighting device you describe would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You requested that we keep your letter and our reply "in strict confidence." As Taylor Vinson of this Office informed you on December 2, 1999, our interpretations are publicly available and must contain sufficient information for the general public to understand the question being asked and our response to it. We can ensure that publicly available copies of interpretation letters do not identify the writer or the company involved, and you agreed that we could provide you an interpretation on this basis.

You report that "tractor/trailer combinations today have areas around the vehicle where the driver cannot see other vehicles that are passing them. These blind spots in the mirror systems can cause accidents." You are interested in a lighting device that " would be mounted high on the side of a trailer and would shine a light beam (laser or other type of lighting device) down and across the adjacent traffic lane." The light "would shine on the hood of a passing vehicle" thereby providing the driver with a warning that they are in the tractor trailer's blind spot." The color of the light would be yellow, blue, or red.

Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting devices are permitted as original equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. Although this device would not appear to impair the effectiveness of standard lighting equipment, we are concerned that it might impair driver performance. Our principal reservation about new lighting concepts such as this is that they are unfamiliar to drivers and will cause confusion, diverting attention from critical driving tasks. In this case, a driver finding a red, amber, or blue light suddenly shining on the vehicle hood may instinctively turn to see where it is originating, or brake when there is no need to do so. When a vehicle is traveling faster than a trailer on which the device is mounted, the light beam could proceed from the hood into the passenger compartment, at least on open cars, possibly temporarily blinding the driver. Thus, the device you describe could create actual hazards.

You must remember, too, that a state may apply its own laws to auxiliary lighting devices and require specific approval to use them. Virtually all states reserve the color blue for emergency signals. Standard No. 108 does not permit side marker lamps and reflectors to be red except when they are mounted as far to the rear as practicable, and we apply this requirement to auxiliary side lighting devices as well.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/19/00

ID: 20944.drn

Monsieur Jean-Yves Le Bouthillier
Standards Manager
Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil Inc.
304, 12^th Avenue
Laurentides, Quebec J JOR 1C0
CANADA

Dear Monsieur Le Bouthillier:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether, in describing tests for school bus emergency exit doors, Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies use of a parallelepiped 45 inches high, 22 inches wide and 6 inches deep for school buses that are 10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and for school buses that are 12,000 pounds GVWR. As explained below, a parallelepiped of that size is specified for testing the first type of school buses and not the second type.

Standard No. 217 specifies at S5.4.2.2, School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, that a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less "shall conform to all provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be 45 inches high, 22 inches wide, and six inches deep." Thus, a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must have a rear emergency door or doors permitting unobstructed passage of a parallelepiped that is 45 inches by 22 inches by 6 inches.

Since it is "more than 10,000 pounds," a school bus with a GVWR of 12,000 pounds would be subject to S5.4.2.1 School buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds:

(a) ... each emergency exit door of a school bus shall ... be manually extendable by a single person to a position that permits:

(1) In the case of a rear emergency exit door, an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 114 centimeters high, 61 centimeters wide, and 30 centimeters deep.

In English measurements, the parallelepiped specified in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) is approximately 45 inches high by 24 inches wide by 12 inches deep. Thus, the parallelepiped specified for use in testing school buses of 12,000 pounds GVWR is wider and deeper than that specified for use in testing school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.3/15/2000

ID: 20949.ztv

Mr. William T. Smith
110 Spear Street
Metuchen, NJ 08840-2126

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your letter of November 3, 1999, to the agency on daytime running lamps (DRLs). It was your impression that all 2000 model year passenger cars were required to have DRLs, and you ask if you may have them installed on your new Mercury without voiding the vehicle's warranty.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, requires motor vehicles to be manufactured in compliance with its specifications. Under Standard No. 108, DRLs are not a required lighting system, but the standard permits manufacturers to install a DRL system if they wish. If the manufacturer exercises this option, the DRL system must comply with the requirements specified in Standard No. 108.

