ID: nht89-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/22/89

FROM: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO LTD

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER U.S. DOT, NHTSA OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

TITLE: REVISION OF FMVSS NO. 108 (DOCKET NO. 85-15 NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HASEGAWA; REDBOOK A33 [3]; STANDARD 108; DOCKET 85-15 NOTICE 8

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

We appreciate very much for your kind cooperation during our stay in the U.S. for SAE Lighting Commity Meeting.

We have two questions on Revision of FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 85-15 Notice 8) which was finally issued on Federal Register of May 9, 1989.

- Question -

1. Please advice us the effective date of the requirement of S7.7.5.1 a). We suppose that S7.7.5.1 will be applied to the all headlamp with external aiming system (including replaceable bulb type headlamp).

However, this requirement was not applied for replaceable bulb type headlamp by previous FMVSS No. 108.

Therefore, we think that addition of new requirement need longer interval of effectiveness.

2. The requirement of S7.7.5.1 b) used quote SAE J580b "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly" by previous FMVSS No. 108 and the expression is little bit different from new S7.7.5.1 b).

Please advice us that the requirement of "0.1 in. max." will be determined, either during the test or after the test?

We would like to have your advice by facsimile.

Our facsimile number is 03-792-0007 (JAPAN).

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht89-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/23/89

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33[2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATH LEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/20/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FRO M LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Ms DeMeter:

On January 17, 1989, I requested a status report on an invention for which I requested an evaluation. I have received no reply from you. As you see by the attached letter, I cleared this device for evaluation on September 10, 1988.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply.

Thank you.

Encl: My letter dated January 17, 1989

ID: nht89-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HARRY REID -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTO MOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON, CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with air bags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police ca rs are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the air bags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Spa rks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does n ot comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all ap plicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them.

After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in the car in compli ance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks poli ce department cars.

Please note that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of "authorization" from this agency to disconnect the air bag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of Sparks can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada.

I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The air bags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle o ccupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported ins tance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursu it situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht89-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/09/89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF FMVSS 203 AND 210; NON CONFIDENTIAL VERSION

TEXT: Dear

Thank you for your letter requesting interpretations of how Standards No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR @ 571.203) and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @571.210) apply to a vehicle in which the d river's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt. We have concluded that the vehicles described in your letter appear not to be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 203, based on your representation that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) by means of the air bag alone. Further, if the manufacturer certifies that the driver' s position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the automatic safety belts in place, the anchorages for the automatic belts would be exempted from the anchorage location requirement s in Standard No. 210. These conclusions are explained below.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the identities of the vehicle manufacturer or its counsel because the development of vehicles with both air bags and a utomatic safety belts "is competitively sensitive." We hereby grant your request. You provided us with a version of your letter deleting all references to the identity of the manufacturer and its counsel. We will make available to the public your purge d version of your letter to us and a version of this letter purged of all references to your identity.

Standard No. 203

With respect to Standard No. 203, section S2 of Standard No. 203 provides that the standard "does not apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means of other than seat belt assemblies." The fi rst question is whether S2 exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles whose driver's seating position

2 conforms to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies, or whether S2 only exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles in which both the driver's position and the right front outboard seating position conform to the fro ntal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies. After examining the history and purpose of this requirement, we have concluded that vehicles are not subject to Standard No. 203 if the driver's seating position offers the specified o ccupant protection, for the following reasons.

The title of Standard No. 203 explicitly states that it is intended to provide protection for the driver, not for any other vehicle occupants. Moreover, section S2 of Standard No. 203 was promulgated after NHTSA determined that compliance with the requi rements of Standard No. 203 could impede the development and installation of a more advanced occupant protection system, such as air bags, at the driver's position. See 40 FR 17992; April 24, 1975. This determination would not apply with respect to any seating positions other than the driver's position, because compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 would have no positive or negative effects on the development and installation of occupant protection systems at any other seating positions . Given the history and purpose of Standard No. 203 in general and section S2 in particular, section S2 must be interpreted so that Standard No. 203 does not apply to vehicles whose driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection.

Having determined that one examines only the driver's seating position to see whether a vehicle is exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 203 by virtue of the provision in section S2 of the standard, we must now determine whether a vehicle whose dr iver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt can be said to conform to S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means other than seat belt assemblies. We conclude that it can if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's se ating position conforms with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of the air bag alone.

