ID: 1982-2.27

DATE: 08/01/82 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Bob McEwen - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your July 8, 1982, letter to Mr. William Dabaghi of the Department enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr. Donald M. Robinson. Mr. Robinson would like to know whether Federal regulations prohibit him from purchasing a pickup cab and chassis without the body attached. The answer to his question is no.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only requires that all vehicles be manufactured in compliance with the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. We have no requirement, nor do we know of any other Federal regulation, that would prevent Mr. Robinson from purchasing just the cab and chassis of a vehicle that he desires. When he adds his own utility body to the cab and chassis, he would become the final-stage vehicle manufacturer and would be required to certify that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. I am enclosing copies of the regulations pertinent to such an operation.

If I can be of further assistance to you or Mr. Robinson, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Administrator

Enclosures: Constituent's Correspondence 49 CFR Parts 567 & 568

Mr. William K. Dabaghi Director of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Dabaghi:

The enclosed correspondence regarding regulations governing truck equipment sales was sent to me by Mr. Donald M. Robinson, Manager, Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., P.O. Box 279, Gallipolis, Ohio 45631.

If you could assist me in replying to this inquiry by asking someone on your staff to investigate the matter and provide to me the appropriate information, I would be most grateful.

Again Mr. Dabaghi, thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If I may provide any additional information necessary to you, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

With personal regards,

Sincerely,

Bob McEwen Member of Congress

BM:ly Enclosure

June 23, 1982

Congressman Robert McEwen 124 Joy Avenue Hillsboro, Ohio 45133

We have asked truck dealers in the area for bids on two one-half ton cab and chassis and one three-quarter ton cab and chassis trucks upon which we intended to install utility beds so that the trucks would be equipped properly to be used as service trucks on our distribution system.

We have been told by the dealers that they cannot order just the cab and chassis but have to include the pickup bed for which we have absolutely no use. This is our first knowledge of this and, quite frankly, it shocks me.

We are told that this is a federal law, regulation or whatever.

Could you check into this matter at your convenience to see if there is any recourse?

We will appreciate whatever you can do.

Yours truly,

Donald M. Robinson, Manager

DMR/mb

ID: 1982-2.28

DATE: 08/01/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Larry Pressler; U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Senator Pressler:

This responds to your July 23, 1982, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Clyde Pritchard. Mr. Pritchard questioned the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Standard No. 121, AirBrakes, to certain "heavy hauler trailers." He also questioned a portion of that standard that indicated that manufacturers of some vehicles may comply with the standard or, alternatively, with Part 393.43 of the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS).

Only some types of heavy hauler trailers must comply with Standard No. 121. The applicability section of the standard states that a vehicle with a width in excess of 102 inches or a heavy hauler trailer with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in excess of 120,000 pounds need not comply with any of the requirements. Therefore, any vehicle designed by Mr. Pritchard falling within these categories would be excepted from the standard. A heavy hauler trailer with a width less than 102 inches and a GVWR less than 120,000 must comply with the standard.

Mr. Pritchard appears most interested in the specific requirements for parking brakes on heavy hauler trailers. Paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 121 states that heavy hauler trailers shall comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 for parking brakes or, alternatively, with BMCS regulation 393.43 for breakaway. Accordingly, the manufacturer of such a vehicle has the option of complying with either provision; parking brakes under Standard No. 121 or the breakaway and emergency braking section of the BMCS regulation. The citation in Standard No. 121 to BMCS regulation 393.43 is correct. The agency did not intend to permit optional compliance with BMCS regulation 393.41 as suggested by Mr. Pritchard. That regulation does not require separate brakes on trailers which the agency has always deemed necessary.

I hope this clarifies the air brake issue for your constituent. Please contact me if you need additional information.

Diane K. Steed Administrator

ID: 1982-2.29

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harris Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office with regard to your "new motorcycle lighting system" and asking about possible conflicts with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your device is an "aftermarket accessory" light which may be mounted to a motorcycle helmet, and which is integrated by a cord into the motorcycle's headlighting system, providing an auxiliary beam of light in conjunction with the beam of light projected by the main headlamp.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the standard on vehicle lighting and lighting equipment while Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, is the other standard of relevance. Neither standard directly addresses an aftermarket device such as yours and as your lamp is intended to be installed by the helmet owner, it does not appear to conflict with any other regulatory prohibition of this agency. It would, therefore, be subject to regulation by the individual States in which the device is worn.

We see nothing in your correspondence that legally qualifies as "sensitive proprietary information", and our interpretation will be given its usual circulation.

SINCERELY,

Harris Enterprises

Taylor Vincent Chief Counsel DOT/NHTSA

July 1, 1982

Dear Sir;

Enclosed you will find a description of a new motorcycle lighting system and a copy of the utility patent protecting it.

At the suggestion of Dr. Carl Clark, NHTSA inventor contact, at our meeting of 4/15/82 at DOT, I am contacting you in order to clarify any possible areas of conflict with existing Federal regulations that this system presents.

One possible conflict that was discussed concerned Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 218 with regard to motorcycle helmets. Paragraph S5.5 states that "Rigid projections outside any helmet's shell shall be limited to those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.19 inch." As evidenced by the enclosed descriptive material. the system clearly employs a detachable helmet mounted light source whose housing projects substancially beyond the 0.19 inch limit.

This helmet light is an aftermarket accessory which is detachably installed by the operator by means of Velcro- like, 3M Dual Lock self adhesive fasteners. This mounting system is to be engineered so as to allow the helmet light accessory to shear away from the helmet surface upon application of a force substantially less than that which might cause injury. Indeed, the only somewhat permanent projections applied to the helmet itself are the three self adhesive strips of Dual Lock fastener which engage three complimentary strips on the underside of the helmet light. These strips don't project more than 0.19 inch.

As there are not currently any standards directly regarding a helmet mounted light as described, which integrates with the standard lighting system, and may be mediated by a photo electric dimming system to prevent the blinding of oncoming drivers, I would appreciate your opinion as to whether standard headlamp regulations apply.

Dr. Clark has seen the product and is most aware of the properties it exhibits. Any questions you may have may be directed either to Mr. Clark or this office. Your opinions on the above points are of significant commercial interest to us, and your earliest consideration would be appreciated. Please treat everything exclusive of the patent itself as sensitive proprietary information.

William R. Harris, Jr.

ID: 1982-2.3

DATE: 04/12/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nebraska Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 12 1982

NOA-30

Mr. Vernon J. Clark Transportation Supervisor Nebraska Department of Education 301 Centennial Mall South Box 94987 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509

Dear Mr. Clark:

This responds to your March 23, 1982, letter asking whether it is permissible to install side-facing seats in school buses designed to transport the handicapped. The answer to your question is yes.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies the requirements for school bus passenger seats and, in general, requires those seats to be forward facing. However, the definition of "school bus passenger seat" in section S4 of the standard excludes seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers as evidenced by installing those seats longitudinally. Therefore, seats installed in the buses to which you refer in your letter need not comply with the school bus seat requirements if they are designed to accommodate the handicapped and are side facing.

We caution, however, that side-facing seats afford less protection than forward facing seats. Accordingly, only those seats necessary to accommodate the handicapped should be altered in this manner.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1982

Mr. Roger Tilton Office of Chief Council National Highway Safety NTS 400 7th St. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We are interested in obtaining an opinion from your office regarding the placement of seats in a school bus used for transporting handicapped students. Is it legal or permissible to place a seat or seats in a longitudinal position to provide space for moving wheel chairs through the isles? We have several schools in our state that have a problem with this and are requesting permission to make these alterations.

I would appreciate any information you could give me on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

VERNON J. CLARK Transportation Supervisor

ak

ID: 1982-2.30

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Roberts Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1982, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclose photos of a 1982 Kenworth truck which has two pairs of front turn signal lamps: one set (incorporating a side reflector) mounted 58 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 83 inches apart; the other, mounted approximately 81 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 110 inches apart. You have asked whether the vehicle would comply if the lower mounted set were removed and an amber reflex reflector placed on each side of the fender as far forward as practicable.

The answer is yes. The mounting height of 81 1/2 inches does not exceed the limit of 83 inches imposed by Table II of Standard No. 108. In addition, the lamps appear to meet the two further requirements that they be located as far apart as practicable and at the same height.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 16, 1982

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find two photographs of a 1982 Kenworth, Model W900. You will note from the photographs that two sets of turn signals are on the vehicle, one set on the hood and another set on the bottom of the mirror brackets.

On the vehicle shown, which is typical of the Model, the center of the fender mounted signals are approximately 58 1/2" above the road surface and approximately 83" apart.

The center of the mirror mounted turn signals are approximately 81 1/2" above the road surface and approximately 110" apart.

Our question concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108(571.108), specifically, Table II, "Location of Required Equipment", "Turn Signal Lamps". Considering the dimensions above, would the vehicle be in conformance with the Standard if only the mirror mounted turn signals were installed on the vehicle and an amber reflex reflector placed on each side of the fender as far forward as practicable?

We would appreciate your consideration and reply to this matter at your earliest opportunity.

Yours truly, Ronald E. DeVolder -- Vice President

enclosures

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1982-2.31

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Continental Insurance Companies -- William J. Benzie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William J Benzie Corporate Fleet Coordinator The Continental Insurance Companies Eighty Maiden Lane New York, N.Y. 10038

Dear Mr. Benzie:

This responds to your recent letter asking about Federal regulations pertaining to automotive glass and to windshield repair kits. You are particularly interested in the Novus windshield repair method and ask if it has been approved by the agency.

The agency has issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. There are no standards or regulations specifically governing Windshield repair methods. However, I am enclosing a letter of interpretation which the agency issued in 1975 regarding the Novus method of windshield repair. I am also enclosing a letter of interpretation which discusses the general responsibilities of persons who modify or repair vehicles, including windshields, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Please look closely at the third and fourth paragraphs of that letter.

Please note that the agency does not grant prior approval of any motor vehicle, motor vehicle equipment or method of vehicle repair. It is the responsibility of the vehicle or equipment manufacturer to certify that its products are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and regulations.

I hope the enclosed information will answer all of your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.32

DATE: 08/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 6, 1982

Mr. James Tydings Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your June 28, 1982, letter asking several questions about the remanufacture of school buses using old chassis and new bodies.

In general, the use of a new body on an old chassis does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Accordingly, your responsibility as the individual making this modification would simply be to make sure that you do not render inoperative the compliance of the pre-existing vehicle with any of the safety standards with which it complied when it was manufactured and with which it complies at the time of your modifications, i.e., the new body (and the chassis) would have to comply with the same standards with which the old body complied (15 U.S.C. 1397).

In your first hypothetical, you would use a pre-April 1, 1977 chassis. In this case the body that you would use would not have to comply with the school bus safety standards that became effective on that date. Seat spacing could be determined by the customer.

Secondly, you would use a post-April 1, 1977 chassis. In this case the vehicle would be required to continue to comply with those standards applicable to it at the time of its manufacture, which includes the school bus safety standards. Seat spacing would be limited in accordance with Standard No. 222.

Your third and fourth hypotheticals are the same as the two noted above except that the buses involved are not school buses. Once again, the general rule prevails that the buses need not comply with new motor vehicle safety standards, but simply must not have their previous compliance with standards rendered inoperative by you.

Finally, as you indicated in your letter, you should transfer the certification label from the old vehicle to the modified vehicle if you are replacing the vehicle's body.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 28, 1982

Mr. Roger Tilton, Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 S.W 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton,

Pursuant to our recent phone conversation regarding the mounting of new bus bodies upon old chassis, I would appreciate your counsel on this matter.

You expressed some surprise that requests are being received for new bodies on old chassis which is the reverse of the usual procedure of a new chassis under an old body. Your office in the past has ruled in those cases that the body must meet the safety regulation level of the chassis.

It is the feeling here that the present economic conditions of essential tight money makes this new combination feasible.

Since I could not find any references in the certification part of the regulations to serve as a guide prompted my phone call to you.

Following is a list of questions which will illustrate some combinations of various situations that may arise in the mounting of the new body.

NOTE: All chassis to be reconditioned. All chassis originally certified as school buses.

1. Conditions: Chassis - Pre-April 1, 1977 Body - 1982 - Make of body not the same as the original body.

Seats - Pre-1977 Seats - Spacing to be customer option.

2. Chassis - Post April 1, 1977 Body - 1982 Seats - Seats to be of certifiable of the year of the chassis.

Other Federal Regulations - Equal to or exceeding the Federal Regulations of the year of the chassis.

Bus Use - A school bus.

3. Same as No. 1, except: Body would be a non-school bus body.

Bus Use - Only as non-school bus.

4. Same as No. 2, except: Body would be a non-school bus body.

Bus Use - Only as non-school bus.

Per our conversation, the original certification is to be installed in the new body in the approved location.

We trust that the example conditions outlined are in accordance with the Federal Safety Standard.

Should you have any questions, relative to the above, kindly contact the writer.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

JT/jf

ID: 1982-2.33

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Z. Taylor Vinson; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretation file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On August 4, 1982, Mike Segraves of Trailmobile presented the hypothetical to me of whether a remanufactured trailer could be purchased by the remanufacturer before modification and leased to its former owner after modification without it being considered newly manufactured for purpose of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

He found a contradiction between 49 CFR @ 571.7(f) and the preamble establishing it. Subsection (f)(2) imposes the restriction that the remanufactured trailer is "an existing trailer" which "is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle." Yet the preamble (41 FR 27073, July 1, 1976) states that the restriction "would require that the owner or lessor of the existing trailer also be the owner or lessor of the rebuilt trailer". I found no interpretation letters on the point.

Subsection (f)(2) was adopted verbatim from the proposal (40 FR 58154, December 15, 1975). It appears to have originated from a petition by Monon Trailer Company suggesting, in the words of the preamble "that the rebuilt trailer be sold only to the owner of the trailer from which it was rebuilt". NHTSA agreed, believing that "the requirement that the trailer be sold to the original owner under its original identity would be included to prevent large-scale evasion of the standard by parties who might attempt to recycle old, unreliable equipment that would normally be junked".

