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.

ID: 1982-2.36

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is to follow-up on your conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the armrest requirement of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific question concerned the application of section 5.3.1(c) of the standard to an armrest attached to a door. The inboard side of the armrest consists of two vertical surfaces, an upper one and a lower one. The upper surface extends 3 mm closer to the center of the vehicle than does the lower surface. You stated that the two surfaces when viewed in side elevation, i.e., from the vantage point of the door latch or door hinges, together provide more than 2 inches of vertical height within the pelvic impact area. You also asked if section 5.3.1(c) set any limits on the material used for armrests.

Section 5.3.1(c) of the standard provides that:

Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.

Section 5.3.1(c) does not set any radius of curvature or height limitation on armrest surfaces. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. Section 5.3.1(c) also does no specify any limits on the materials that may be used in an armrest. Obviously, such surfaces must be designed carefully to ensure that the armrest does no concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.37

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kamlot Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Braden President Kamlo Marketing Inc. 4311 East 104th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136

Dear Mr. Braden:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding "plush" seats and a rear sofa.

Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.

You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear of the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Would you please send me a letter regarding the proper seat belts to be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. The vans are being remanufactured with plush seats (4), a rear sofa, bay windows, and carpeted. When finished they are a 7-passenger vehicle, under 10,000 lbs. GVW.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Terry W. Braden President

ID: 1982-2.38

DATE: 08/12/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Middlekauf Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of July 16, 1982, for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

You have told us that "as a seller and installer of truck bodies, we are frequently called upon to install a body on an incomplete vehicle furnished to us by a major manufacturer through his dealer." Our regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) requires the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle to furnish, with the vehicle, statements with respect to each of the standards which inform the final stage manufacturer of the vehicle's compliance status. With respect to Standard No. 301, each manufacturer should provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform or, alernatively, a statement that the vehicle when completed will conform if no alternations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

These statements afford a basis for your certification of compliance with Standard No. 301 without the necessity of testing. We would like to know which of these statements have been provided and why you may believe your manufacturing operations are such that you could not certify compliance with Standard No. 301.

We would also like to make clear that there is no legal requirement that you crash test a $ 10,000 vehicle in order to demonstrate compliance. Certification may be based upon computer simulation, mathematical calculation, or engineering studies. Upon reflection you may decide that you have an adequate basis for certification with Standard No. 301.

Until we hear further from you, we shall hold your petition in abeyance.

SINCERELY,

July 16, 1982

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Sir:

Under the provisions of section 123 par (1) (A) of public law 89-563, we should like to apply for a temporary exemption for a period of three years from Standard 301-75 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The name of our organization, which is a corporation, incorporated under the laws of the state of Ohio, is: Middlekauff, Inc. 1615 Ketcham Ave. Toledo, OHIO 43608

This temporary exemption of three years from Federal Standard 301-75 is requested as full compliance would cause a substantial economic hardship on our organization. As a seller and installer of truck bodies, we are frequently called upon to install a body on an incomplete vehicle furnished to us by a major manufacturer through his dealer. In many of these cases, we are called upon to extend the filler pipe to the gas tank and relocate the filler cap for such gas tank. While all due care is exercised in this operation to the extent of duplicating the hose and clamps used by the original manufacturer, and in many cases, utilizing the original gas cap, it is not always possible to recess the gas cap itself. We are referring to vehicles of 10,000 GVW or less and in limited quantities.

It is our understanding that in order to achieve full compliance with 301-75, it would be necessary for us to crash test a vehicle or vehicles, in order to determine if such a crash would result in material fuel leakage. As each vehicle, complete with body, would cost approximately $ 10,000, the cost of demolishing such vehicle or vehicles would be prohibitive.

Corporate Balance Sheets and Income Statements for the last three fiscal years are attached to this application in an effort to substantiate our exemption.

A denial of this petition would result in a complete loss to us of this market, while not great in numbers, represents a substantial amount of sales to our organization.

We can devise no alternate means of compliance with 301-75 other than those we have taken in exercising due care in our installation, and have no reason to believe that our methods of installation of this filler cap would not live up to the regulations, but are in no position to fully test it to prove full satisfaction in view of a crash.

The total number of motor vehicles referred to above, delivered from July 1, 1981 to July 1, 1982, was 95. No expectations are had that the total number of vehicles of the type referred to above would exceed 250 in any given year.

Sincerely hoping that the information furnished will be sufficient to allow the administration to grant the exemption requested at the earliest opportunity so that we may satisfy our suppliers,

F. E. Bettridge, Board Chairman

ID: 1982-2.39

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. David N. Cumming Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Cumming

This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification concerning the positioning of vehicles for testing under Safety Standards Nos. 212, 219 and 301. Specifically, you are concerned with a vehicle which is capable of height adjustment by manufacturer design, i.e., a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving.

The safety standards to which you refer do not specify a height adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set height. In fact, we have checked the agency's past interpretations for all three standards and determined that this question has never arisen. After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adjustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions. To save on testing costs, you should be able to determine the worst case position, particularly with regard to Standard No. 301, and test only in that position. Your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) is to exercise due care to determine that your vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this has been fully responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 11, 1982

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Test Condition - Safety Standard Compliance Tests On Vehicles Capable Of Vehicle Height Adjustment

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would like a clarification regarding the position for testing vehicles which are capable of vehicle height adjustment by manufacturer design (for example, a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving).

To determine compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards such as 212, 219, and 301, what height position would NHTSA specify for testing the vehicle.

For example:

(1) highway driving position (2) off-highway position (3) design position, if different than (1) and (2), etc.

Also, please verify whether the manufacturer is responsible for compliance at height positions other than the specified test position.

Your response prior to July 30, 1982 would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

David N. Cumming Engineer

DNC/mjs

ID: 1982-2.4

DATE: 04/15/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Auto Safety House

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 25, 1982, letter asking whether an old school bus body can be mounted on a new chassis if the resulting vehicle would not comply with the safety standards applicable to school buses (Standards 220, 221 and 222). The answer to your question is no.

The agency regards the installation of a new chassis on a school bus as constituting the manufacture of a new school bus. Accordingly, the new school bus would be required to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. In the case to which you refer, that would include compliance with all of the current school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

AUTO SAFETY HOUSE

March 25, 1982

Administrator National Highway Traffic Administration.

Subject: Certification

Gentlemen,

What standards does a school bus body built prior to 1977 have to meet when installed on a 1982 school bus chassis? Can this body be installed on a 1982 chassis without meeting Standards, 220, 221 and 222 that apply to bodies built after 1977?

I would appreciate receiving this information as soon as it can be processed and thank you in advance for your assistance.

Wilmer E. Harper President