Ford Motor Company, the manufacturer of your new car, chose not to equip it with a DRL system. This agency does not regulate or review vehicle warranties. It is possible that certain aspects of your vehicle warranty could be voided by altering the vehicle wiring were you to have a DRL system installed by a person not authorized by Ford. We recommend that you contact Ford's Zone Office for its opinion.

Your local mechanic is allowed to install a DRL system on your car under Federal law, provided that the mechanic does not make inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with one of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We interpret this to mean that an aftermarket DRL system is permissible as long as it does not interfere with the performance of other lighting equipment and conforms to the specifications of Standard No. 108 for an original equipment DRL system. Our greatest concern is that an aftermarket DRL system not exceed the maximum luminous intensity limits. For example, a lower beam headlamp may be wired to operate as a DRL at full voltage, but an upper beam headlamp may not.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/27/00

ID: 20962.ztv

Mr. John Harland
Harland Rover Restorations
6-8 Mary St.
Stockton-on-Tees
Cleveland TS18 4AN
England

Dear Mr. Harland:

We are replying to your e-mail of October 18, 1999, with questions relating to Federal regulation of "kit cars." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You would like to import new chasses into the United States. You would also like to import bodies used previously on Land Rover 90/110 vehicles. As described in your letter, the glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, and seat belt assemblies in these bodies will meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to these components (you didn't mention lamps and reflectors; these, too, must meet Federal requirements). The tires will be purchased in the United States. The customer will purchase the engines and transmissions "from another independent source." You have asked five questions with respect to this business plan.

"1) What is the procedure for VIN determination? i.e. how will the vehicle be titled? assuming that it would be registered in any of the 50 states."

As we have advised in a long-standing series of interpretations, the mounting of a used body to a new chassis constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle which must meet all FMVSS that apply as of the date of its assembly. The vehicle would also be titled with the year of its assembly. An entity that assembles a vehicle in this manner would be a "manufacturer" under our laws, and required to ensure compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal requirements including the VIN (49 CFR Part 565), and to certify compliance of the vehicle (49 CFR Part 567). For example, if you were to assemble this vehicle today, it would have to meet all currently applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as those that prescribe criteria that must be met in frontal and side impacts.

"2) What is the licensing requirement that is necessary for a kit-car manufacturer on the federal level?"

In terms of your own operation, we would regard you as an importer of motor vehicle equipment for resale, and therefore a "manufacturer" of this equipment, subject to obligations such as notification and remedy in the event the equipment is discovered to incorporate a safety- related defect or be in noncompliance. Because certain of these equipment items are directly covered by a FMVSS, you would be required to submit a simple identification statement meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. There is no Federal "licensing" requirement.

Any manufacturer assembling one or more vehicles is also required to file a Part 566 statement. There are no Federal "licensing" requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

"3) What is the requirement for the driveline installation? Must it be done by the purchaser himself? Do I have any responsibility to assure EPA conformity? Must I monitor the driveline installation and can I make any recommendation to the purchaser as to what type of driveline will be put into it (keep in mind that the buyer will want a certain type of engine and I must furnish the kit with appropriate wiring to accept that engine? Are there separate requirements for diesel engines?"

There are no "requirements" for driveline installation, but keep in mind that the entity completing the assembly of a motor vehicle is required to ensure compliance with all FMVSS, and meet certification and notification and remedy responsibilities. We cannot comment on kit car manufacturing responsibilities under EPA's regulations, and encourage you to contact that agency directly. While you may recommend drivetrains to the buyer without becoming the manufacturer of the vehicle, if you are involved in assembling the final product, you would be considered a manufacturer. The more you are involved in final operations, such as "monitoring" the installation of the drive train, the greater the possibility that you will be considered the de facto manufacturer of the vehicle with the actual assembler as your agent.

"4) What type of conformity assurance must I give to the federal government for the conformity of the vehicle parts?"

