ID: nht87-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Project Engineer The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1987, asking further questions of permissible lamp operations.

With reference to the deceleration warning system discussed previously in our correspondence, you have asked whether there would be a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 if the triple steady burning amber lamps are operated simultaneously with the steady burning rear stop lamps, or with the flashing turn signal lamps (either red or amber). In neither instance do we believe that an impairment of required lighting equipment world result, within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones

The Flxible Corporation has received your interpretation, dated December 8, 1986, concerning the operation of deceleration lights. This interpretation stated that the flashing mode of the amber deceleration lights impaired the effectiveness of the steady burning red stop lamps. Also, the amber deceleration lights must be steady burning in every mode.

Two additional issues require an interpretation from NHTSA concerning amber steady burning deceleration lights. The amber deceleratin lights would be activated steady burning when the accelerator is released and deactivated when the accelerator is depres sed. Would a noncompliance with FMVSS 108 result with the simultaneous operation of the amber steady burning deceleration lights with the following required FMKVSS 108 lights?

1. Activation of the steady burning red stop lights.

2. Activation of flashing red or amber (color depending on customer) turn signal lights.

In order to assure compliance with FMVSS 108 with an OEM installation of amber steady burning deceleration lights, we request an additional interpretation on their simultaneous operation with the normal rear stop anbd turn signal lights.

Sincerely,

James r. Mitzenberg Project Engineer

ID: nht87-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Direcdtor of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, L.P.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M.B. Mathieson Director of Engineering Thomas Built Buses, L.P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

This is in reply to your letters to Francis Armstrong, Robert Williams, and Taylor Vinson, all of this agency. I regret the delay in this reply.

In summary, Thomas wishes to mount a body of its construction to a "General Motors chassis model #G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 lbs. maximum GVWR." Two prototypes have been operating. In testing for compliance with the frontal impact require ments of Standard No. 301, the rate of fuel leakage from a pinched or broken fuel line greatly exceeded the amount permitted by the standard. The test conducted by Thomas used sandbags to simulate occupant loading, and the impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 m.p.h. You have asked the following four questions:

"1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?"

"2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged noncompliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?"

The results of the frontal barrier crash test do not constitute an alleged or apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 301 as the impact velocity exceeded the 30 m.p.h. maximum test requirement. In addition, the vehicle's test weight in your test exceede d the test weight specified in S7.1.6(b) of the standard. Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehicle. For NHTSA to find a safety related defect at 30.4 m.p.h. would be the equivalent of imposing a new standard without following Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rulemaking.

However, in our view, Thomas could not in good faith certify compliance of the completed bus with the 30 m.p.h. requirements if there was a failure when a correctly loaded bus was tested at 30.4 m.p.h and no counterbalancing data showing passes in other tests. Had NHTSA conducted a test at 30.4 m.p.h. and found a failure, it would have proceeded to conduct another test in accordance with the specifications of Standard No. 301 and test at a speed slightly less than 30 m.p.h. and with a Part 572 dummy in the driver's seat.

3. "What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle test weight for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non school buses for vehicles in the under and up to 10,000 lbs.' class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMV SS 208?"

The test weight is set forth in paragraph S7.1.6(b) of Standard No. 301. That section provides that a "bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test dummies as specified in S6., plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo load and luggage capacity weight, whichever is less,...."

4. "If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to the requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a test weight as noted by GM (approximately 7,500 pounds) a nd the results show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the l ower GVWR."

This question cannot be answered because the facts stated in your question appear to be incorrect. Our review of the documentation you enclosed shows that GM has rated the incomplete vehicle at 10,000 pounds GVWR, rather than at approximately 7,500 pound s GVWR, as stated in your letter. GM has, however, specified the maximum unloaded vehicle weight as 6866 pounds, and stated that the completed vehicle will comply if its unloaded vehicle weight does not exceed this amount. It has also stated that the max imum unloaded vehicle weight plus 634 pounds (which, when added to 6866 pounds equals 7500 pounds) cannot exceed the vehicle's GVWR, which is 10,000 pounds in this case. GM therefore has made no representation that its incomplete vehicle will meet Standa rd No. 301 at weights outside those values, and the burden of certification falls upon the final stage manufacturer who completes the vehicle in a manner outside the limits cited by GM.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 11, 1986