Upon close examination, I see no conflict. I believe that 571.7(f)(2) and the preamble language mean simply that in order for the trailer to qualify for the exclusion, it must be either owned by or leased by the same person both before and after manufacture. A "lessor" is an "owner" but a "lessor" cannot be the "user"; thus, the word "leased" refers to a lessee rather than a lessor. The preamble clarifies that the "owner or lessor" of the existing trailer must be the owner or lessor of the rebuilt trailer. But "owner" as "vendor" is outside the exclusion, and sale of the trailer after remanufacture is prohibited. But sale before remanufacture is not precluded. Trailmobile as "owner", independent of its status as remanufacturer, remains the "owner" after its property is reconstructed, and as "lessor" may enter into a lease with the former owner or any other party without bringing the trailer under the umbrella of the new vehicle standards.

After consulting with Roger Tilton I so advised Mr. Segraves.

ID: 1982-2.34

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dwight Hicks Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dwight Hicks, Jr. 1208 Balthis Drive, Apt. B Gastonia, NC 28052

Dear Mr. Hicks:

This responds to your recent inquiry regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 to a warning device you plan to manufacture. That device is a rectangular sign with a base. The sign has the word "HELP" in reflective letters on its surface and is designed to be illuminated by a cyalume light stick attached to the top of the sign. The sign is intended either to be mounted on a vehicle or to be erected on the road.

Section 3 of Standard 125 provides that the standard does not apply to warning devices which have "self-contained energy sources" used to illuminate the device. Although the cyalume light stick used in your device would not provide a very bright source of illumination, the light stick would constitute such an energy source. Therefore, the warning device you describe does not appear to be subject to that standard. This conclusion applies only to the device as described in your submission to us. Subsequent design modifications regarding this energy source could change the agency's conclusion.

With regard to your question as to a recommended color to be used in your sign, section 5.3, of Standard 125 specifies the colors the agency has determined to be most appropriate for use in warning devices. We recommend that you use those colors.

Page 3 of your submission to us includes what appears to be instructions to users of your device. Those instructions state that failure to attach the light sticks to the sign would be a violation of our standards. Neither Standard 125 nor the statute under which it was issued applies to users of warning devices. Instead, they apply to the manufacturers, distributors and sellers of warning devices. These parties are prohibited from manufacturing or selling warning devices which, although subject to the standard, do not comply with our standard. Therefore, we urge deleting the last sentence of the first numbered paragraph on page 3.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.35

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice-President MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1982, concerning the application of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to a passenger "assist grip" provided in your vehicles. You asked whether the instrument panel impact test of the standard must be conducted both with and without the passenger grip mounted on the instrument panel.

The head impact test should be conducted with the passenger "assist grip" mounted in place. It should not be necessary to test the panel with the grip removed. Section 5.3.1 of the Standard provides that if an area of the instrument panel is within the head impact zone, it must meet the performance requirements of the standard. In using the term "instrument panel", the agency intended to include the basic engineering drawing shows that the grip is solidly mounted on top of the panel as an integral part. You stated that the grip is a standard design feature on all the vehicles you intend to manufacture. Because the grip is a standard design feature which is securely affixed to the instrument panel, the agency considers it an integral part of the panel. Thus, the performance requirements of the standard would be applicable with the grip mounted in place.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

MMC Services, Inc. on behalf of Mitsubishi Motor Corporation, we would like to have your confirmation of an interpretation we believe to be appropriate regarding the test procedure used in MVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Standard 201 requires that areas of the vehicle instrument panel which are within a specifically defined head impact area, be impacted by a 6.5 inch diameter head form. The test impact conditions are specified, as are the performance criteria which must be met. There is, however, no absolute definition of instrument panel--this is the area in which we feel an interpretation would be helpful.

On one of our multipurpose passenger vehicles, we provide a passenger assist grip, mounted on top of, and as part of, the instrument panel. We enclosed a picture showing this passenger assist grip. The grip is solidly mounted to the instrument panel, as shown by Section M-M on the enclosed engineering assembly drawing; and does fall within the MVSS 201 head impact area. The passenger assist grip is standard equipment on all models of this vehicle type.

Since all models will be manufactured with this passenger assist grip, we feel it is appropriate to conduct MVSS 201 certification test with the grip installed, and that it is not necessary to duplicate such tests on the instrument panel with the assist grip removed. We would very much appreciate your confirmation that this is an appropriate interpretation.

Because of the fact that we are working very hard to bring this vehicle model to the U.S. market as soon as possible, we would appreciate it very much if you could expedite your handling of this request to whatever extent possible. Thank you very much for your kind assistance in this regard.

Very truly yours,

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice-President MMC Services, Inc.