Your assurance is your statement on the HS-7 importation form that the equipment being imported conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

"5) I will be a limited production manufacturer, what is the maximum number of vehicle kits I can produce before other requirements kick in?"

Under Federal law and your business plan, you would be a "manufacturer" of all motor vehicle equipment that you import for resale. Your responsibility is to ensure that those equipment items covered by a FMVSS conform, and are certified to conform, with any applicable FMVSS. These requirements apply regardless of the number of items imported. We do not define "vehicle kits" or have requirements for them, other than requirements for the individual components as discussed in this letter.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00

ID: 20980.drn

Mr. Martin Cosgrove, Jr.
Coordinator for School Transportation
St. Landry Parish School Board
1013 East Creswell Lane
P.O. Box 310
Opelousas, LA 70571-0310

RE: 1990 Blue Bird
TC 2000 Bus
VIN 1BAAGCSA4LF037779
Body Number F093742

Dear Mr. Cosgrove:

This responds to your letter asking whether your school board may permit a contractor to use the above-described bus to transport students to and from local schools. As explained below, the question you ask is a matter that is answered by State law. Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how Louisiana children must be transported.

With your letter, you provided a photograph of the vehicle's certification label, showing that the vehicle manufacturer, Blue Bird Body Company, has classified the vehicle as a "bus." You also enclose a copy of an October 21, 1999 letter from Mr. Jack Kemp, Technical Coordinator of Blue Bird, stating "Unit F093742 was certified to the original owner as a non-school bus." This information indicates that the vehicle in question is a bus, and was not certified as a school bus.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you said that the contractor,

Mr. Joseph Guidry, bought the bus in question as a used vehicle in 1997. The vehicle was certified by its manufacturer in 1990 as conforming to safety standards applicable to a bus, not a school bus. Under Federal law, a dealer would have been prohibited from selling this vehicle, when new, for transporting students. However, because our regulations only apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the used bus was not required to be certified to our school bus safety standards when it was sold to Mr. Guidry.

Because our school bus regulations apply only to manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit schools from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

Correspondence enclosed with your letter identified two buses, a non-school bus and a school bus, Blue Bird Body Nos. FO93742 and FO93980, respectively. Our records indicate and a Blue Bird representative confirmed that the school bus is covered by the two safety recalls described below. Blue Bird records indicate that neither recall has been performed on this school bus. We urge you to have the remedies performed as soon as possible. There will be no charge to either the school district or the contractor.

1. NHTSA recall campaign No. 95V-090 is for a safety-related defect. Clothing can become caught in the hand railing while exiting, which could result in a child being dragged by the bus.
2. NHTSA recall campaign No. 97V-197 is for a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 301, "Fuel System Integrity." The vehicle's fuel tank may leak if the bus is struck in a crash.

The Blue Bird representative stated that the non-school bus was ordered and manufactured by Blue Bird with many items of school bus equipment, including body structure, seating, occupant restraining barriers, hand rails, and a protective cage surrounding the fuel tank. Consequently, this vehicle is likely to have the same problems as described above. He suggested that the owner of both vehicles (presumably Mr. Guidry) contact Mr. Bill Coleman, Blue Bird's Recall Administrator on (912) 822-2242 to make arrangements for the recall remedies to be performed and to discuss what should be done with respect to the non-school bus.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/10/2000

ID: 21012.ztv

Brandon Billingsley, Vice President Marketing
CRS Electronics
Heavy Duty Bus Parts
17850 I-45
Willis, TX 77318

Dear Mr. Billingsley:

We are replying to your letter of November 19, 1999, with respect to your "new overhead LED warning light system for school buses." You ask whether your product will comply with Federal standards.

You call the new technology "strobing LEDs," and say that you are able to "build a warning light module that combines the 'attention grabbing,' authoritative effect of strobe lights and the long life expectancy of LEDs." You have tested "according to the protocols of SAE J887," and report that your product "does indeed exceed the requirements of SAE J887 for strobe lights."