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

Attn: Mr. Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel

Attn: Mr. Robert Williams, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

RE: FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity

Gentlemen,

This letter is in reference to telephone conversations of June 9, 1986, with Mr. Martin Paliokas, Mr. Bob Krause, and Mr. Robert Williams regarding a possible safety defect, and/or a possible non-compliance with FMVSS 301. This instance involves a Thomas Minotour Model school bus, in the "10,000 lbs. or under" class GVWR.

Thomas Built Buses, L.P. proposes to mount the body of this model school bus on a General Motors chassis model #G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 lbs. maximum GVWR, and has, in fact, had two prototype vehicles operating in public service for som e time.

Pursuant to FMVSS 222, para. S5(b), Requirements, each of these vehicles is equipped with seat belts at each designated seating position, that meet the applicable requirements of 571.208 and 571.209, etc., as specified in para. S5(b).

Due to some proposed body structural changes, Thomas Buses elected to perform durability testing and barrier crash tests on the final configuration of the proposed vehicle. After completion of the durability testing, which comprises 4,000 miles of operat ion over a prescribed test track program at Transportation Research Center in East Liberty,Ohio, the vehicle was completely inspected, including the chassis. No deterioration or distress of any nature was found. The vehicle was then transferred to the fa cilities of Arvin/Calspan Advanced Technology Center in Buffalo, N.Y. for barrier crash testing.

For purposes of continuity and repeatability Thomas elected to use the barrier crash requirements as specified in FMVSS 301 for this portion of our test program. To determine the vehicle loaded condition to be used for the lateral moving barrier crash an d the frontal barrier crash, we noted the following requirement of FMVSS 301.

Para.S6.1 Frontal Barrier Crash:

When the vehicle, traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 mph impacts......with 50th percentile test dummies as specified in Part 572 of this chapter at each front outboard designated seating position and at any other positio n whose protection system is required to be tested by a dummy under the provisions of Standard 208 .... ..fuel spillage shall not exceed the limits of S5.5.

Para. -S6.3 Lateral Moving Barrier Crash:

When the vehicle is impacted on either side....with 50th percentile test dummies as specified in Part 572 of this chapter at positions required for testing to standard No. 208...... fuel spillage shall not exceed the limits of S5.5.

Thomas Built Buses interpreted the above requirements of FMVSS 301 as intending to require that testing of school buses "at or under" 10,000 lbs. GVWR be performed at a GVWR approximating the loaded passenger weight, as is required for school buses with GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs. (Specified in FMVSS 301, para. S7.1.6(c).) Accordingly, since our design passenger weight for this vehicle would bring the GVWR very close to 10,000 lbs. maximum GVWR, Thomas elected to test the vehicle loaded with sand bags to simulate the final vehicle configuration with a full passenger load.

On May 28, 1986, Arvin/Calspan performed the lateral moving barrier crash per the requirements of FMVSS 301 with the vehicle at approximately 10,000 lbs. GVWR. The vehicle was again completely inspected. Other than minor sheet metal deformation in the ar ea of the fuel tank filler neck no damage was noted to body or chassis. The test successfully demonstrated compliance with FMVSS 301 to this point. (Static rollover testing was not done.)

On May 29, 1986, Arvin/Calspan performed the frontal barrier crash per the requirements of FMVSS 301. Impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 miles per hour. A significant amount of crushing was experienced at the front of the vehicle in the cab/engine a rea. Inspection revealed that just beside and behind the right front wheel the chassis frame rail had distorted severely, pinching or breaking one or more fuel lines that are tied to the frame rail in the G.M. "as delivered" configuration. Rate of leakag e from this fuel line significantly exceeded the limits of FMVSS 301, para. S5.5 and appeared to be siphoning fuel from the main tank which was positioned higher than the fuel line break. The leak was stopped by pinching the line between the tank and the leak area.

