ID: 77-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

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

TO: J. Herbert Newport Jr.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1977, informing us of your plan to ship the chassis of a 1968 Cadillac to England to have a body built upon it and returned to the United States for completion. You would like "to know all necessary procedures to accomplish this with the least trouble."

When the assembled vehicle is returned to the United States, at the port of entry the importer will be asked to sign a declaration (Form HS-7) of the vehicle's status with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The vehicle that you wish to manufacture will be regarded as a "1968 Cadillac" since it will incorporate the chassis and running gear of the older vehicle. Whether it is subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards depends upon whether the original Cadillac was manufactured before or after January 1, 1968. If the vehicle was manufactured before that date the importer should check Box 1 on the HS-7 form, a declaration that the vehicle was manufactured before the effective date of any standards applicable to it. Since the HS-7 form must include the vehicle chassis and engine serial numbers, the declaration will be subject to eventual verification by this agency. In the meantime, the execution of the form is all that is required by this agency for clearance of the vehicle, quite a simple procedure.

If the original vehicle was manufactured after January 1, 1968, there should be a certification plate on the firewall or driver's door stating that it complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. The reconstructed vehicle is also required to meet 1968 standards to be readmitted to the United States. If compliance with these standards is effected before return of the vehicle from England, and the vehicle bears a plate on the driver's door so certifying, the importer will have no further obligation to this agency. If compliance will not be achieved until after the vehicle's return to the United States, the importer must check Box 3 on the HS-7 form which requires him to execute a bond for the production of a statement within 90 days of entry that the car has been brought into compliance with the standards. For further information on the 1968 standards and import procedures you may call Robert Aubuchon of our Customs Unit (202) 426-1693.

For local licensing requirements you will have to consult the authorities in the jurisdiction in which the vehicle will be registered.

SINCERELY,

J. Herbert Newport Jr. designer and builder of Custom Bodie

November 14, 1977 Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator I am building a special automobile for a customer, using a 1968 Cadillac chassis which has been rebuilt to the size and appearance of a 1935 Duesenberg. All running Parts, however, are 1968 Cadillac.

I am planning to ship this chassis to England and have a body built on it, and return it to the United States for final completion.

I would like to know all necessary proceedures to accomplish this with the least trouble, and the assurance that everything will be legal. I also need a certificate, letter, affidavit, or similar document that will assure me of smooth passage thru the Customs, both ways, the federal automobile regulations, the states police, and the license beaureau, etc.

Will you please advise as to what additional information you will need to eliminate any possibility of running into trouble.

Thank you for your attention as soon as is convenient, I hope to be able to ship as soon as the dock strike is over.

ID: 77-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

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

TO: Robert W. Becker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1977, asking whether a U.S. importer of tires for resale would be considered the "manufacturer" of those tires for purposes of complying with the identification mark requirements contained in Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) defines the term "manufacturer" as

any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.

According to this definition, the U.S. firm to which you refer would be considered the "manufacturer" for purposes of compliance with the Traffic Safety Act and any standards of regulations promulgated thereunder. This would include compliance with the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements in 49 CFR Part 574. As the manufacturer of the tires, the U.S. importer would be permitted to place its own identification mark on the tires, as required under @ 574.5, in lieu of the European tire producer as the manufacturer of the tires. By this action, all duties imposed upon tire manufacturers under Part 574 would be the responsibility of the U.S. importer.

SINCERELY,

WALTER BECKER

NOVEMBER 7, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Legal Department

Re: Interpretation of 15 USC 1391(5)

A foreign client of ours has posed a question concerning the interpretation of the 15 U.S.C. 1391(5) definition of "manufacturer" as it applies to the Federal Safety Standards Act, and in particular, to 49 CFR 574.5(a), which requires that the manufacturer's assigned identification mark be molded onto each tire he manufactures.

Our client produces tires for a U. S. firm in their name and pursuant to their specifications. I would therefore respectfully request that you furnish us with a ruling under these circumstances as to whether in fact the referenced U.S. firm is the "manufacturer" (inasmuch as, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1391 (5), they are "importing the motor vehicle equipment for resale"), and therefore only the identification mark of the U.S. firm, and not of the foreign producer, must appear on each tire. This question of interpretation is of grave concern to the parties involved since the U. S. firm finds it, understandably, offensive to sell tires in its own name with a symbol thereon which can be traced back to the foreign producer. At the same time, the intent of the statute would in no way be circumvented by including only the U. S. firm's identification mark since this firm would maintain records of the source of their tires.

Your attention to the above matter is greatly appreciated.