We assume that you wish to offer your product as original equipment on school buses. The acceptability of your product is determined by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal (or four red and four amber) lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July 1964. Under this standard, school bus warning system lamps are required to flash alternately in a range of 60 to 120 flashes a minute. Unlike later versions of J887, an optional flash rate in Hz is not specified.

A few years ago we were asked whether a school bus warning system consisting of strobe lights met Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of our letter of March 29, 1994, to Harry C. Gough. The system we were asked about was described as flashing "on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the vehicle repeats the aforementioned pattern." We replied that we believed that the light emanating from a strobe lamp under these performance parameters "will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternatively flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108."

You did not specify the flash rate of your product, but you may use our 1994 interpretation as a guideline for determining whether the light would be perceived "as a single light of varying intensity," and hence compliant with Standard No. 108. If it would not be so perceived, then your lamps would appear to be noncompliant with the Standard's requirements.

The minimum photometric requirements of the 1964 specification are also the ones that apply to your product. I enclose a copy for your information.

If you have questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/29/2000

ID: 21015.ogm

Mr. Murray West
P.O. Box 7081
Terre Haute, IN 47802

Dear Mr. West:

This responds to your letter requesting information about modifying the seat back in your new Ford Escort. I apologize for the delay in our response. You indicate that the angle of the seatback is uncomfortable for you and that you wish to have the seat modified so that the seat back would be perpendicular to the seat cushion. Representatives of the dealer who sold the car to you have indicated that it would be illegal for them to modify the seat in the manner you request. You ask that you be provided with the statutes or regulations which make modifying the existing seat illegal.

We would like to explain that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to assure that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed), sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as your Ford Escort. FMVSS No. 207 does not contain any requirements that specify that the seat back must be within a certain range of angles to the seat back. The standard does, however, require that seats and seat backs meet certain strength requirements. Any modifications to the seat that would alter its original design could affect the seat's ability to meet these strength requirements. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, sets forth certain performance requirements for frontal crash protection. Modifying the seat back angle in the manner you describe in your letter may have an impact on the ability of the seat belt and air bag to protect the driver in a crash. We do not know if modifying the adjustment mechanism on your seat to make the back perpendicular to the seat cushion would affect the seat's compliance with FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 and how such a modified seat would perform in a crash.

You may wish to ask the manufacturer of your vehicle what effect modifying the seat back angle would have on its ability to meet FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 as well as the seat's performance in a crash. If the seat back angle can be changed in the way that you describe without affecting the safety performance of the vehicle and its compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the dealer would not be violating the "make inoperative" provisions described above by modifying the seat.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/12/00

ID: 210341.ogm

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager
Compliance and Technical Liason
Saab Cars USA, Inc.
4405-A International Blvd.
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed new vehicle would qualify as a light truck for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) purposes under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). As described in your letter, the vehicle, which is now in the design stage, would have one of two different configurations. Both configurations share certain common attributes: the vehicle would have five seating positions and two rows of seats with two bucket seats in the front row and a seating assembly providing three seating positions in the second row. After certain operations are performed involving the rear seats, either configuration could provide cargo carrying capacity in which the space occupied by the rear seats would be replaced by a load floor angled approximately two to three degrees from the horizontal. The two designs differ in the means by which the vehicle is converted from the passenger carrying to cargo carrying mode.

Your letter states that the first configuration involves a two-step conversion process. The first step consists of removing the rear seat cushions from the vehicle without the use of any special tools. The second step consists of unlocking the rear seat backs and folding them forward over the space formerly occupied by the rear seat cushions. When the rear seat back is folded forward in this fashion, a flat load bearing floor is created that extends rearward to the rear of the vehicle from the forwardmost mounting point of the removed seat cushions.