If the manufacturer certifies that the air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, then, for purposes of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, the installation of the automatic safety belt would be a voluntary action by the vehicle manufacturer. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety systems or components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Therefore, if a manufacturer certifies that an air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, an automatic safety belt at that seating position would be a safety system installed in addition to the air bag system. The only limitation on the installation of automatic safety belts at such seating positions would be that the combination of the automatic safety belt and the air bag must comply with the requ irements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position in a vehicle complies with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of an air bag alone, that vehicle would be exempt from Standard No. 203 even if an automati c safety belt system were also provided for the driver's seating position.

3

If the manufacturer cannot certify that the driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S5.1 by means of the air bag alone, then both the air bag and the automatic safety belt are necessary to provide the required level of occupant protec tion. In this case, the vehicle would be subject to Standard No. 203, because it relies on a seat belt system to conform with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 Section S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirement of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR @571.208) are exempt from the location requir ements of this section." This exemption is premised on the agency's conclusion that the anchorage location requirements are unnecessary when the same aspects of performance are indirectly tested in dynamic testing. See 50 FR 14589, at 14595; April 12, 19 85. That is, the anchorage location requirements are an indirect means of ensuring that a belt system will afford adequate protection to a user in a crash. The dynamic testing requirements directly measure the protection the belt system offers belt use rs in a frontal crash.

Your letter referred to a March 14, 1988 letter we sent to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber. In his letter, Mr. Faber asked whether standard equipment items in the vehicle would be operational during compliance testing. We responded in part as follows:

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. . . . In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA t ests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equi pment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning.

In other words, Standard No. 210 does not require that the safety belt alone provide the specified level of occupant protection in order for the anchorages to be exempt from the anchorage location requirements. Such a requirement would be unrealistic, s ince occupant crash protection depends on the safety belt system working synergistically with other vehicle features, such as energy absorbing instrument panels, collapsible steering columns, and anti-lacerative windshield glass. Because of this synergi sm, NHTSA has always conducted its Standard No. 208 compliance testing with all items of standard equipment in place and functioning during the test. We would treat an air bag in the same way. Therefore, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the d river's seating position complies with the occupant protection criteria in Standard No. 208 with an automatic belt in position and functional during the test, the anchorages for that automatic belt would be exempt from the location

4 requirements in Standard No. 210. This certification by the manufacturer would be based on the protection afforded by the automatic belt and all other standard features in the vehicle, including air bags.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/89

FROM: MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE -- DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIER STANDARDS

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULATIONS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GARRY O. MCCABE; REDBOOK A33 (2); STANDARD 301 LETTER DATED 01/25/89 FROM GARY O. MCCABE TO MIKE TRENTACOSTE

TEXT: On February 27, 1989, you provided Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards a letter and drawings from Mr. Garry McCabe asking for information on a testing program for a "rapid fueling system" for trucks. Our response to Mr. McC abe discusses how NHTSA's regulations and motor vehicle safety standards may affect his product.

Having reviewed the materials you forwarded to us, we are returning the letter and drawings to you. Please note that our response to Mr. McCabe addresses NHTSA's regulations only, and does not seek to interpret the applicable FHWA requirements.

Attachment

ID: nht89-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/89

FROM: ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Ms. DeMeter:

Confirming our phone conversation relating to your letter dated May 26, 1989, this is to confirm that you have my permission to use the information marked "confidential" in determining if my collision avoidance system will conform to the existing laws.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.

Professionally,

ID: nht89-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PAUL WALKER -- PRESIDENT SUNGUEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/17/89 FROM PAUL WALKER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3157

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for your letter regarding your company's efforts to export a product to Saudi Arabia. The product in question is identified in your letter as "remote-controlled electronic automobile window shades." Your letter indicates that your company's to tal production for the next two years will be for export only. It is my understanding that your company must provide the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization with a statement from this agency that we would "have no objection to the product in the U.S. m arket" before "large quantities" of the product can be shipped into Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the product is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safe ty standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the product may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

In the case of your window shades, NHTSA has no standard that establishes requirements for window shades as items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, your company is not required to make any certification of the window shades before offering them for sale . We do have two safety standards that might affect the installation of window shades in new vehicles. The first is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. These requirements in clude specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The second is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which sets forth flammabili ty

resistance performance requirements for window shades installed in new vehicles. No manufacturer or dealer could legally install any window shades, including the shade developed by your company, in a new vehicle unless the manufacturer or dealer cer tifies that the vehicle with the window shade installed complies with Standards No. 205 and 302, as well as any other applicable standards.

