ID: nht94-8.42

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ramin Bogzaran -- General Manager, Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 1, 1993, in which you asked whether two trailers on which are mounted specialized equipment would be classified as motor vehicles. We are sorry we were unable to respond by your requested date of December 14, 1993.

You stated that the trailers in question were manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991 and Shipped to a company in Canada which is no longer in business. A transportable soil remediation plant was mounted on the trailers, but they have not been used or moved since their delivery. You stated that you now expect to import the trailers with their mounted equipment into the U.S. for use as a transportable soil remediation plant. You stated that the trailers will not be registered and will be moved only with permits because the anticipated projects for the equipment are long term and "the trailers will hardly see the road in their lifetime." You stated that the trailers will be inspected before they are moved to assure their safety, and that you will assure the safety of the equipment on the road while transporting it from Vancouver, Canada to your shop in San Diego, CA. You enclosed with your letter a certificate of origin, pictures of the trailers with the equipment mounted thereon, a letter from the company that originally purchased the trailers, and a letter from the manufacturer of the trailers.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code S1381 to S1431, as amended (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles or new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. The term "motor vehicle" is defined in the Safety Act as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted that language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or that are otherwise incapable of highway travel are clearly not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices, are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles, nor is equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spends

extended periods of time at a single job site. Those vehicles or equipment are not considered motor vehicles because their intended use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary off-road use.

Based on your representations that your trailers will be utilized on long-term off-road projects, they would not be classified as motor vehicles. Therefore, they would not be subject to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the import requirements of 49 CFR 591.5. That determination, however, does not mean that the trailers would necessarily be exempt from state motor vehicle requirements, especially the states through which you intend to transport the equipment from Vancouver to San Diego. For information on state laws in that regard, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22204, (703) 522-4200.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-4.18

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Charles H. Taylor -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Charles H. Taylor (A41; Part 571).

TEXT: I am writing to urge the Department of Transportation to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations.

While there may be good reasons for not allowing surplus Humvees to be sold to the general public, I believe that new regulations regarding Humvees should be drawn up making a distinction between the general public and a law enforcement agency operating Humvees with trained drivers to carry out its official duties.

As you will note from the enclosed correspondence I have received from Charles Long, the Sheriff of Buncombe County, North Carolina, Humvees were invaluable in assisting the Sheriff's Department in their efforts to aid the citizens of Buncombe County during the recent massive snowstorm last March. I am also enclosing the reply of the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long's letter.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

March 31, 1993

The Honorable Charles Taylor 11th Congressional District 516 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Taylor:

As I am sure you are no doubt aware, Buncombe County was one of the recent "Blizzard of '93" victims, and according to the local newspaper, we were one of the two hardest hit counties in the Western part of the State. Even with four wheel drive vehicles, travel was near impossible without chains, and for the first time that I can remember, County agencies were closed for three consecutive days.

Our Department was receiving calls for assistance faster than we could answer, and actual response was a nightmare. By the second day of the storm, we requested and received the assistance of the North Carolina National Guard who provided four wheel drive HMMWV vehicles (with drivers). We pride ourselves in being one of the best Sheriff's Departments' in the State, but there is no

question that we would never have been able to have done our jobs during this storm without these vehicles.

After the initial dilemma of the storm concluded, we critiqued our emergency operation plans, and one of the items we felt we should attempt to procure for future emergencies is a HMMMV vehicle, and accordingly, wrote to the State Agency for Surplus inquiring into this process. I have this date received word from State Surplus informing me that the Department of Defense has determined these type vehicles are unsafe for civilian agencies and cannot be surplused to same.

I strongly disagree that these vehicles are "unsafe for civilian agencies", at least, in that term. Frankly, lives were saved and damage to property minimized on account of these vehicles and certainly, had we not utilized them, it would have had serious repercussions and been much more "unsafe". To ban their use by any agency other than the military appears to me to defeat the original purpose of the design of this vehicle. I understand that the operation of this vehicle is unique, but in my Department alone there are at least five (5) individuals who are qualified, and at least two (2) who could become qualified operators of the HMMMV vehicle through their National Guard or Army Reserve Training.

The cost of these vehicles new would be exorbitant to an agency requiring such seldom use; however, I do understand they are available in the private sector under a different package. The only way an agency such as ours could purchase such a vehicle would be through surplus, given the price of the vehicle.

The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance in this matter in addressing this issue with the appropriate persons to either eliminate the ban to "civilian agencies", or, in the alternative, relax the language so as to allow emergency agencies to be allowed privy to this surplus, under the same guidelines as is required by the military.

Your kind assistance would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Long

CHL:j

cc: Senator Sam Nunn 301 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001 ATTN: Charlie Harman Senator J. James Exon 528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001

ID: nht76-5.66

DATE: 03/18/76

FROM: R. L. CARTER FOR J. B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Richard Nolan; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which you ask six questions pertaining to tire identification and recordkeeping, and to defects notification and recall. The statutory basis for and regulations governing this subject are set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 574. I have enclosed copies for your reference. Specific answers to your questions follow in the sequence asked:

1. Manufacturers are required to retain tire registration information for three years. (49 CFR 574.7(d)).

2. As in all defect recall campaigns under our Act, the tire manufacturer, not the Department of Transportation, traces and notifies individuals of defective tires. There have been approximately 2,526,480 tires subject to recall in 119 recall campaigns.

3. The number of persons employed by industry to process this information has not been reported, but the filling systems are highly automated by the use of computer processing techniques. The cost of storage of this information during the three-year period is minimal. The recording of information at the time of purchase, however, is manually performed at the retail level, usually by the salesman, and has been estimated by dealers to cost anywhere from 5 or 10 cents per tire up to $ 2.5C per tire. The substantial difference in cost estimates is to a large part due to whether or not one assumes the salesman who completes the forms and the clerk who mails them would not be employed but for the tire registration process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) takes the position, which has yet to be refuted, that additional personnel are not needed to carry out the program on the retail level and consequently the costis at the lower end of the scale. Simplification of the process has been achieved with the adoption of a standardized report form on which towrite the name and address of the purchaser. A copy is enclosed.

4. There is no cost incurred by the Federal government attributable to the tire registration and recordkeeping procedure except (Illegible Word) in that the regular staff, as one of their functions, assigns and maintains a manufacturer's identification code list and monitors the program of defects recalls and regulation enforcement. The cost of this work has been determined to be about $ 34,000 annually.

5. The NHTSA has undertaken no proscution of dealers or manufacturers for violation of the tire information and recordkeeping regulation. Fourteen civil penalties have been assesed for violation of the regulation, although these all occurred shortly after the regulation became effective.

6. We do not presently anticipate a major revision of the regulation. However, as with all our standards and regulations, it is regularly reviewed and revised to increase its effectiveness while lowering its cost to the industry and the consumer. Further, dealers, manufacturers, and others are free at any time to petition the NHTSA to amend the regulations. These procedures, which are found in 49 CFR, Part 552, require that we act on positions within 120 days.

At the present time, this program is also being analyzed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council as part of its study of "Safety Defects and Recalls" requested by Secretary William T. Coleman. The Council's report will also guide us in revising and improving the regulation.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

February 17, 1976

Congressional Liaison Department of Transportation

Would you please provide me with background information regarding the registration of tire serial numbers. I am especially interested in:

1. How long is this information kept on file?

2. How often has the Department of Transportation used this information to trace and notify individuals of defective tires?

3. Approximately how many persons are involved in processing this information?

4. What is the approximate cost of this procedure to the federal government?

5. How often have violators of this regulation been prosecuted?

6. Does the Department foresee any revision of this regulation in the near future?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Richard Nolan Member of Congress

ID: nht74-4.34

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwarding to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation of campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion "Consumer Information" regulation, "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.

Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, "Certification") require every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers to incorrectly rate vehicles, and thus be in noncompliance with the regulations, we have not found this practice to occur in the case of pickup trucks.

There are also Federal requirements requiring motor vehicle tires to carry a load rating. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires and has been in effect since January 1, 1968. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 applies to tires for all other types of motor vehicles (trucks, trailers, buses, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles) and will become effective September 1, 1974. This agency has conducted a study of the overloading of tires on recreational vehicles, and information regarding this study as well as copies of the safety requirements referred to above are enclosed.

We did not receive Mr. Motyka's earlier letter to us. As his questions are of a general nature we have provided him with general answers. If his questions involved a particular problem we would be happy to provide further assistance.

ENC.

REPLY TO: Office of United States

Senator Charles H. Percy

January 3, 1974

Mr. Bruce Motyka

2030 Laura Lane

Des Plaines, Ill. 60018

Respectfully referred to:

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Division 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by

CHARLES H. PERCY/MO

Nov. 29, 1973

Senator Charles Percy Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Close to 2 month's ago I wrote a letter to the Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety - Washington, D.C. requesting the following information:

1. Laws Relating to Pickup Truck & Camper weight limits.

2. Laws and or studies relating to manufactures selling trucks exceeding GVW Rate maximums.

3. Regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

I sent the Department of Transportation a rather lengthy letter requesting specific information, help & guidance

With all of the Public feeling concerning the present administration, it is very disturbing to me that I can't even get an answer to a simple inquiry.

This is the reason that I am writing to you. Would you please have someone check to see what happened to my original letter & ask that they reply as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Bruce J. Motyka

ID: 77-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel

TEXT: This responds to your August 25, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to buses other than school buses.

Your first state your conclusion that paragraph S5.2 of the standard applies only to buses other than school buses. Your interpretation of S5.2 is correct. Secondly, you state that S5.2.1 applies to all buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds. This assertion is incorrect. See S5.2.3. Paragraph S5.2.1 applies only to buses other than school buses that have GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds.

Your final inquiry pertaining to Standard No. 217 concerns the requirement for unobstructed emergency exits in both school and non-school buses. You first correctly state that paragraphs S5.4 through S5.4.2.1 describe the required size of the unobstructed openings for school buses. You then claim that there is no equivalent description for the size of unobstructed openings required in buses other than school buses. This last statement is not entirely accurate. The amount of unobstructed emergency exit openings required for buses other than school buses is detailed in S5.2. This section establishes requirements for the total area of unobstructed emergency exit openings and for the location of those exits. This section also specifies the extent to which the area of each exit is to be counted in determining compliance with the total unobstructed opening requirement. Therefore, although the standard does not specify minimum size requirements for individual exits in buses other than school buses, the standard does contain other requirements for unobstructed openings in buses other than school buses.

You concluded in your letter that buses other than school buses are not required to use the parallelepiped device in determining whether their rear exits comply with the requirements. This conclusion is accurate. For purposes of clarity, however, you should note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate rear doors in buses other than school buses. Those buses can utilize either rear exits or roof exits. Further, regardless of the fact that you use a rear emergency door in buses other than school buses, you must insure that you also provide the other mandatory exits and the correct area of unobstructed openings as described in paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.2.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 25, 1977

Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Chilton

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 217 regarding the range of it's application, as follows: Para.S.5.2 - Speaks to buses other than schoolbuses and requires "unobstructed" openings for emergency exit . . ." going on to define the area requirements.

Para.S.5.2.1 - Speaks to "Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds". This presumably covers all buses. It further states that ". . . buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. shall meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing . . . one rear exit that conforms to S.5.3 through S.5.5".

Under paragraph S.5.4 thru S.5.4.2.1.(a) as amended May 25, 1976, the unobstructed opening of a school bus is described as "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide and 12 inches deep, keeping . . .". There is no description that pertains to the unobstructed opening of a non-school bus.

We have, therefore, decided that the non-school bus needs only a 12 inch wide clear aisle opening at the rear door to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217. Is this interpretation correct?

We would appreciate an early answer to this query.

Malcolm B. Mathieson, Engineering Manager

ID: 7768

Mr. C. Morris Adams
1201 Rockford Road
High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard. The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770:

NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222 d:10/9/92

ID: nht74-5.53

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Adams & Westlake Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hansing:

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1974, regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You requested that we reconsider our opinion of June 11, 1974, that a bus emergency release mechanism which you describe must meet the requirements for emergency exit release in S5.3.2 of the standard after as well as before the retention test required by S5.1, when the glass breaks during the retention test.

Paragraph S5.3.2 requires that the release requirements be met both before and after the retention test. We do not find sufficient justification to relax this requirement in the situation you described. First, it is not clear that it is as easy as you represent to eliminate by hand all of the glazing material left in the frame. More importantly, however, we still question whether most persons are sufficiently cognizant of the qualities of tempered glass to attempt to remove the remaining fragments in an emergency situation. Finally, glazing with completely different breakage characteristics may be used to replace the original tempered glass at some time during the life of the bus. For these reasons, our conclusion of June 11 remains the same.

Yours Truly,

July 3, 1974

Office of Chief Counsul

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Mr. Richard Dyson

In regard to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217, "Bus Window Retention and Release S5.3.2 and our previous correspondence (here enclosed), please reconsider our request for exemption from having operable release mechanisms after the retention test when glazing with tempered glass.

In my letter to you of April 16, 1974 we noted that tempered glass once broken made the operation of any release mechanism unnecessary, as any glass remaining in the opening would be easily removed by touch. We therefore asked for exemption from the requirement that the release mechanism be operable after the retention portion of the test on the basis that the release mechanism would no longer be necessary in the event of glass breakage.

Our design, which is proposed for use on short and mid-range transit busses, uses an extruded aluminum frame which is screwed to the coach body. The glass is glazed directly into the frame; the stationary lite being returned by a rubber extrusion and bedding tape. The sliding glass is also retained directly in the frame and glides horizontally in a pocket weatherstrip. The release lock mechanism is bonded directly to the sliding lite and retains it in a closed position by engaging a groove in the extruded frame rail.

To meet the opening requirement of S5.2.2B of the spec, the release lock mechanism is disengaged and the sliding lite is moved foreward or rearward, depending on which half contains the sliding lite, until the minimum opening width of 20 inches is obtained. See drawing #DK-1553 and test pictures which show the type of window proposed.

This system meets the preliminary release test and the retention test without question, but if the tempered sliding glass shatters during the lotter test most of the glass, often including the release lock mechanism, falls out of the opening. This obviates any further practical need for the release

lock mechanism as the required opening, if not immediately obtained by the breakage of the sliding lite, can be obtained by touching any remaining glass cubes which will cause them to crumble and fall out. In the event that the tempered glass does not break during testing, or more importantly during crash impact, the mechanism would obviously be required to function.

We feel that our system fully meets the intent of the specification in providing unobstructed openings for emergency agress. We respectfully request that you reconsider our request for exemption from the portion of paragraph S5.3.2 which requires that the release lock mechanism remain operable after the retention test when tempered glass is used in this manner and has broken out during that test. Please give this request your earliest consideration as a reply is urgently needed by August 1, 1974.

Ronald J. Hansing Project Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-1.1

DATE: 11/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N41-42

H. M. Alexander, Vice President Technical Development & Services Libbey-Owens-Ford Company 1701 East Broadway Toledo, Ohio 43605

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is a further reply to your letter of September 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the test procedures for measuring light transmission of glazing materials in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

As you know, the purpose of the luminous transmittance requirement is to assure that safety glazing used in motor vehicles at levels requisite for driving visibility, does not restrict the vehicle operator's vision below that necessary for safe operation. Further, the apparent effective luminous transmittance of safety glazing as viewed by the human eye is the average transmittance of the entire area surveyed by the eye. In view of this, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not consider glazing with an average luminous transmittance over its entire area of 70 percent or more to be in non-compliance with the standard.

As you pointed out, the luminous transmittance test procedure specified by Standard No. 205 does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam. Thus, you are free to use any diameter light beam that is appropriate.

In regard to the distinct bend lines in your back window, we would consider for purposes of determining luminous transmittance, your back window to be divided into three sections - two wings and the central section. Thus, in this case, the distinct bend lines would not be considered as glazing material.

Sincerely,

James B. Gregory Administrator

September 11, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Gregory:

On August 25, we met at the Department of Transportation with Messrs. Guy Hunter, Doug Pritchard and Chuck Kaehn and discussed a new type automotive backlight.

This new type backlight offers advantages toward greater safety by better rear visibility with minimal optical distortion. However, we questioned whether this type backlight meets the 70% light transmission requirement of the ANSI Code Z26 which is a requirement of FMVSS 205.

This new backlight achieves its advantages as the result of bending sharply around a "hot line" electrical conductor which results in a .190" wide opaque line at the boundary between the intersecting bent glass surfaces. In the heated version of such a backlight, the conducting lines in the wing areas are only 17/32" apart whereas in the central area of the backlight, the lines are 1-1/8" apart. See attached sketch of "hot line bent" back window dated September 5, 1975.

The ANSI Code which requires that such an automotive backlight have a light transmission above 70%, does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam or its placement on the backlight. In the backlight discussed here, if a 1-1/4" diameter measuring beam is used and positioned with one heating line centered in the beam in the central or major rear vision area, it meets the 70% requirement, see Figure 1 in the attached memorandum by Paul Mattimoe dated September 5, 1975. However, if two heating lines are located symmetrically within the same beam as shown in Figure 3 in attached memo, the transmission does not meet the code requirement.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the NHTSA provide an interpretation which will recognize that this improved design of backlight meets the intent of FMVSS 205. Specifically we would suggest that the interpretation specify the positioning of one frit conductor line centered in the light beam as shown in Figure 1 of the attachment. This orientation will provide additional objectivity in the test conditions while the 70% transmissibility requirement will continue to limit the amount of abscuration which could be caused by the electrical conductors. In addition, we suggest that transmission measurements should not be required at the boundaries formed by the intersection of any two glazing surfaces.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request. We will be glad to meet at DOT offices again if advisable. It is urgent that a decision be received since production tooling for the car model involved in this request is proceeding at the present time.

Very truly yours,

H. M. Alexander Vice President Technical Development & Services

HMA:pjp

Attachments

ID: nht75-4.22

DATE: 04/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Ventline, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1975, regarding the use of rubber-modified polypropylene plastic in a roof ventilator which you manufacture. You enclose a sample of the material.

A plastic material used in the roof ventilator of a motor home must meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR @ 571.205). Our conclusion is based on the fact that ANS Standard Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into the Federal standard, includes ventilators and openings in the roof of motor vehicles as locations in which glazing materials meeting the requirements of the standard are directed to be used. Any of the materials specified in ANS Z26, and the plastic materials added to the standard (items 12 and 13) on November 11, 1972, may be used in a roof ventilator of a motor home. We would consider such a ventilator to be a "window" of the motor home.

The NHTSA has in the past amended Standard No. 205 to permit the use of new materials in vehicle locations following a manufacturer's petition for such an amendment. It appears from your letter that the use of polypropylene in roof ventilators would not create a safety hazard. However, in order for us to consider a change in the standard it will be necessary for you to provide us with information on the performance of this material. One way that manufacturers have provided us this information in the past is to have the material tested to the least restrictive requirements of the standard for any material which the standard permits to be used in the location desired.

I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR Part 523) containing information on submitting a petition for rulemaking. Such a petition should contain the information I have referred to regarding the performance of polypropylene.