Robert W. Becker

ID: 77-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES TYDINGS -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA FROM R.C. ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC-1763; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L. FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FORD, FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOL BUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your November 11, 1977, letter asking whether Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools for purposes of applying the Federal school bus safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that these facilities are primarily involved with the education of preprimary school children. Thus, the buses used to transport children to and from the Head Start facilities are considered school buses under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended by the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974) and must meet all Federal school bus safety standards.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1977

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Warren M. Heath -- Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Curtis J. Crist (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 12/10/92 from Curtis J. Crist to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8136); Also attached to letter dated 10/8/76 from Frank Berndt (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Donald I. Reed

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1977 asking whether section S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 precludes installation of front side marker reflectors and lamps on the trailer tongue.

The answer is no. S4.3.1.3 is an interpretation that such devices need not be mounted on the trailer tongue in order to comply with Standard No. 108's requirements that they be located "as a forward as practicable." Thus, alternate location 4 shown on Supplement 1 REQ BUL - 3A that you enclosed would meet Standard No. 108.

Supplement 1

Fig. 1 Boat trailer equipped with single function clearance and sidemarker lamps front and rear. Complies with Section 25100(b)(7) VC.

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: 77-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/77

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

TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1977, asking whether Federal safety standards permit passive safety belts to be equipped with conventional buckles for emergency release.

In answer to your question, Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, not only permits buckles on passive belt systems, it requires them. Under paragraphs S4.5.3.3 and S7.2 of the standard, passive seat belt assemblies are required to have a latch mechanism that releases the restraints. The release is required to be at a single point by pushbutton action.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Britax (Wingard) Limited

OCTOBER 24, 1977

T. Herlihy, Office of Chief Counsel, N H T S A,

Docket 75/14 - Notice 10 - Occupant Restraint Systems

We are designing passive restraint systems with webbing restraint which incorporate in their construction a conventional buckle and tongue intended to be used under conditions requiring emergency release. The buckle assembly would be mounted adjacent to the door when used with a restraint for outboard front seat occupants.

Would you please confirm or otherwise whether the incorporation of such a device for the emergency release of a belt assembly to be applied without action by the occupant is acceptable within the terms of the safety standard, as this is at present interpreted.

T. V. BARLOW Senior Technical Officer

ID: 77-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/26/77

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request to Roger Tilton of my staff for the reasons that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) exempted buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less from the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

As you know, the NHTSA promulgated the joint strength standard to prevent injuries resulting from the impact of children with the sharp protruding edges of body panel sheets that become unfastened in school bus accidents. This problem, according to the information available to the agency, was particularly acute with respect to large school buses. The agency has no similar data indicating that the joint severance problem is a major factor contributing to injuries in accidents involving smaller school buses. Accordingly, the agency exempted those vehicles from the requirements. Should the NHTSA discover in the future that such problems exist with respect to smaller buses, it would consider extending the requirements to them.

I am enclosing a copy of our last notice on Standard No. 221 that fully outlines our reasons for exempting smaller school buses.

ID: 77-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company's October 6, 1977, request for confirmation that the criteria for a bulk agricultural commodity trailer contained in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be met by a trailer that does not accommodate "slip-in bottom dump" bulk harvest tubs as well as the "deck type" harvest tubs used for tomatoe harvesting. From your description, it is assumed for the purposes of this interpretation that the trailers in question do conform to the criteria in the standard for maximum length and an air line and reservoir arrangement that minimize field damage.

The criterion of "skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers" can be met by a design that accommodates mounting of deck type bulk harvest tubs by means of removable flooring, whether or not the removal of flooring also permits the mounting of "slip-in bottom" bulk harvest tubs.

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

October 6, 1977

National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Duane Perrin

Attached is a copy of a letter sent to our Utility Dealers who have historically sold the agricultural commodity trailer. The letter tells the story.

Basically, we find that there are many more trailers required in the tomatoe harvest than any other kind. Thus, the operator wants to avoid the cost of accommodating the slip-in containers which adds plenty to the cost and weight of the trailer - - - and, I find that our competitors are following the rules we have now set. A copy of a letter that stated our position to Fruehauf last May is attached. Obviously, we and Fruehauf now have the same rules.

Unless we are off-base, I will assume that you agree with our restrictions.

Paul Bennett Chief Engineer

ATTACH.

To: San Leandro - Bruce Myers Fresno - Lyman Ehrlich Los Angeles - James Pollard Phoenix - Ben Cravens The legal definition of an Agricultural Commodity Trailer with specific exemptions from MVSS 121 is "Trailer designed with a high ground clearance and other special features for use with farm tractors during harvest."

Up to the date of this letter Utility has restricted its manufacture of Agricultural Commodity Trailers to a specially designes combination trailer model FS1WC (Semi) and FF2WC (Pull). We now learn many users do not want or need extra expense of a combination trailer that will accommodate a deck mounted harvest tub (tomatoes) as well as the bottom dump can for slip-in body (grapes and fruit) - - - and, that often, a center frame design is preferred to the wide frame design. As a consequence, the following trailer type order will be accepted for trailers qualified as Agricultural Commodity Trailers:

1. Standard Utility combo trailer Models FS1WC & FF2WC, - or -

2. Utility chassis trailer Models FS1W and FF2W (wide frame) or FS1C and FF2C center frame trailers which consider the following special specification:

A. Booster mountings to be top mounted on the axles to accommodate the high road bed clearance requirement.

B. Omission of all floor material for the purpose of accommodating a customer light weight floor or base support for a deck type harvest tub.