Upon contacting G.M. personnel regarding the results of our testing, we were directed by them to the Incomplete vehicle document statements regarding their certification limitations. As we understand this document, even though the chassis is certified as being able to be completed as a school bus with a 10,000 lbs. GVWR, the G.M. certification testing to FMVSS 301 requirements was limited to a GVWR of approximately 7,500 lbs., which is apparently G.M.'s understanding of the FMVSS 301 requirements.

The following items are enclosed for your assistance in under standing our questions in this matter:

a) The G.M. document for Incomplete Vehicle.

b) Pictures of the vehicle before and after frontal barrier crash testing to show the area of concern.

Thomas Built Buses, L.P. respectfully submits the following questions:

1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?

2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with the discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged non-compliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?

3. What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle GVWR for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non-school buses for vehicles in the "under and up to 10,000 lbs." class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMVSS 208?

4. If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to the requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a GVWR as noted by G.M. (approximately 7,500 lbs.) and the r esults show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the lower GVW R?

Thomas Built Buses has presently stopped all further work on the development of this model. In expectation of a successful test program, considerable amount of money has been spent on tooling, prototype parts, etc. Anything that could be done to expedite answers to the above questions would be most helpful in our determination of further action. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L.P. M. B. MATHIESON, Director of Engineering

ID: nht87-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. regret the delay in this response. We will be resp onding to each of your questions concerning the other two standards in separate letters.

Your questions about Standard No. 219 concerns the requirement of S5 of the standard. That section provides as follows:

When the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the conditions of 57, no part of the vehicle outside the occupan t compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to 56, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a ve hicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone defined in 56. (Emphasis added.)

Your specific question concerns a situation in which a windshield wiper penetrates the protected zone template during a crash test because, for example, the wiper was pushed rearward by the deformation of the cowl or the wiper switch was contacted by the test dummy during the crash, thus turning on the wiper. You noted that the wiper blades are normally in contact with the windshield, but that the wiper arms only contact the windshield through the wiper blades. You asked whether the agency would conside r the penetration of the wiper blade and arm into the protected zone template to be a violation of the standard. As discussed below, the answer is no, the penetration of the wiper blade and arm would not be a Violation of the standard.

As you observed in your letter, the wiper blade is designed to be normally in contact with the windshield and is thus exempt from the requirements of the standard. While the arm Hill not be in direct contact with the windshield, the blade attached to the arm does contact the windshield. Also, the wiper arm is a small, light structure which, while not in direct contact with the windshield, is mounted only h fraction of an inch above the surface of the windshield and should pose little or no penetration h azard. Thus, the agency will consider the wiper arm, which is an integral part of the exempted wiper blade, to be exempted as well.

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

Sincerely,

Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dec. 24, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FHVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph 55 of FMVSS No. 219 provides When the vehicle .. no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the wi ndshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template ( by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehicle is deemed in complia nce or not: (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision. SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht87-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Fahl

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas R. Fahl, Esq. Brendel, Flanagan, Sendik & Fahl, S.C. 6324 West North Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53213-2099

Dear Mr. Fahl:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Richard Strombotne, the chief of our Crashworthiness Division. In your letter, you posed three questions about child restraint systems. I will answer those questions in the order you presented them.

1. Does NHTSA have information as to where a family with two children 3 years of age or under should put the second of two child restraint systems, assuming that the safest place for one is the middle of the rear seat?

NHTSA has not specifically addressed this topic in any of our regulations or recommendations. We believe, however, that in this situation both child restraint systems should be placed in the rear seat. This belief is based on the generally greater distan ce from the rear seat to the interior surface in front of that seat and the fact that the interior surface in front of the rear seat is primarily the rear of the front seats. The rear of the front seats tends to be a less hostile surface than the dashboa rd. Additionally, crash data show that all vehicle occupants (both adults and children) suffer fewer injuries and fatalities in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions.

2. Has NHTSA developed any rules or regulations suggesting or requiring that manufacturers of child restraint systems advise the consumer where to put a second child restraint, assuming that two children under 3 years of age will be occupying a motor veh icle at the same time and also assuming that neither child restraint system is a backward facing system?

No, NHTSA has not imposed any such requirements. With respect to child restraints manufactured before August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213) specified that: "The instructions shall state that the re ar center seating position is the safest seating position in most vehicles for installing a child restraint system." For child restraints manufactured on or after August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 requires: "The instructions shall state that, for maximum s afety protection, child restraint systems should be installed in a rear seating position in vehicles with two rear seating positions and in the center rear seating position in vehicles with such a seating position."

NHTSA has somewhat modified its position about the rear center seating position being the safest place to install a child restraint system in a recent rulemaking action amending Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Please no te that this standard applies only to vehicle manufacturers, and not to child restraint manufacturers. However, in an August 19, 1986 rule (51 FR 29552; copy enclosed), section S6(b) of Standard No. 210 requires the owners manual for vehicles manufacture d after September 1, 1987 to state that "according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions." We are currently considering whether Standard No. 213 should be ame nded to include similar language. However, neither of these requirements specifically addresses the situation where two child restraints are to be installed in the same vehicle.

3. Has NHTSA done studies to determine that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system and, if so, what are the results of those studies?

No study of which we are aware, whether done by this agency or any other party, suggests that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system. In fact, those studies of which we are aware indicate that a properly i nstalled child restraint system in the right front passenger seat will afford the child occupant a high level of safety protection in a crash situation. The safety protection can be maximized by properly installing the child restraint in a rear seating p osition, but we are aware of no basis for stating that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

September 17, 1986

Mr. Richard L. Strombotne Chief, Crashworthiness Division U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Strombotne:

In conjunction with a matter upon which I am presently working in this office I am in need of information relative to child restraint systems and pose the following inquiries to you

1. Does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have information as to where a family with 2 children 3 years of age or under should put the second of 2 child restraint systems assuming that the safest place for one is the middle of the rear s eat?

2. Has the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed any rules or regulations suggesting or requiring that manufacturers of child restraint systems advise the consumer where to put a second child restraint system assuming that 2 children u nder 3 years of age will be occupying a motor vehicle at the same time and also assuming that neither child restraint system is a backward facing system?

3. Has the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration done studies to determine that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system and if so what are the results of those studies?

In the event the Administration has developed background information pertaining to any one of the three areas about which I am making an inquiry I would appreciate your directing me to that information or sending copies to me.

Very truly yours,

Thomas R. Fahl

TRF:mhs

ID: nht87-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada -- Manager, Automotive Lighting, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to a new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be tilted 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle - for use of mechanical aimers for headla mps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the types of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adaptors. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporatin g on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the Standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

However, there are some practical considerations that are important if you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adaptors for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptors which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for larger ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have prop osed.

In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your new designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adaptors do not exist in the service communit y.

Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidential treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying re ferences to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However, because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 Development of MR (Multi-Reflector Headlamp) and was discussed at SAE and was discussed at SAE meeti ngs in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We have asked you an advice about permissibility of mechanical aiming with the additional adaptor by the letter dated August 4, 1986.

As for the above mentioned letter, we would like to ask a favor of you. We would like you to deal with this matter in strict confidence.

Since this headlamp is being developed as our new idea for customer satisfaction, we are trying to keep this information inside of our company. Therefore we would like you to maintain the secrecy of this information strictly against any other third party .

Your kind cooperation will be highly appreciated and as well we are looking forward to your reply to our problem.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: nht87-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. Whitney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. Whitney 80 Hammersmith Bridge Road London W6 9DB England

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1986, with reference to the Asquith van that you wish to import into the United States from England and sell commercially.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Does U.K. laminated glass meet D.O.T. regulations:"

Since the U.S. and U.K. glazing standards are not identical, U.K. laminated glass does not necessarily meet the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Some glass manufactured in U.K. does meet our standard. It bears the required "AS" symbol and numerical designation (e.g., "AS-1" for windshields) and is incorporated in such British cars as Rolls-Royce and jaguar that their makers certify as complying with the FMVSS. Glazing manufactured in England without the AS symbol and numerical design ator presumptively does not comply.

"2. Can I carry passengers?"

"3. Can I haul goods in the back?"

