ID: 16206.drn

Mr. George J. Aumond
President
Intec Industries, Inc.
1025 S. Linwood Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Dear Mr. Aumond:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must assign new vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to used trailer chassis, under the facts described in your letter. If the trailers are modified in accordance with NHTSA's regulations on combining new and used components in trailer manufacture, the trailers would be considered used and the VIN assigned to each trailer may be retained.

Your letter states that Intec Industries is in the process of redesigning 40-foot shipping container chassis to "accommodate new laws pertaining to distribution of weight on bridges." You describe the changes as follows:

The modification is accomplished by modifying an existing 40' straight frame chassis, to accommodate one 20' container, with a 48,000 pound load, or, two empty 20' containers, or one 40' or 45' container with 48,000 pound loads. When completed, only the rear 10' of the 40' frame is not used. The compressed length of finished unit is 30'-0". All braking systems, wheels, tires, accumulation tanks, and fifth wheel components, are essentially left intact, and are incorporated into the new design.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that if possible, your company would like to retain the assigned VIN on the modified trailers. You further stated that after the changes are made, the gross vehicle weight rating and the gross axle weight ratings of each trailer chassis will remain the same. The distance between the wheels (on the same side of the vehicle) will be adjusted, so that the trailer chassis' load distribution will be in line with new bridge weight requirements.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture apply to your company's trailer modifications. That regulation provides:

When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] unless, at the minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer -

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

Thus, if the trailers are modified under the conditions described in Section 571.7(f), the trailers would be considered used, and Intec Industries may continue to use the assigned VINs on the modified trailers.

Please note that in the modification process, your company must ensure that the certification labels (assigned pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) remain on the trailers. Additionally, in order to avoid a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), when modifying the trailers, your company must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [those vehicles] in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..."

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#567
d.2/26/98

ID: 1982-2.9

DATE: 04/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1983 to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 5, 1982 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

This in reference to your response to my letter dated 8 Feb. 1982 including a copy of a letter Mr. Seashore date 14 May 1980.

I cannot agree your response to my letter is in accord with your letter to Mr. Seashore. It is my belief and as I read your letter to Mr. Seashore, that our U.S. Congress has delegated and LIMITED to the NHTSA, through their Parent Department of Transportation, the determining and defining of a type of Standard designated as "Performance Requirement". It is also my belief Congress intentionally withheld from the NHTSA the requiring of "Design Requirements", rightfully the Responsibility, and Authority, of industry.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors of unit magnification on each side of School Buses, each having a minimum of 50 square inches of reflective surface, mounted in such a position that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA in accordance with Section 102(2) that reads, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria".

School children are entitled to safe transportation and I believe our efforts should be in that direction. The Fourth Circuit Court stated: "If an article my be made safer, and the hard of harm may be made safer, and the hazard of harm may be mitigated by an alternate design or device, at no substantial increase in price, the Manufacturer has a duty to adopt such a design."

The Mirror systems for School Buses, Superior in Safety Performance, specified by the State of Texas, had to be returned by the School Bus Safety Performance. I cannot agree this to be in accord with the intent of our U.S. Congress.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEWS, Inc. M.W. Urban

MMU/hl cc: Congressman Dan Glickman

SA20ARDESGNELEMENT4C

Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1982, to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvania GTE Products Corporation -- Ken Alexander, Engineering Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager Sylvania GTE products Corporation 1231 "A" Avenue North Seymour, Indiana 47274

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following a conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are concerned with the "design to conform" language as it relates to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it "does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in."

I am not certain what you mean by "every photometric point in." However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set for the by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not "designed to conform".

I hope this answers you question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1983

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a follow-up to a conversation that I had with Mr. Taylor Vincent of your office.

As I explained in my conversation, we are a major supplier of halogen headlamps to the automotive industry, both domestic and overseas. We are currently engaged in discussions with one of the major auto makers in Japan, with purpose of us supplying headlamps for the cars that they export into the U.S. The Japanese have a lot of trouble in understanding your rules and regulations, and I have spent a lot of in trying to explain them. What I need the help of your office in is the following. I have gone over in detail with them the parts of FMVSS 108 that relate to photometrics of headlamps. I have explained that the references to SAE J579 is to a "design to conform" standard and does not mean that every headlamp produced has to have every photometric point in. I continued that the headlamp suppliers are reputable companies that have shown due regard in making their headlamps the best possible product, give the constraints of manufacturability; and that this is recognized and accepted by the federal government. Although they seem to understand what I am saying, they have asked me to obtain a supportive statement to this effect form someone within the regulatory agencies.