C. Trailer lengths may not exceed 27 ft.

D. A dealer letter is to accompany each order warranting that a sole and primary use will be in-field with farm type tractor. The dealer, obviously, should protect himself with a similar letter at time of sale.

John C. Bennett

CC: NHTSA

ID: 77-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 25, 1977, letter and subsequent conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff asking several hypothetical questions concerning the date of manufacture of vehicles and the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to those vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is interested in the compliance of motor vehicles with safety standards. The agency does not regulate the model year designation of vehicles. You should note that sale as "new" of a vehicle, which for our purposes is "used," is regulated in many instances by the States. Further, you should consult the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the legality of calling such vehicles new, since that agency is concerned with any consumer fraud that might arise when a vehicle with used parts is sold as a new vehicle.

In your conversation with Mr. Tilton, you stated that you might alter the dates on the certificates of title for the chassis mentioned in your first question. This alteration would change, for example, a 1975 manufacturing date on the chassis title documents to a 1977 manufacturing date. I strongly urge you to obtain legal advice on the practice of altering the dates on these documents.

With respect to the application of Federal safety standards to your vehicles, you ask whether several vehicle chassis manufactured in previous years can be used in the manufacture of new 1977 motor vehicles. For purposes of the applicability of Federal safety standards, a manufacturer is permitted to select as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the chassis, the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle, or any date between those two dates (Volume 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages). Therefore, for a chassis manufactured in previous years and subsequently included in a completed vehicle, the manufacturer has some freedom in the selection of the manufacturing date of the final vehicle. The date of manufacture of the vehicle, as chosen by the manufacturer, would be the date upon which the applicability of all safety standards would be judged, including those applicable to the chassis.

You should note that your Crane Chassis and Yard Tractor may not have to comply with our requirements regardless of the date of their manufacture. The NHTSA's regulations apply only to motor vehicles which are primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not have to comply with the agency's requirements. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining which vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563).

In your final two questions you ask whether our regulations applicable to glider kits and to rebuilt tractors allow you to consider those vehicles "used" for the purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards, but "new" for purposes of their sale. Our glider kit regulation, Part 571.7(e), and our regulations concerning combining new and used components in trailers, Part 571.7(f), describe the limited circumstances under which reconstructed vehicles are not required to meet new motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicles you reference meet the guidelines established in Parts 571.7(e) and (f) they will not be considered new motor vehicles for purposes of application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I trust that this fully responds to your questions.

ID: 77-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Kentucky Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request to Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus safety standards to vans school children to or from school or related events.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates safety standards applicable to all school buses. School bus is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3) to mean a bus sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. In turn, bus is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." More than 10 persons means 10 passengers or more plus a driver. Accordingly, any vehicle sold or introduced in interstate commerce to transport school children which carries 10 or more passengers to or from school or related events must comply with all of the new Federal school bus requirements. This includes vans which fall within that passenger capacity.

ID: 77-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: Gould; Reichert & Strauss

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms the substance of your November 2, 1977, meeting with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus safety standards to common carriers used in urban and rural transportation.

You indicated in that meeting that you thought that the effect of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's grant program to rural transit authorities would be to phase out the standard yellow school bus in favor of transporting children on rural transit buses. This situation would result in the avoidance of the Federal school bus regulations.

It is the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that buses used by rural transportation districts to transport school children do not qualify for the limited exception from the school bus safety standards accorded to urban transportation common carriers.

The agency has traditionally excluded urban common carrier buses from the school bus requirements to allow transportation of school children on existing urban transportation facilities. The agency has never extended this exclusion to rural common carrier buses. In our notice on the redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033) the NHTSA indicated that only urban transit buses would fall within the ambit of this limited exception. By that action, the agency intended to avoid the artificial development of rural transportation authorities that would result in the avoidance of the Federal school bus regulations.

In another comment you criticized the agency's adoption of a "use definition" for the applicability of the school bus regulations since the application of such definition depends upon the sales transaction to establish the intended use of the vehicle. You allege that enforcement of regulations dependent upon the sales transaction cannot be achieved.

The agency adopted the "use definition" for the regulation of school buses as a result of a Congressional directive in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress defined school bus in a manner that requires the use of a vehicle to be considered. Accordingly, the agency must employ the "use definition" in regulating school buses. The NHTSA does not agree that the new regulations are unenforceable as a result of this regulatory approach. Enforcement of these regulations will be as vigorous as the enforcement of any other NHTSA regulation.