Federal safety standards do not regulate your use of the vehicle; thus, as far as our standards are concerned, you are free to decide whether to carry passengers, haul cargo, or both. However, certain design aspects of the vehicle may affect the category of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We define a truck as a vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Load-carrying vehicles are generally certifie d as "trucks" and comply with safety standards applicable to that category. A multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one that is "designed to carry 10 persons or less and which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Many vans in the U.S. are certified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." If a vehicle is neither constructed on a truck chassis nor has features for off-road use, but is designed for carrying 10 passengers or less it is a "passenger or less it is a "passenger car."

4. Once the van passes all D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, can it still be used on the road like any other vehicle?

Whether a vehicle nay be used on the public roads is a matter determinable under State law -- specifically the laws of any State where it will be licensed or driven. Generally, when a vehicle complies with D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, there should be n o problem in registering and operating it. However, we are not familiar with State laws covering replica vehicles like the Asquith.

"5. Without the engine assembly is my van considered a van, kit car or what?"

For purposes of importation into the United States, a vehicle without an engine is considered an assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment. Any items in the assemblage that are directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers) must meet, and be certified as meeting, the applicable U.S. standard.

In reply to your final request, there are no printed forms for petitions for exemptions from the Federal safety standards. An applicant is expected to provide the information specified in 49 C.F.R. Part 555, in the order given. This regulation is contain ed in the volume referenced in our correspondence with Mr. Reed of May 2, 1986.

The following is a listing of those requirements that must be completed before shipments begin. You must:

1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).*

2. Assign a vehicle identification number to your vehicles as required by 49 CFR 565 and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115.*

3. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification."*

4. Certify conformity by adding a label meeting the form, order, and location requirements of 49 CFR 567.

5. Maintain a list of first purchasers for purposes other than resale of your vehicles (section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC 1418(b)).

6. Build to conform to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards. Passenger cars must also meet theft prevention standards, if applicable.

7. Maintain a record of tires on your vehicles (49 CFR 574)."*

8. Provide consumer information (49 CFR 575), if applicable.

9. File a form HS-7 with the U.S. Customs Service at the port of entry. Only one form with each shipment is required.

10. Provide "Automotive Fuel Economy Reports" (49 CFR 537 ), if applicable.

If you determine in good faith that any vehicle manufactured by you does not conform with an applicable FMVSS or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.

We do not have "application forms." Those regulations requiring information from your company are identified by an asterisk.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. The Act

2. 19 CFR 12.80, "Regulations for Motor Vehicle Importation"

3. "Order Form" for Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400-999

4. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations"

5. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules"

6. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports"

7. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention"

8. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility"

9. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mr. Crispin Reed gave me your name. I am purchasing and importing one of their Shire'vans. Hopefully the vehicle will arrive in Florida in April of next year.

The vehicle will solely belong to me and will arrive without an engine, transmission, exhaust system, etc. I then, with the help of the Ford Motor Company, have installed, a new Ford Mustang engine assembly so I will comply with all EPA regulations.

I have been appointed an agent of the Asquith Motor Carriage Co. to sell future Shire vans to the U.S. market.

Because of the excellent quality of these vehicles and the potential sales and advertising abilities, I am now receiving help from the Florida Dept. of Commerce and the Broward Economic Development Board.

The first van will have two front seats and one large back seat. All the glass will be laminated and it will have a bulkhead separating the passenger area from the back cargo area. It will have winkers front, back and all sides. The chassis and hub and b rake assembly will be the brand new Ford Transit 100LWB.

The question I have on my van will certainly help to cut costs, time and save from doing thing incorrectly or twice, to meet current D.O.T. safety regulations: 1) Does U.K. laminated glass meet D.O.T. regulations? 2) Can I carry passengers? 3) Can I hau l goods in the back? I will be manufacturing furniture in Florida. 4) Once the van passes all D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, can it still be used on the road like any other vehicle? 5) Without the engine assembly is my van considered a van, kit car or what?

As for the other future vans, I would be grateful if you could send me (by air mail) the necessary forms required (exemption petitions) so the manufacturer and I can fill them out now, because of the four month waiting period mentioned in your letter dat ed May 2nd.

I want to do this thing correctly cause I would hate to be stuck with a $40,000 van that I couldn't drive.

On the other future vans, Mr. Reed has given me all of your past correspondence and the microfiches you kindly sent him. I shall be looking at them this week.

I assure you have our brochure. The van is 78" wide & 16 1/2 foot long.

*Not for hire.

Yours Sincerely,

Jack H. Whitney

ID: nht87-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: J. C. Glasgow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. C. Glasgow 777 Royal Palm Drive Kissimmee, FL 32743

Dear Mr. Glasgow:

This responds to your November 10, 1986 letter seeking information concerning federal regulations and standards for custom made automotive and van bodies.

Your letter indicates that you plan to design and make fiberglass automobile and van bodies for sale to the public. Although there are no specific safety regulations concerning fiberglass bodies, you should be aware of the federal regulation; and standar ds that may apply to your business.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et. seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicle; and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification "process under which each manufacturer is re sponsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

If there is a safety-related direct or noncompliance, you would be obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subj ect to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. That penalty is separate from and in addition to the one for the noncompliance itself. (A general information sheet describing the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

It is unclear from your letter whether you plan to alter finished automobiles and vans or whether you plan to perform manufacturing operations on incomplete vehicles. If it is your plan to alter finished vehicles, then you would be considered an "alterer " and subject to the requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

An alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no lon ger valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all app licable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and also stating the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Further, you must make sure that any conversions you make to certified vehicles do not harm the vehicles' safety features. Under S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowi ngly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Commercial businesses tha t violate this section are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.

If you are performing manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 568.3 so that it becomes a completed vehicle, then, you must meet the requirements in Part 563, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages . Under Part 568.3, if you are a "final-stage manufacturer" you would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner so that it conforms to all applicable safety standards. Also, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with th e certification requirements set forth in Part 567.5, Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Your letter does not indicate the nature of the work that you expect to do on the vehicles. Therefore, this agency cannot adequately identify which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 C.F.R. 571 will apply. I suggest tha t you examine the safety standards to decide how each could apply to your fiberglass design for automotive and van bodies. You should make special note of the following safety standards which may apply toward your design. Safety Standard No. 107, Reflect ing Surfaces; Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials: Safety Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components; Safety Standard No. 214, Side door strength; Safety Standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance-passenger cars; Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion. You should be aware that additional federal safety standards may apply.

If you have any questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact this office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. JC Glasgow 777 Royal Palm Drive Kissimmee, FL 32743

November 10, 1986

Dept. of Transportation Washington D.C.

Re: Regulations and Standards for the Performance of Auto and Van Bodies.

Subject: Custom Made Auto and Van Bodies for sale to the general public.

I am currently designing a fiberglass auto van body foe sale to the public. I need to know what federal regulations govern fiberglass auto and van bodies for public safety. When one of my vehicle bodies is in an accident I want to have followed existing federal regulations so that I cannot be sued for not doing so. Please rush. Thank you.

Sincerely,

JC Glasgow

ID: nht87-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER -- US CONGRESS

TO: ED BABBITT -- DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STD 211; LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL W KINTNER FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 05/10/67, TO HAROLD T. HALFPANNY FROM LOWELL K. BRIDWELL; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Babbitt:

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in having the matter which follows reviewed by your legal staff:

My constituent, Ed Money, owns a business providing parts for 1960's-vintage Thunderbird and Mustang automobiles. He recently imported a shipment of "spinner hubcaps" from Taiwan for resale as aftermarket parts.

The U.S. Customs Service in Los Angeles seized these as prohibited merchandise, for violating DOT Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR 571,211, and have fined Mr. Money for declaring that they were in conformance with all applicable safety standards, which he believed to be true. These parts are widely sold, manufactured and imported throughout the United States.

It is my understanding that such safety standards apply strictly to automotive manufacturers, and therefore that this application to a parts dealer is in error. In order to rectify this with Customs, I would like to have a review of and ruling on thi s particular standard, and its applicability to anyone other than a manufacturer of automobiles. . . in particular to an importer of parts for aftermarket sale and use.

Please direct your response, or any questions, through Mike Bonk in my office, who is in contact with the District Director of Customs in this regard. Thank you for your assistance.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

[PRICES OF HUBCAPS FROM SEVERAL SUPPLIERS OMITTED]

ID: nht87-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/87

FROM: BERTHA HAMMER -- PRINCIPAL ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL

TO: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD, DATED 5/16/89, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 4/3/89 FROM THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD OF AGAPE PLASTICS TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL ON FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARD NO 108 - HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN WINTER WEATHER; LETTER FROM GLENN M. MAKI, DATED 1/28/87 TO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER FROM KENNETH R. HAMMERBERG, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, UNDATED; LETTER DATED 3/2/88 FROM RO NALD R. MITCHELL SUPERINTENDANT, MORAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS TO VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT LENS CO; BROCHURE, UNDATED, OF VAN STRATEN COMPANY ON HEATED SAFETY LIGHT

TEXT: THE ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL HAS RECENTLY PURCHASED THE NEW VANSTRATEN HEATED TAILLIGHTS FOR THEIR BUSES. THE BUS DRIVERS AND MECHANIC ARE VERY PLEASED WITH THE PRODUCT. WITH OUR LAST SNOWSTORM THE TAILLIGHTS REMAINED SNOW FREE AND VISIBLE TO OTHER TRAFFI C.

WE FEEL THE HEATED TAILLIGHTS ARE AN IMPORTANT SAFETY FACTOR FOR OUR STUDENTS AND DRIVERS.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht87-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Tony U. Otani

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tony U. Otani Adyna Corporation 6124 Candor Street Lakewood, CA 90713

Dear Mr. Otani:

This letter responds to your letter asking whether there are any regulations with which you must comply in producing an invention you call an Automotive Steering Wheel Stabilizing Aid. I regret the delay in this response.

You describe your product and include a picture. The article you describe is a thick urethane rubber pad that a motor vehicle driver can fasten to the thigh with a band or buckle. The top part of this pad is contoured to fit under the steering wheel. You state that a driver can use this pad to apply pressure to the steering wheel, holding the wheel steady so that he may drive on a long distance highway when the course is straight. The driver then has his hands free.

Your product falls within the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in S102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as follows:

. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehi cle...(Emphasis added)

In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordi nary users of motor vehicles. Under this framework, your invention is a motor vehicle accessory.

While NHTSA currently has no standard applicable to the kind of accessory you describe, the agency does have authority to regulate your invention. Even in the absence of a standard, please note that if you decide to market this product, then under our re gulations and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you have the responsibility to conduct notice and remedy campaigns if you or the agency later find that your product has a safety-related defect.

We are concerned with the safety consequences of your product. This kind of product may encourage a driver to take his hands from the steering wheel while he is operating a motor vehicle, and therefore may increase the risk of accident involving a motor vehicle. For example, removing one's hands from the steering wheel makes a driver less efficient in responding to any unanticipated road event that may require a quick change in vehicle direction. Further, a driver who feels free to do something with his hands other than steer the vehicle may not be devoting full time and attention to his driving.

I ask you to give these implications your fullest consideration, and hope you find this information helpful in making your decision.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Adyna Corporation 6124 Candor St. Lakewood, CA 90713

To:

Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir,

I have an invention (patent pending) and planning for the production of;

Automobile Steering Wheel Stabilizing Aid

as shown in the enclosed picture.

It made of special contoured pad, with gripping soft material such as urethane rubber, with fastening means to left leg such as clamps as shown, or a band with buckle.

Please let me know by return if there are any regulations we have to comply.

Very truly yours,

Tony U. Otani

P.S. The device will function as follows:

This device will help to drive on a long distance highways when in a streight course. The driver can simply lift up left leg to create pad contact to, the wheel to hold it. He can also simply reverse the course for a freedom of steering, It reduces vibra tion to hands and make driving easier and will not interfere steering action when dissociated.

It can be further modified with an alarming devise built in, with a pressure switch to actuate a buzzer. When the driver falls in sleep he would tend to release the leg force and thus to actuate the alarm.