The second configuration described in your letter uses a sliding seat back to create the cargo area. As is the case with the first configuration, the lower rear seat cushions would be removed from the vehicle without the use of special tools. Instead of being folded forward, the rear seat back would then be unlocked and slid forward on tracks until it is located immediately behind the front seat backs. After the rear seat back is moved forward, sliding floor pieces attached to the rear seat back would be moved forward from a stowage area under the rear cargo floor or a parcel shelf piece would be manually placed over the open space created by the removal of the rear seat cushions.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed vehicle would not qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5(a)(5) provides:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other non-passenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Automobile Fuel Economy" divides automobiles into two categories, "passenger automobiles" and automobiles other than passenger automobiles. Section 32901(16) of Chapter 329 defines passenger automobile as an automobile that is manufactured primarily for transporting not more than 10 individuals, but does not include an automobile capable of off-highway operation. Accordingly, any automobile that is not, by statute or regulation, a passenger automobile, is a non-passenger automobile.

In order to provide vehicle definitions required for administration of the CAFE program, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in December of 1976 (41 FR 55368). The agency proposal sought to add a new part to volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 523, and contained a detailed analysis of what characteristics it was considering for use in establishing vehicle classifications. In order to properly define these vehicles, the agency examined both the text and the legislative history of the predecessor to Chapter 329, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA). NHTSA concluded that a proper reading of MVICSA and its history indicated that for the purposes of fuel economy passenger vehicles are vehicles that are intended primarily for the transportation of individuals. Vehicles not primarily intended for the transportation of individuals would properly be classified as "non-passenger automobiles." (41 FR 55369)

In examining the spectrum of vehicles then in use, NHTSA noted that certain classes of vehicles might serve both as passenger and non-passenger vehicles at the same time. One of these classes of mixed use vehicles included vans that might be used for transporting both passengers or cargo.

At the time, these vans were constructed on heavy duty truck-like chassis and possessed significant interior volume that gave them carrying capacities similar to, or greater than, contemporary pickup trucks. Noting that these vehicles often had seats that could be easily removed to provide such cargo carrying capacity, the agency observed that vehicles whose design permits easy conversion by removal of the seats to accommodate more than one primary function are not manufactured primarily to transport individuals (41 FR 55370).

The agency noted, however, that although station wagons built on passenger car chassis could be converted to another use by fold-down seats, this characteristic would not be sufficient to remove these vehicles from the passenger car category. Because the seats remain permanently installed, the additional cargo space that is made available when the seats are folded is significantly smaller than that made available when the seats are removed. Furthermore, NHTSA observed that station wagons were built on passenger car chassis rather than truck chassis and did not have load carrying abilities comparable to vans (41 FR 55370).

Your letter does not indicate whether the vehicle you are designing is built on a truck or a passenger car chassis. We note however, that under both configurations that you are currently considering, that only a portion of the rear seat is removed from the vehicle and that the rear seatback is either folded or slid forward to create the cargo area within the vehicle. In both instances a significant portion of the rear seat structure remains inside the vehicle, occupying space that otherwise might be used for cargo. Therefore, while a portion of the seat is removed to increase the vehicle's cargo carrying capacity, a portion of the rear seat structure remains permanently attached to the vehicle. The presence of this seat structure and the reduced cargo carrying capacity that results from the seat back remaining in the vehicle indicate that the vehicle should be classified as a passenger car rather than a non passenger light truck under Part 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed vehicle for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:523
d.3/21/00

ID: 2104y

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Deputy Director, Tire Division
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your September 28, 1989 letter requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ("UTQGS," 49 CFR /575.104). In that earlier interpretation, the agency was asked by E.H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." See //575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' traction grades under the UTQGS.

In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows:

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that "tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the background of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars sets forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: "If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure ... shall be followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number." This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pressure specified only in kPa.

By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect.

I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a "tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals," as that phrase is used in 49 CFR /575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: E. H. Galloway Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility P.O. Box 1671 San Angelo, TX 76902

ref:109#575 d:ll/l/89