To enforce the requirements in our laws and regulations, we conduct spot checks of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment after they have been certified and/or sold to the public or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce. For these s pot checks, we purchase the vehicles or item of equipment and test it according to the procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. If the product passes the tests, no further steps are taken. If the product fails the tests and is determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the product is required to remedy the problem, by repairing or replacing the product at no cost to the purchaser. Since your product has not yet been sold in the United States, NHTSA has not made any spot checks or other evaluations of your product.

With that explanation, we will state that the window shades developed by Sunquest, Inc. could legally be sold to the public in the United States and could legally be installed on new vehicles to be sold to the public in the United States, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the vehicle with the window shades installed complies with all applicable safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BLANCHE KOZAK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; LETTER D ATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Kozak:

Thank you for your letter concerning the applicable classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no aut hority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of th e Safety Act.

Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the

2 Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle" for the purposes of our safety standards.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cus hman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State.

I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters.

Statement One: You said: "I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit." (emphasis added)

Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massa chusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles.

Statement Two: You then noted that "similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles."

Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called "motorcycles" to the larger vehicle group called "motor vehicles." As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, "motorcycle" is a subset within the broad category of "motor vehicles." Other subsets of "motor vehicles" include "passenger car," "truck," and "bus." Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles.

Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equip ped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards requ ire Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles.

Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle "does not have a solid door, only a canvas one."

3 Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a "motorcycle," our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it.

Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees "were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act," because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle.

Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts sta te government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID BLUMBERG -- STRUCTOFAB, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/18/89 FROM DAVID BLUMBERG TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blumberg:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company qualifies as a "remanufacturer." You explained that your company acquires the chassis (without the body) of right hand drive jeep-type vehicles that have been used by the United States Postal Servi ce. You further explained that your company undertakes extensive operations to repair, restore, and replace parts of the used chassis and to add to the chassis a new body, hood, seats, and interior. There is no "remanufacturer" category in any of this a gency's laws or regulations. However, based on the facts presented in your letter, your company would appear to be a "manufacturer."

Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (emphasis supplied) Since your company plans to assemble vehicles, it would appear to be a "manufacturer" under this definition and subject to the responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer by the Safety A ct and our regulations issued thereunder.

Among these responsibilities are:

1. Registration. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles to submit identifying information and a description of items produced.

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Certification: Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each "manufacturer" to certify that every one of its new vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. The agency's longstand ing position with respect to vehicles assembled by adding new bodies to the chassis of vehicles previously registered for use on the public roads is that such vehicles are themselves considered used motor vehicles. This agency position means that manufa cturers such as your company would not be required to

certify that such vehicles company with all applicable safety standards as of the date the vehicle is assembled.

The only exception to this general rule arises under section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. We have interpreted this provision of the law as requiring any person (other than the vehicle owner) that has removed an old body in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly assemb led vehicle meets the standard that the vehicle originally did (e.g., a vehicle comprised of a body manufactured in 1989 mounted on a used 1976 chassis must meet all standards that applied to vehicles manufactured in 1976). Your company would be respons ible for any violations of this requirement for all of its vehicles from which your company itself has removed the old body from the used chassis and for all vehicles from which the old body was removed from the used chassis at the behest of your company .

3. Notification and Remedy. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify owners and remedy without charge to the owners any safety-related defect discovered in the assembled vehicle.

For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that summarizes the provisions of our law and regulations and tells how to get copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional inform ation on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GARRY O. MCCABE --

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/25/89 FROM GARY O. MCCABE TO MIKE TRENTACOSTE; LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULATIONS

TEXT: Dear Mr. McCabe:

Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a "rapid fueling system" on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regul ations we administer. I expect that FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle e quipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, sati sfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system would be an alterer of a previously certified motor continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to

2 attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by S 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibitation of S 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle ma nufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (20 2) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES