ID: nht79-1.21

DATE: 08/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vesely Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 31, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. David Gibbard Vesely Company 2101 N. Lapeer Road Lapeer, Michigan 48446

Dear Mr. Gibbard:

This is in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office on August 6, 1979, and the previous telephone conversations between Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Arnold, formerly of your company, and Mr. Erickson of our Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Arnold. It also serves to supplement the letter from Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, to the president of your company, Mr. McCollough.

Barring an order of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, we anticipate no changes in the rule beyond those made in Notice 8. Further, the contract with the Society of Automotive Engineers to act as the NHTSA's agent in distributing manufacturer identifiers, which Mr. Arnold was advised the agency was negotiating, has been entered into. We are therefore able to confirm the answer to your company's remaining questions with certainty. The technical questions you raised will be answered first, as we understand you would prefer to have these answers in writing also.

1. You have asked whether Vesely can use the first two characters of the sequential number (the 12th and 13th characters of the VIN if one includes the check digit) for internal company purposes as the number of vehicles produced is more than 500, but never exceeds 9,999 of a particular model annually. There is nothing in the standard which precludes utilizing the 12th and 13th characters for internal purposes so long as the agency is advised which characters are to be used and that they are to be disregarded.

2. You have also advised us that Vesely desires to use several manufacturer identifier the codes beginning with the letter V. When the NHTSA published its rule establishing the manufacturer identifier system on August 17, 1978, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) immediately submitted a list of approximately 500 identifiers on behalf of vehicle manufacturers. These identifiers had been previously assigned to manufacturers by the SAE in their role as assigner of world manufacturer identifiers on behalf of the International Standards Organization. Unfortunately, the configuration Vesely proposed was reserved by the SAE at that time.

Because of the substantial experience the SAE has had in this area, the NHTSA has contracted with them to assign the remaining manufacturer identifiers. If you would write to the SAE at the address given below, advising them of the types of vehicles you are now producing or intend to produce, they will assign your manufacturer identifiers at no charge. Please write to:

Society of Automotive Engineers 400 Commonwealth Avenue Warendale, Pennsylvania 15096 Attention: Leo Ziegler

I trust this information answers the questions you have concerning the VIN. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 28, 1979

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

With issuance of Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8, relating to Vehicle Identification Numbers I must assume the NHTSA is getting closer to "finalizing" FMVSS No. 115 notwithstanding the VIN litigation upcoming in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As such, and in follow-up to my several letters and telephone conversation with you on January 9, 1979 I am again requesting official NHTSA written replies to these as soon as possible to enable our small company to try and comply with the Federal requirements.

To date, I have not received approval of our requested first three digit assignments (letter of October 30, 1978) as required by the standard and I have not received written permission to utilize digits 12 and 13 for our own in-house use (letter of December 11, 1978). Further, I have never received an official answer to my letter to President Carter other than a post card from Secretary Adams saying he will be replying.

All in all, not much action to help our company comply with these Federal mandates. If our company is going to be able to meet the effective date of September 1, 1980 we must have some answers now! Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8 has done nothing to alleviate or reduce this company's burden as I interpret the impact of it. Since we not only manufacture motor homes (MPV's) but recreational trailers as well, we must institute this 17 digit system even though the chassis manufacturer would assign his VIN. We cannot stay with our current VIN system for one product and change to a completely different VIN system for our other products.

Your replies will be anxiously awaited to enable us to continue the necessary work to comply with FMVSS 115 as it now stands by the effective date of September 1, 1980.

Very truly yours,

D. J. Arnold Director of Product Development

th

ID: nht79-1.22

DATE: 12/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 19, 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo Director, Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.

As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.

Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whose joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.

The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly to all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.

With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first ask whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.

Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which you indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that must be removed for routine servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.

In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers a wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.

Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover must comply with the standard. You state only that must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 12, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain rulings that the seven parts listed below will comply with the exclusions allowed under S.4 of FMVSS 221 as they relate to the need for maintenance.

The parts are made from a flexible plastic material called polypropolene. The purpose is to cover many unsightly conditons of components required to be installed, some due to assembly of the body to the chassis, and others required by either federal or state regulations. It is our opinion that a very important secondary purpose is accomplished in that due to the flexibility and rounded corners of the plastic parts, many edges and corners of steel parts will gain additional protection. Additionally if the parts were to come loose during an accident, which is unlikely unless of a violent type, they could do little, if any, physical injury due to the flexibility of the material.

(1) Right-hand & Left-hand Windshield Pillar Covers

(a) The left-hand pillar requires the running of an air or vacuum line to the top of the windshield to operate a mechanical wig wag signal that informs the driver of a drop in air pressure in the brake system and is required in some states.

(b) The right-hand pillar has a cable control anounced to the windshield pillar that connects the driver operated door control to the mechanism at the top of the doors to operate the entrance doors.

(2) Left-hand Dash Trim

This part must be removed to service the windshield wiper motor, mechanism and wiring.

(3) Dash Trim - Center.

Covers a wiring harness, some of the body to chassis cowl mounting bolts that need to be retightened occasionally and entrance door control cable.

(4) Right-hand Dash Trim

Requires removal to service the right-hand windshield wiper motor, mechanism, wiring for the windshield motor, right-hand heater and door control cable.

(5) Right-hand Heater Cover

Must be removed to service the motors, blower, and heater cores.

(6) Entrance Door Control Cover

This covers the body of the door control which houses the switches that operate a part of the roof light warning system and stepwell light. It also must be removed along with the door control assembly in order to remove the center dash trim.

Our planning is to use these parts in production January 1980, but final decision will be based upon your rulings.

We definitely are of the opinion this adds to the enterior safety as well as appearance, but requires decisions before the expense of tooling for these parts.

A photograph is enclosed showing a prototype with the subject parts installed.

Due to tooling lead time and present date, your prompt reply is requested.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosures (2)

Photographs Dwg. #LO-21782-D

ID: nht79-1.23

DATE: 09/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 20 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your August 30, 1979, letter asking how to comply with Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. That regulation states, in part, that a manufacturer may choose as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of manufacture of the final vehicle, or any date between those two dates. You ask whether this choice is available to manufacturers that manufacture both the incomplete vehicle and the final-stage vehicle. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an interpretation in 1974 stating that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles could not choose the date of manufacture of their completed vehicles. Those manufacturers must use only the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

The 1974 interpretation stated that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles do not need a choice of manufacture dates. That choice is only appropriate when a manufacturer of a completed vehicle does not have control over the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle. In such cases, a final-stage manufacturer might order an incomplete vehicle which would be constructed prior to the effective date of new safety standards but received after the effective date of such standards. If the incomplete vehicle were not in compliance with the new standards, it might be impossible for the final-stage manufacturer to use it in the construction of a completed vehicle. When a manufacturer is in complete control of both units, however, it can ensure that the incomplete vehicle will comply with the appropriate safety standards that will be in effect on the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

Our 1974 interpretation stated that the certification requirements would change as a result of the Rex Chainbelt decision. As you are aware, the agency significantly modified its regulations in accordance with that decision. However, the sections relating to the date of manufacture of a vehicle were not changed. Accordingly, our 1974 interpretation of those sections limiting the choice of dates of manufacture for a manufacturer that produce all stages of a vehicle remains in effect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 30, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: N40-30 (MPP) dated February 26, 1974; copy attached for easy reference.

Dear Mr. Berndt,

The referenced letter indicates that as manufacturers of chassis and bodies (incomplete and complete vehicles) we cannot use the Part 568 certification scheme for two stage manufacturers. However, the letter goes on to say that the Rex Chainbelt case may have an impact on this.

Our question is this. Now that the Rex Chainbelt case is settled, do we now have a choice of either the Part 567 or Part 568 certification schemes or must we continue to use the Part 567 scheme as expressed in the referenced letter?

Thank you for your early reply.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

oct

enclosure In reply refer to: N40-30 (MPP)

Mr. W. G. Milby Project Manager Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in reply to your letter of December 19, 1973, asking whether Blue Bird may use the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicles it manufactures, to be completed at a later time, as the date by which conformity to applicable safety standards is to be determined. You indicate that Blue Bird manufactures both incomplete and complete vehicles.

The Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts, 567, 568) allow only final-stage manufacturers to certify conformity to applicable standards as of the manufacture date of an "incomplete vehicle." A person who manufactures the Entire vehicle, including the chassis, is not a final-stage manufacturer within the intent of the regulation, and such a vehicle must be certified as of the date of its completion.

Part 568 clearly intends that multistage vehicles will be manufactured by more than one party. As your letter points out, the documentation required by Part 568 is unnecessary when only one manufacturer is involved. Moreover, the justification in the regulations for allowing a final-stage manufacturer to utilize the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle is based partially on the fact that he has no control over the configuration of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has no control over when and how the vehicle is completed. This justification does not exist when a single party builds the entire vehicle.

To permit a manufacturer of a complete vehicle to choose a date other than the completion date for purposes of conformity would present this agency with serious enforcement problems.

Which standards would apply would depend on how "separate" were a single company's manufacturing operations. Due to the endless possibilities that may arise in this regard, it is difficult to envision fair and objective critieria by which this decision could be made. Finally, providing the relief you request would allow a manufacturer to avoid compliance with a forthcoming standard by manufacturing large numbers of incomplete vehicles for completion by him at a later time.

You should note that the legal status of Parts 567 and 568 is unclear, due to the recent Court decisions in the Rex Chainbelt case. You will encounter no problems, however, by continuing to follow the regulations until further agency action is taken.

Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.24

DATE: 01/10/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. M. Ashbrook - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 10, 1979

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ashbrook:

This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it is required that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers.

As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Mr. David Soule Department of Transportation Room 5319 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Soule:

According to the attached findings of the Congressional Research Service, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that school buses be built for a minimum of nine passengers plus the driver. Could you please confirm or contradict this conclusion for me in writing as soon as is conveniently possible?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

John M. Ashbrook Representative to Congress 17th District

ID: nht79-1.25

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alternative Automotive, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec. 14, 1979

Mr. John F. Croonquist, President Alternative Automotive, Inc. 999 N. Pacific Street, 33-D Oceanside, California 92054

Dear Mr. Croonquist:

This responds to your November 9, 1979, letter asking whether a vehicle that you plan to produce would be classified as a truck for purposes of applying the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In your letter, you state that your vehicle looks somewhat like a Jeep. You state further that it is constructed on a Volkswagen truck chassis, carries two passengers, and is designed to transport property. As you know, the agency defines truck to be a vehicle that is designed primarily to transport property or speciality equipment. Since the vehicle that you plan to manufacture appears to be designed for the transportation of property and since it is constructed on a truck chassis, the agency concludes that it would be a truck for the purposes of applying the safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

9 November, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Roger Fairchild

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

If you will recall I talked with you on the phone about one and a half months ago concerning getting a ruling as to the classification from the NHTSA on a vehicle I am in the process of building; and therefore before proceeding further I will need a ruling from your office.

A general description of the vehicle would be a fiberglass body (similiar to a Jeep) placed on my own fabricated chassis (2" by 4"-.120 wall box tubing) which is truely a truck chassis. The design of the chassis follows closely that of the VW Bus or what Volkswagen calls their type 2 vehicle and uses VW bus front torsion, rear torsion, brakes, steering, pedal assembly and other VW bus components.

Various data supplied herein points out why we feel the vehicle should be classified as a truck; especially in light of the recent classification of the American Motors Corp. "Eagle" as a truck.

Various reasons stated are as follows: 1. Vehicle is designed to carry two persons 2. Vehicle is designed to transport property a. by using the roll bar as a super-structure to build a cargo containment area b. this will be done by placing wood siding on the roll bar sides and rear 3. Ground clearance using L78-15 tires is 14.75 in. under the front torsion and 12 in. under the rear torsion (also 12 in. is the minimum ground clearance) 4. Ground clearance on my vehicle will be equal to or greater than nearly all trucks manufactured in the U.S.A. 5. Approach angle of 64 degrees 6. Chassis is designed to carry over 2000 pounds on the front axle and 2000 pounds plus on the rear axle

Projected production calls for less than 500 vehicles per year and our projected market area will be the U.S. Territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; the reason being that the vehicle fits perfectly the climate and geography and also after traveling to these areas we have found local governments with high under-employment and more than willing to help in setting up an vehicle manufacturing facility.

However in making this facility a reality we need and actively seek the help of NHTSA, its administrators, advisors, and counsel to render assistance and relevant decisions to SMALL businesses who do not have access to corporate lawyers, the lobby folly, or other channels that big business often uses to purge the SMALL manufacturer, and more often uses to gouge the consumer.

We will await your ruling and would appreciate your earliest concern on this matter.

Sincerely,

John F. Croonquist-President

ID: nht79-1.26

DATE: 02/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

February 1, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Richard J. Toner Director, Engineering Services Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 25900 Greenfield Road Oak Park, Michigan 48237

Dear Mr Toner:

This responds to your December 7, 1978, letter asking whether the weight of stake sides which are readily removable from a flat bed body would be included in the determination of a vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight.

As you know the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has defined "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that does not include the vehicle weight of accessories that are normally removed when they are not in use. This is the test that manufacturers should use when determining whether the weight of any piece of equipment or accessory is to be included within the unloaded vehicle weight determination.

In your letter you indicate that the stake sides for flat bed bodies are readily removable. Readily removable is not the correct test to apply to these devices in determining whether their weight must be included within the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight. A manufacturer must determine whether the stakes are likely to be removed when not in use. If the answer to this question is yes, then the weight of stake sides would not be included in the unloaded vehicle weight. Otherwise, the weight of those accessories must be included.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Truck Equipment & Body D/A Distributors Association

December 7, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Chief Council NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards requires that the weight of permanently attached truck equipment be included in the vehicle weight. A question has arisen concerning the weight calculations on a truck equipped with a flat bed body and stake sides. Stake sides are a grid of horizontal wooden slats and vertical stakes which slide into pockets along the edges of the body.

Because the stakes are readily removable and are not bolted or clamped to the truck body in any manner, we do not consider the stake side assemblies to be part of the truck weight. Your opinion of this interpretation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanking you for your assistance and consideration, I remain,

Yours truly,

Richard J. Toner Director, Engineering Services

RJT:dg

ID: nht79-1.27

DATE: 02/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: City of Royal Oak

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 15 1979

NOA-30

Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak, Michigan 48068

Dear Mr. Baldridge:

This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.

Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncompliance with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the "unloaded vehicle weight" that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle users.

The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible for certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.

The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by the implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient "unloaded vehicle weight" to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with the safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 21, 1978

Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

The City of Royal Oak, Michigan has encountered a problem with the new "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, MVSS 212, 219 and 301, which reduce the maximum unloaded weight of trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Apparently these new standards were issued September 1, 1978.

The City of Royal Oak advertised in August 1978 for bids on a one (1) Ton Cab and Chassis with a G.V.W.R. of 8,000 pounds or greater, which was adequate to mount an aerial bucket weighing 2,120 pounds. An aerial bucket was not bid at that time, since an application was pending with the Office of Highway Safety Planning for a matching grant.

The low bidder on the truck, bid a 1979 G.M.C. one (1) Ton Cab and Chassis, with utility body, with a 10,000 pound G.V.W.R. The intent was to mount a twenty-four (24) foot articulating aerial bucket on this vehicle. This would provide us with a small truck which could be used for emergency repairs to traffic signals. The aerial bucket was to be powered with a small, self contained engine for energy savings.

We have now been informed by the local company that mounts aerial buckets, that it cannot install the bucket on the one Ton truck already received, because the vehicle does not meet the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Nearly $7,400 has been spent for the utility body truck, which is of no value to the City except for mounting the aerial bucket.

Therefore, it is requested that the National Traffic Safety Administration allow the City of Royal Oak to mount the proposed twenty-four foot aerial bucket on the 1979 GMC one (1) Ton truck in accordance with the Safety Standards that were in effect at the time the truck was bid. It is further requested that your office issue a certificate that will allow an installation company to mount the aerial bucket on the new vehicle and issue the required certification.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

CITY OF ROYAL OAK

William J. Baldridge City Manager

ID: nht79-1.28

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealer & Reatreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1979

Mr. Mark E. Grayson Executive Assistant for Government Affairs National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. 1343 L Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Grayson:

This is in response to your letter of March 2, 1979, in which you request clarification of several points relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), and the record retention requirements applicable to tire retreaders.

You inquire first as to the obligations of tire dealers under the UTQG regulation. As explained more fully in our recent letter to Mr. Tony Hylton of your organization, the UTQG regulation places the responsibility for supplying tire grading information on vehicle and tire nanufacturers and tire brand name owners. These parties must make their own arrangements with tire distributors and dealers to assure that the required tire grading information reaches tire purchasers.

You ask whether bias-ply tires manufactured abroad prior to April 1, 1979, but imported into the United States after April 1, must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B), which becomes effective on April 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires, applies to bias-ply tires manufactured after that date. The date of manufacture rather than the date of importation is controlling in determining whether tires fall within the tread labeling requirements of the UTQG regulation.

You also ask whether tires to which the UTQG labeling requirements apply can be imported into the United States without the required tread labels, provided adequate labels are attached at the tires' point of sale. The purpose of the UTQG labeling requirements is to provide information to assist consumers in tire purchasing decisions. Therefore, the tread labeling requirements of the regulation would be satisfied if labels are attached at the dealership prior to the time the tires are offered for sale. However, manufacturers and brand name owners should be cautioned that they will be held responsible should the dealer incorrectly label the tires or neglect to attach the required labels.

Finally, you inquire whether manufacturers of retreaded tires must retain tire registration records compiled pursuant to Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (49 CFR Part 574), in view of the recent exemption of retreaders from the registration requirements of that part. While the registration requirements of Part 574 no longer apply to the sale of retreaded tires, section 574.7(d) (49 CFR 574.7(d)) nonetheless requires that previously compiled records on retreaded tires be maintained for a period of not less than three years from the date the information was recorded by the tire manufacturer or his designee.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

March 2, 1979

Mr. Richard Hipolet Office of Chief Counsel National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolet:

As requested from our conversation on Thursday, I would like for NHTSA to clarify a few points dealing with the upcoming implementation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System.

1. What is the regulatory responsibility, if any, of our members, tire dealers, under the current regulations?

2. Can tires manufactured in a foreign country before April 1, 1979 but received in port after April 1, 1979 be available for sale without labels?

3. If tires are manufactured in a foreign country after April 1, 1979 but before the tire quality information has to be molded on the tire are imported without labels, can labels be attached at point of sale?

On another front, would you please let us know what the requirements are for retreaders to retain previous records of retread registration now that the retreader no longer has to register the tires.

We appreciate your prompt attention to these matters. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark E. Grayson

Executive Assistant for Government Affairs

ID: nht79-1.29

DATE: 11/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Hein, Smith & Berezin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

06 NOV 1979

Mr. Lawrence D. Smith Hein, Smith & Berezin 25 East Salem Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1979, asking whether the Federal Government has any rule, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss. If a vehicle is repairable and will subsequently be used as a motor vehicle, disclosure of the actual miles would have to be made to the purchaser and those statements would have to be maintained by the insurance carrier for four years. However, if the vehicle is so badly damaged that it cannot be returned to the road, it will have ceased to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the regulations. Disclosure and retention would, therefore, not be required. In those instances where disclosure and retention are required, the format is specified in 49 CFR Part 580. For your information, I have enclosed copies of the relevant portions of the regulations, along with a sample disclosure form.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law & Legislation Enclosure

October 1, 1979

United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I am an Attorney in the State of New Jersey, andrepresent several insurance companies. Recently, inquiry was addressed to me by one of my clients, requesting that I ascertain whether the State of New Jersey or the Federal Government has any rules, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss as the result of an automobile accident where the carrier, on paying its assured, takes title to the totaled vehicle and then sells that vehicle for salvage. I would appreciate any information you can provide me, together with copies of any pertinent rules, regulations or statutory citations.

I thank you, in advance, for your cooperation and assistance.

Very truly yours,

HEIN, SMITH & BEREZIN

Lawrence D. Smith

LDS/kd

ID: nht79-1.3

DATE: 01/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Szkolnicki Mechanical Engineering Motor Coach Industries, Inc. Pembina, North Dakota 58271

Dear Mr. Szkolnicki:

This responds to your January 2, 1979, request for confirmation that a July 23, 1976, interpretation of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been incorporated into the body of the regulation. I regret that you did not receive a reply to your letter of November 27, 1978, which was addressed to someone who is no longer in this office.

The interpretation in question has not been incorporated into the body of the regulation. During a court review of the standard which only recently concluded, the agency was making a few changes to the standard as possible. Consideration is now being given to revision of the standard in minor respects, but no date has been established for action. Until any such action is taken, you may continue to rely on the July 23, 1976, interpretation as the agency's official view of the meaning of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4.

Sincerely,

Original signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

January 2, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to our letter of November 27th, copy enclosed, in which we referred your letter of July 23rd, 1976 to White Motor.

We would appreciate a reply, confirming that an amendment to the FMVS 121 was issued.

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor Mechanical Engineering

TS/cf Enclosure

November 27th, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Frank A. Berndt - Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to your letter of July 23rd, 1976, to the White Motor Corporation, copy enclosed. The letter refers to the FMVSS #121. Specifically, it refers to the apply and release times for brake chambers that have a lower max. brake chamber pressure.

The last paragraph notes that "the agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation".

Can you advise if this amendment was issued, and if so, please forward a copy of this. If the amendment was not issued, can you comment on when this will be done? Thank you.

Yours very truly,

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES, INC.,

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering.

TS/jp