I understand the most acceptable way of doing this is to send you a brief statement of the above interpretation, from which your office can give a formal note of acceptance and agreement. I have attached same, and would appreciate very much the above mentioned action by your office in as short of time as possible.

I realize these are busy times and am sorry to have to add to your schedule, but our potential Japanese customers are insistent on us getting this not of agreement.

Thank you very much for your help and consideration.

Ken Alexander Engineering Manager KA/rb Attachment

ID: 1985-04.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Gruenzner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Mr. David Gruenzner President, Future Tech Inc. P.O. Box 26B Mankato, MN 56002 Dear Mr. Gruenzner: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to an aftermarket high-mounted stop lamp/turn signal lamp system. You intend to market three models, as more completely described in the next paragraph. All models are mounted in the interior of the car. Our primary concern is the possibility that the interior-mounted unit will cause undesirable reflections in the rear window, reducing the ability of the operator to judge conditions to the rear of his vehicle as seen through the rear view mirror. For this reason, Standard No. 108 requires the new center-mounted stop lamps mounted on the interior to be provided with means to minimize such reflections. These lamps now in production incorporate shrouds that abut the rear window glazing. Though your after market device would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, we encourage you to incorporate design features which will prevent undesirable reflections. Also care should be taken to ensure that, when the device is installed, it does not impair the field of view required for rear view mirrors by Safety Standard No. 111. Your device consists of eight miniature lamps, four mounted on each side of the vertical centerline. We also have some additional concerns about the operation of one of your three models. In the first model, in the turn signal mode, the lamps operate sequentially from the center outward in the direction of the intended turn. In the stop lamp mode, the entire unit will illuminate, "sending a sequential (sic) flashing beam from the middle to both sides." We view the sequential flashing of the lights from the center outwards in the stop lamp mode as prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of the standard which requires all lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning in use, except for turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps, and headlamps and side marker lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning light, thus complying with our requirements. In the third model, there will be an additional amber colored lens mounted on top of the red lens. The brake signal will be indicated by a steady red light, while the turn signals will be indicated by flashing amber ones. This method of operation is also acceptable under Standard No. 108 which permits rear turn signals to be either amber or red.

We are unable to assist you with State laws that may affect your devices. We suggest you contact the vehicle administrators in the States where you intend to market your system. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4832

Dear Mr. Peterson: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, l99l to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars. One of your clients wishes to mount 'two-part' stop/tail lamps 'so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid.' Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by 'the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements.' Your 'two-part lamp' would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. 108, and this conformance must be independent of any 'contribution' by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. 108 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2174

Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in response to your letter of December 10, 1975, regarding th applicability of existing Federal regulations to the manufacture of 'Helmate.'; At the present time, there is no regulation pertaining directly to th type of helmet accessory your corporation produces. The general regulation concerning motorcycle helmets is 49 CFR S 571.218, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business were to install 'Helmates' on helmets, the helmets would have to remain in conformity with the requirements of Standard 218. However, persons other than manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may modify products, after purchase by a user, without regard to the requirements of a Federal safety regulation. Thus, if 'Helmate' is mounted on the helmet by an ordinary consumer, safety Standard 218 is inapplicable.; There is some question as to whether motorcycle helmets will still mee the performance requirements of Standard 218, after the 3/8 inch hole required to mount the 'Helmate' is drilled. If it becomes apparent that installing 'Helmate' type helmet accessories causes the performance level of helmets to drop below the requirements of Standard 218, the NHTSA might find it necessary to enact regulations to rectify the situation. Our main concern is to assure that motorcycle helmets afford riders the protection and safety needed.; If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3762

Dear Ms. Reilly: This responds to your letter asking whether a motorcycle helme fastener your company produces, called 'Alpha Clip,' complies with Federal requirements.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.; Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, includes various minimu performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. The only requirement directly relevant to your fastener is the retention test, which is set forth at section S5.3. The letter you enclosed from the University of Southern California suggests that the clip passes that test.; I would note that Standard No. 218 only applies to new motorcycl helmets and not to replacement equipment for motorcycle helmets. Thus, unless your clip was sold as part of a new motorcycle helmet, the requirements of Standard No. 218 would not be directly applicable. (Please note, however, that the agency discourages helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: 'Make no modifications....'); I would also note that should a safety- related defect be discovered i your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 *et seq*. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect. These provisions apply regardless of whether the device is covered by a safety standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0842

Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), there, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computer under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met in inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2865

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 208 applies to side-facing seats in multi-purpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.; Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, does requir side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strengt requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side- facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3059

Dear Mr. Bigwood: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions abou the test procedures of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention*, as they apply to buses you manufacture.; First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determinin the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.; Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested fo window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel