ID: 1982-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1982, asking the current status of three-wheeled motor vehicles under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

As you know from my letter of November 24, 1976, to HM Vehicles, a copy of which you enclosed, three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as "motorcycles" under the standards. Obviously the configuration of a three-wheeled enclosed vehicle differs greatly from that of the two-wheeled machine that comes to mind when the word "motorcycle" is mentioned. As my 1976 letter indicates, the agency was seeking a more realistic regulatory scheme for three-wheeled vehicles, for obviously our motorcycle standards were written with two-wheeled vehicles in mind. But because three-wheeled vehicles did not comprise a significant part of the market, the agency decided that its priorities in motor vehicle safety lay elsewhere, and no change in the definition of "motorcycle" was ever adopted, and it still encompasses three-wheeled vehicles.

You have also asked whether a three-wheeled vehicle can be registered and inspected as a passenger car. Under the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), Pennsylvania is bound to treat three-wheeled vehicles as "motorcycles" in those areas that are covered by Federal safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Further, it may apply its own motorcycle standards in areas not covered by Federal standards. This means, for example, that Pennsylvania could not require a three-wheeled vehicle to have two headlamps since one is adequate under our Safety Standard No. 108. On the other hand, Pennsylvania could require a backup lamp device since Standard No. 108 contains no such requirement for motorcycles. Thus, it would seem that Pennsylvania should register and inspect these vehicles as motorcycles to the extent possible.

As a final comment, we favor the use of discretionary enforcement when literal enforcement may create disrespect for the law. We note the comment written on the "Free-Way II" sheet: "must wear a helmet." Our standards do not cover the use of helmets or apparel of operators but we can understand why the driver of an enclosed three-wheeled vehicle might not understand a citation for failure to wear a helmet. On the other hand, such a requirement appears perfectly reasonable for the operator of an open three-wheeler.

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

March 8, 1982

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Attached is a letter from you to Mr. Edmonson, dated November 24, 1976, concerning a three-wheeled vehicle known as "Free-Way II". The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Vehicle Safety Division would like to know the current status of these types of vehicles in view of Federal regulations. If the vehicle is a motorcycle, can it be registered and inspected as a passenger car?

Please contact Kathy G. Phillips at (717) 787-2895 if you have any questions concerning this request. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.

John A. Pachuta Director

Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations

(Graphics omitted)

"FREE-WAY II" STANDARD FEATURES:

1. Automotive lighting system 2. "Non-rusting" fiberglass body 3. Standard automotive controls and instruments 4. Large storage area 5. Smooth automatic transmission 6. Mid-engine or mid-motor design, gas, diesel or electric powered 7. Bucket seat -- room for temporary tandem seat 8. Large convenient door 9. Front wheel steering system 10. 350 degree protective steel frame at bumper height 11. Hydraulic drum brakes on all wheels 12. "340" engine, electric start 13. Electric windshield wiper

ID: 1982-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1981, requesting several interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The answer to each of your questions is discussed below.

Your first question concerned section 3.3 of the standard, which among other things, requires that an "interior compartment door assembly located in . . . a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . ." must remain closed when tested under certain conditions. You stated your belief that the requirement only applies to interior compartment doors located within the head impact area, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49. You asked if the area adjacent to a designated seating position is to be determined by projecting laterally from the head impact area for a designated seating position to the side panel next to it.

The impact protection requirement for interior compartment doors was added to the standard on October 25, 1968 (33 FR 15794). As explained in that notice, a copy of which is enclosed, the agency specifically denied requests to limit the interior compartment door requirement to doors located in the head impact area. The requirement is designed to provide protection to the head and other portions of an occupant's body that can be thrown against an interior compartment door opened by inertial forces in a crash. To accomplish the purpose of the standard, any interior compartment door, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49, that is located in a side panel and is next to a designated seating position is covered by the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard.

You also asked how the term "instrument panel" is defined for the purposes of section 3.3 of the standard. You are correct that the term refers to the panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc. For the reasons discussed in response to your first question concerning S3.3, any interior compartment door on the instrument panel is covered by the requirements of section 3.3, not just those located in the head impact area.

You also asked about the requirements of section 3.3.1 of the standard. You state that section 3.3.1 allows the use of either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Your statement is not correct. Section 3.3 of the standard requires more than compliance with either option (b) or (c) of section 3.3.1. Section 3.3 requires interior compartment doors to remain closed when "tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c)."

You also state that you interpret option (c) of section 3.3.1 to be a horizontal inertial load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 mile per hour flat barrier impact. Your interpretation is correct. Section 3.3.1(c) provides that an interior compartment door latch must be subject to "a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedures described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, 'Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,' or an approved equivalent." The purpose of the requirement is to impose loads similar to the loads experienced by a door latch tested in the 30 mile per hour forward barrier crash required by section 3.3.1(b) of the standard.

You further state that the loading applied in accordance with section 3.3.1(c) should be a forward deceleration inertia loading. Your interpretation is not correct. To ensure that the requirements of sections 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.1(c) are equivalent in stringency, the agency believes that the 30g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(c) must take into account the distortion and deformation that would occur in a 30 mile per hour barrier impact. Therefore, the 30g inertia load must be applied in both the forward and rearward direction. Likewise, the 10g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(a) must be applied in both the inboard and outboard direction.

Your final question concerned the requirements of section 3.5.1 of the standard, which specifies that armrests must comply with at least one of three options. Section 3.5.1(c) specifies that one option is providing an armrest which has "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length . . . when measured vertically in side elevation. . . at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You are correct that an armrest complying with section S3.5.1(c) can be made of any material, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements set by that section.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

October 26, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Reference: FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Passenger Car

FMVSS 201, Section 3.3, Interior Compartment Door, states, "a compartment door located in . . . side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . . ". Blue Bird Body Company interprets this phrase to be an area projected laterally to the side panel from the Head Impact Area as defined by Part 571 Subpart A - Definitions.

This interpretation is based on the concept that FMVSS 201, Section 3.3 is intended to prevent occupant head contact with an inertia opened compartment door during a crash. The Head Impact Area defines the trajectory of the occupant head during such a crash, and thus would define the area of potential head to compartment door contact. Compartment doors within this projected area should comply with Section 3.3, while those outside of this area should be exempt. This is also consistent with the American Heritage Dictory definition of adjacent as being next to; or adjoining. This definition would exempt panels located above the door or upper window header.

Blue Bird Body Company also defined "instrument panel" as referenced in Section 3.3, to be the panel below the windshield that normally is used to mount gages, speedometers, etc, to monitor vehicle functions and that is within the Head Impact Area as defined in Subpart A - Definitions.

Section 3.3.1, Demonstration Procedures, allows either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Blue Bird Body Company interprets option (c) to a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 miles per hour flat barrier impact, as required by option (b). This would be a forward deceleration inertia loading applied in accordance to Section 5 of the SAE Recommended Practice J839b.

Under Armrest, Section 3.5.1, General, option (c) specifies "not less than two continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area". Blue Bird Body Company interprets this to allow any material, including steel tube, aluminum or steel panel, that fulfills the dimensional requirements.

We respectfully request your confirmation of our interpretation to the above sections of FMVSS 201. An early reply would be apprediated.

Thank you.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

ID: 1982-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Phil Sharp - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher. Mr. Lecher is under the impression that there is some new law "banning cars with dark-tinted windows." He is particularly concerned that he will have to replace the windows on his Datson pickup.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. There is a safety standard which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (Standard No. 205). However, the requirements of this standard as they relate to tinting have not changed in years. The standard currently requires the windshield and front side windows in cars and trucks (i.e., windows necessary for driving visibility) to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Other windows may be tinted as darkly as the manufacturer wishes. If the windows in Mr. Lecher's pickup were factory-installed, they are presumably in compliance with Standard No. 205. Therefore, Mr. Lecher should not worry about having to alter his windows. There is no new Federal law or regulation, nor any proposed rule, to change the requirements of Standard No. 205 in this regard.

Mr. Lecher might be referring to a State law or regulation. We understand that some states are considering prohibitions against the use of dark tinting films which can be applied to existing vehicle windows. Such State laws would not require Mr. Lecher to alter the windows on his pickup, however, if the windows are the original glazing installed by the manufacturer in compliance with the Federal standard. This is because Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392, et seq.) pre-empts any State law which is applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard.

Standard No. 205 would pre-empt any State law which attempted to specify the amount of tinting that a piece of new motor vehicle glazing could have. Standard No. 205 would not pre-empt a State law which prohibits the applications of films or decals on existing glazing, however, since Standard 205 does not apply to the use of glazing after it has been purchased by a consumer. I suggest that Mr. Lecher contact his State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.

I am enclosing a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act for Mr. Lecher's information.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures; Constituent's Correspondence; Vehicle Safety Act

ATTACH.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

December 7, 1981

Joe LaSalla -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Lafalla:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher, who is concerned about a ban on the use of tinted glass in trucks.

I am enclosing a copy of the letter that I received from Mr. Lecher. I would appreciate an explanation of any action your agency has taken or information of which you are aware in any other agency which would result in the banning of the use of tinted glass.

Your assistance in complying with this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Phil Sharp -- Member of Congress

Enclosure

NOVEMBER 22, 1981

Dear Congressman Shop,

My name is Mark Lecher, originally from Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Now I'm living in the Bargersville area, South of Indianapolis. I work as a Cabinet maker, earning $ 5.00 per hour.

I don't feel the Social-Security problem will have much hope of helping me, by my time of retirement. I'm 28 years old now. All a person hears about is how the government is running out of money.

This company I work for has no retirement pension plan. So, if Social Security runs out, I'll only wonder, where did all that money go that I put into it for my own future.

There are alot of people who feel that way.

But it seems helpless to worry about.

Also in this letter, mainly why I wrote, is about this new law banning cars with dark - tinted windows. (Excluding windshields)

Last year I bought a new Datson pickup truck, great gas mileage.

When I bought it it had dark-tinted side windows, and back window. Now I hear they're going to (Illegible Word) the dark-tint. If I have to remove this tint it will ruin my window. The substance is not made to come off. And there is no way I could afford to buy new clean windows.

So if you can, please, stop that Bill! and good luci- with the Social Security System.

Sincerely, Mark E. Lecher

ID: 1982-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David Traxler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up your telephone call of October 29, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to "hatchback" door latches.

Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, includes requirements for side door latches. We have enclosed a copy of that standard for your convenience.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the rear latch of a hatchback. However, even in the absence of a safety standard, the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may be applicable. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

ENC.

ID: 1982-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concerning differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.

Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittance requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.

As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider sun screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.

You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. The agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.

Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, in applicable part, that:

No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides, in applicable part, that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Part 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.

Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the height of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.

ENCLS.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY OPERATIONS

November 16, 1981

Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is presently in the process of reviewing its current inspection regulations to determine the validity of present equipment requirements or their present exclusion. If you could assist by responding to the two issues which follow, it would be greatly appreciated.

Our first concern is the validity of the VESC regulation regarding motor vehicle sun-screening (VESC Stand 20, approved July 1980), and any distinction from the National level between tinting by the original manufacturer and after market applications. Our specific concern is the 70 percent transmittance level set by VESC. Please refer to the enclosed copy of VESC 20.

The second issue in which we are interested and which, under certain circumstances is controlled by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, is bumper and windshield heights on newly manufactured reproductions of old cars. Our present regulations specify a bumper height of 16"-20", and a vertical windshield height of no less than 12". Please see the enclosed information concerning a 1950 Porsche reproduction.