In your letter you ask for a code number should we determine that the material must conform to Standard No. 205. A code number, however, is issued only to a prime glazing material manufacturer, who is one who either fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. The request for such a code number must be made directly by the prime glazing material manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 27, 1975

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: F.M.V.S.S. 205

Gentlemen:

Ventline, Inc. is a manufacturer of roof ventilators for motor homes and campers. We are trying to determine if F.M.V.S.S. #205 applies to our product. (literature enclosed.)

The purpose of this standard mentions, (1) injuries from impact with glazing surfaces, (2) ensurance of driver visibility in motor vehicle windows, (3) minimize possibility of occupants being thrown through windows in collisions.

(1 & 3) As far as injuries from impact go, the possibility of contact with the dome in a collision is very remote since the opening in the unit is only 12 inches square and that area is blocked by a heavy gage steel bar across the opening which makes it most difficult to come into direct contact with the plastic dome.

(2) The concern of transparency and driver visibility is completely unrelated to the intent of the vent. It is installed in the roof of the vehicle, not one of the adjacent sides to areas occupied by persons, and is used primarily for ventilation. It also allows a limited amount of light through the "TRANSLUCENT" not transparent dome. It's intent was not to provide visibility through the roof.

The material used in this dome is a rubber modified polypropylene plastic which has superior impact resistance. As you can see by the small sample I have enclosed, it also has a good degree of flexibility to resist breakage.

To the best of our knowledge, there isn't any glazing being done with polypropylene because of the difficulty of obtaining good transparency, so it doesn't seem to us that our dome should be considered glazing material and shouldn't have to comply with F.M.V.S.S. #205.

If in your opinion, after considering these points, you feel that we must comply with #205, please consider this our application for a manufacturers code mark.

We are eagerly awaiting your decision on this matter.

Sincerely,

VENTLINE, INC. -- Dave Bickel, Product Engineering

enclosure

cc: Harry Hunt; Ernie Baker

ID: nht75-4.1

DATE: 11/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MOTAC, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whether rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.

In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.

In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.

Sincerely,

September 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

We would appreciate your clarification as to the extent that major repairs and/or modifications may be made to semi-trailers and pull trailers without the inclusion of the FMVSS 121 anti-lock brakes.

We have two items or catagories that we wished resolved and they are brought about thru your letter of 8/28/75, file number N40-30 addressed to Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc., Cottage Grove, Wisconsin. This letter was transmitted to all members of T.T.M.A.

ITEM NO. 1

Assume that a platform trailer had been in a serious accident and possibly rolled over, thereby bending and twisting the main frame members severely. We will also assume that the damage is to such an extent that the main frame members cannot be straightened, which generally can be done.

The following conditions could then prevail for the required repair:

A. Cut the damaged portion off of one or possibly both main frame rails and repair with a new partial section or sections.

B. Replace one main frame rail completely.

C. Replace both main frame rails completely.

In the above hypothesis, the "Bogie", axles, wheels, tires, supports, etc. would all be used. The trailer would maintain the same model and serial number.

In a major repair of this sort will the standard 121 brakes be required? If so, then the old axles would have to be junked and new S-121 axle assemblies with computor/relay valves must be purchased and installed.

ITEM NO. 2

Six years ago, our company manufactured thirty (30) single axle container semi-trailers and thirty (30) tandem axle container semi-trailers, 25 foot long to haul 20 foot containers. The main frame rails, bolsters, supports, etc., are identical on both trailers.

The customer is now contemplating converting the single axle semi-trailers to tandem axle semi-trailers. This will entail relocating the existing front and rear spring hangers, adding a center equalizer hanger and rocker arm assembly, one set of springs, one axle, brake, tire and wheel assembly. The trailer will be reregistered as a tandem axle semi-trailer for state licensing.

In converting a single axle semi-trailer to a tandem axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required? Also, conversely, if a tandem axle semi-trailer should be converted to a single axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required?

MOTAC, INC.

Jack A. Johnson Chief Engineer