Any information you could supply on these two matters would be very helpful to this Department in determining what standards to set, so as to insure minimum compliance with any Federal requirements. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Kathy G. Phillips, Manager Vehicle Safety Division

ID: 1982-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 February 3, 1982

Mr. B. G. Ridgway Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. Car Division Crew, Cheshire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Ridgway:

This responds to your letter concerning the labeling requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to a separate indicator lamp concerning reservoir level. Your letter asked whether it is permissible to use words other than "Brake Fluid" for vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil rather than conventional brake fluid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states in relevant part:

...If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of the various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to SS.3.1(d), the lens shall include the word "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling (use "Brake Pressure," "Brake Fluid" for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b)) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word "Park" may be used....

As your letter pointed out, conventional brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil are not compatible. Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, differentiates between "brake fluid" and "hydraulic system mineral oil."

We interpret section S5.3.5 to require the use of the words "Brake Fluid" only for vehicles which use conventional brake fluid. The section's use of the word "appropriate," prior to its statement that "Brake Fluid" be used for S5.3.1(b), indicates that the labeling set forth in the parentheses need only be used where it adequately describes the fluid being used. For vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil, or other types of non-conventional brake fluid which might be developed in the future, the general requirement for the word "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling is applicable.

We are concerned, however, about your proposed use of the words BRAKE HSMO/LHM, since we doubt that many persons would understand that HSMO/LHM is an abbreviation for hydraulic system mineral oil/liquide hydraulique minerale. We suggest that you consider using the words "BRAKE MINERAL OIL" or similar language that more persons would understand.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Kenneth W. Preece Regulations and Special Projects Manager Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc.

Box 476 Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

The Administrator BGR DT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. U.S.A. 7th April, 1981

Possible PART 552 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS FMVSS 707-80 - CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS FMVSS 705-75 -HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

Dear Administrator,

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited believes that the requirements of these two standards, if strictly applied to the letter of the rules, force us into providing cars which have safety systems less safe than they would be with a less strict interpretation of the rules.

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited no longer uses BRAKE FLUID, as defined in FMVSS 776 in cars supplied to the USA market. HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL (HSMO), again as defined and controlled by FMVSS 116, is used instead.

The braking systems provided in the cars have a comprehensive system of warning displays, separate displays being provided for the two pressure systems and a further display to warn if the level of the HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MINERAL OIL in either of the two separate reservoirs is too low.

FMVSS 101-80 controls the wording for this reservoir level warning display by its reference to FMVSS 105-75 in Table 2.

The specified wording in FMVSS 105-75 paragraph 5.3.5, for reservoir level, 5.3.7(b) is "Brake Fluid". We note that this wording is within parentheses and believe that it is intended to be advisory and we hope that you will accept our use of a different, safer, wording.

We are most concerned that the appearance of the words BRAKE FLUID would immediately bring to the minds of the driver and service personnel the thought of adding conventional brake fluid to the reservoir. This must not happen. As you know, and FMVSS 116 recognises, Brake Fluid and Hydraulic System Mineral Oil are NOT COMPATIBLE.

We have taken every care to label the reservoirs and the car, we have provided full customer and service information to avoid any risk of Brake Fluid being wrongly put into the reservoirs. If we can use different wording on the reservoir level warning display we can complete our safety information system without any ambiguity.

We therefore intend to use the following wording on the reservoir level warning display:-

BRAKE

HSMO/LHM

Where HSMO and LhM are abbreviations for Hydraulic system mineral oil and Liquide Hydraulique Minerale respectively. LHM will suit our Cars sent to Canada and it is a well known trade mark for HSMO.

In the interests of enhancing the safety of our products we intend to implement this change of wording at the earliest time.

We would appreciate your confirmation that our action will not be taken as non-compliance with either FMVSS 101-80 or FMVSS 105-75. Should you be unable to give this confirmation we hereby PETITION you to change FMVSS 105-75 paragraph S.5.3.5 so that it permits us to label our products in a manner which we feel is more safe.

Yours faithfully,

B. G. Ridgway Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer

ID: 1982-2.1

DATE: APRIL 6, 1982

FROM: J. F. WALKUP -- PROJECT ANALYST-REEVES BROTHERS, INC.

TO: ROGER TILTON -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO APRIL 30, 1982 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO WALKUP

TEXT: Reeves Bros. is interested in determining if there are fire retardancy regulations covering replacement automobile seat covers.

Our understanding, from sources within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is that there are no regulations covering the after market.

If this information is correct, would you please advise Reeves in writing?

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: 1982-2.10

DATE: 04/30/82 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: J. F. WALKUP -- PROJECT ANALYST, RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER-REEVES BROTHERS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: APRIL 6, 1982 LETTER FROM WALKUP TO TILTON IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1982, letter asking whether the agency's Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to after-market equipment. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard and as such applies to completed vehicles. No vehicle can be manufactured unless the materials used in it comply with the requirements of the standard. The standard does not apply, however, to items of equipment in the after market. You should be aware that while you would not be prohibited from manufacturing after-market equipment that does not comply with the standard, a manufacturer, repair business or dealer would be prohibited from installing such noncomplying equipment if the installation would have the effect of rendering inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standard. Nothing prevents a vehicle owner, however, from installing noncomplying equipment in his own vehicle.

I trust that this responds to your question. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.

ID: 1982-2.11

DATE: 05/04/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Name not released

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1982, asking for a "confidential interpretation" of the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards to sidecars.

The agency does not provide "confidential interpretations." Your questions are of public interest and a copy of this letter will be placed in the interpretations file that is available for public review. However, because it relates to "specific future model product plans," we are deleting your name and address from the copy of our response made available to the public.

You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable to a sidecar "sold independently as an aftermarket item." It is true that there are no "sidecar" standards. But certain of its equipment items are themselves covered by Federal equipment standards and must independently comply. Specifically, brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires and glazing (if provided) would have to meet Standards Nos. 106, 108, 119, and 205 as they apply to motorcycle equipment. In addition, because a sidecar is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of any sidecar sold in the aftermarket would be responsible for notification and remedy in the event his product was determined to contain a safety-related defect.

You have presented the hypothetical situation of a motorcycle supplied to a retail dealership with the sidecar attached by the manufacturer and asked whether it is considered to be a three-wheeled motorcycle or a two-wheeled motorcycle with an attachment of motor vehicle equipment. You point out that the former interpretation raises questions of practicability of compliance with the standards.

The definition of a motorcycle encompasses both two- and three-wheeled vehicles, and we believe that the questions you have raised subsequently with respect to Standards Nos. 108, 119, 120, and 122 should be answered on a common sense basis. For lighting equipment on the front and rear of a motorcycle the vertical center line of a motorcycle with sidecar attached is the vertical center line of the two-wheeled motorcycle. However, the side reflex reflector should be placed on both the motorcycle and the sidecar. Standards Nos. 119 and 120 must be met by the motorcycle with the sidecar attached. In addition, a motorcycle whose original equipment includes a sidecar must meet Standard No. 122 with the sidecar attached. If a motorcycle with sidecar is capable of meeting Standard No. 122 without the sidecar being equipped with a brake, then the sidecar need not have a brake.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: 1982-2.12

DATE: May 10, 1982

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Martin V. Chauvin -- Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to B. Nanninga (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843)

TEXT:

This responds to your April 9, 1982, letter asking whether vehicles used to transport children to or from day care centers and summer camps must comply with the school bus safety standards.

The agency has determined that vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus safety standards. This determination is based on the fact that facilities which are essentially custodial, even though they may have some educational components, are not considered to be schools.

With respect to summer camps, if the camps are associated with a school, the use of school buses would be required. On the other hand, camps with no school affiliation need not use school buses to transport their children. For the legislative history on the subject of camps, see the enclosed excerpt from House debates, 120 Cong. Rec. H8123 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 1974).

The agency has not developed a list of those facilities that are required to use school buses. As a general guideline, any operation associated with a school must, of course, use school buses. A head start facility is required to use school buses, since it is considered to be a preprimary school. Other facilities whose functions are primarily educational must also use school buses, since they are considered schools. As noted above, facilities that are essentially custodial need not use school buses.

I hope these guidelines will be useful to you.