ID: 77-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1977

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

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

Supplement 1

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

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: 77-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/77

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

TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Britax (Wingard) Limited

OCTOBER 24, 1977

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

Docket 75/14 - Notice 10 - Occupant Restraint Systems

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

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

T. V. BARLOW Senior Technical Officer

ID: 77-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/26/77

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

ID: 77-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

October 6, 1977

National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Duane Perrin

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

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

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

Paul Bennett Chief Engineer

ATTACH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Trailer lengths may not exceed 27 ft.

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

John C. Bennett

CC: NHTSA

ID: 77-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

I trust that this fully responds to your questions.

ID: 77-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Kentucky Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

ID: 77-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: Gould; Reichert & Strauss

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 77-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 4, 1977 letter asking whether Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems, prohibits the operation of power windows when the ignition key is in the "Accessories" position.

Standard No. 118 requires only that power windows be inoperable when the key is in the "off" position or is removed from the lock, with certain exceptions outlined in S3. It is permissible for the windows to operate normally when the key is in the "Accessories" position.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

October 4, 1977

Joseph J. Levin Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA

This letter is to ask for your interpretation concerning FMVSS 118 "Power-operated Window Systems".

S.3 of that standard requires that no power-operated window or partition shall be movable when the ignition key is in an off position or is removed from the lock.

In the case of the 5-position ignition switch as shown in the attachment, should the power-operated windows not be movable when the ignition key is in an "Acc" (Accessories) position?

Thank you for your attention to the above matter. We look forward to hearing your reply of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety -- ENGINEERING OFC. OF NORTH AMERICA

Ignition switch

The 5-position ignition switch is located on the right side of the steering column. The switch includes the antitheft steering lock device and also controls the ignition system and most of the electrical equipment:

"LOCK" Normal parking position The ignition key can be inserted and removed at the "LOCK" position only. The steering can be locked by turning the key to the "LOCK" position, removing it, and rotating the steering wheel until the locking plunger clicks into position.

To unlock the steering, insert the key and turn it to the "OFF" position. For easier key operation when unlocking, rotate the steering wheel slightly to relieve pressure on the steering lock.

"OFF"

This position permits turning the engine off without locking the steering wheel.

"ACC" (Accessories)

This position allows you to use all the electrical accessories controlled by the switch.

"ON" Normal operating position

This position turns on the ignition system and electrical circuits.

"START"

This position starts the engine. After the engine has started, release the key. It will automatically return to the "ON" position.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-5.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/77

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

TO: W. G. Milby

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 14, 1977, letter asking about the applicability of the requirements of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to roof exits which use lexan or other glazing materials as part of their structure.

You first ask whether these exits would be required to comply with the standard's window retention test. Section S5.1 of the standard requires that each piece of window glazing and each surrounding window frame comply with the requirements of the window retention test. Since the lexan to which you refer is glazing material, a structure using such material would be required to comply with the window retention test.

In a second question, you ask whether this type of exit can employ a release mechanism that consists of a gasket filler strip. This gasket releases the exit when pulled, by a single force, in a direction perpendicular to the exit. Since the application of force required to release the exit is in the proper direction as established by S5.3.2 of the standard, the exit would appear to comply with the exit release requirements as long as the release mechanism is within the correct force application zone and requires the proper amount of energy to effect its release.

ID: 77-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: COBEC Brazilian Trading & Warehousing Corp. of the U.S.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1977, to Mr. Armstrong of this agency regarding the Puma kit car import program. Although your letter is not clear, you appear to be seeking an interpretation as to the applicability of our regulations to the Puma and its proper classification for import into the United States.

FACTS

Our opinion is based upon the factual representations made in your letter, in the advertising brochure issued by Puma Kit Cars, Inc., and an article "Brazilian Puma" by Thos. L. Bryant which appeared in the October 1977 issue of Road & Track (pp. 112-13). As we understand it, Pumas are shipped to the United States both as complete vehicles and in kit form. The completed vehicles are imported and sold by a Kansas firm. The kit vehicles on the other hand are imported by COBEC and sold to Puma Kit Cars, Inc. for further sale to individual purchasers.

The manufacturing operations that occur to the Puma kit car before it is exported are reported by Road & Track as:

"For normal production, Puma [Brazil] buys the [new VW] floorplan assemblies from the factory and removes 10 in. from its length . . . . All cables and fluid lines are removed and replaced with shorter versions. The modified chassis is then fed into the assembly line and if the final unit is to be sold locally, a finished car emerges from the other end. For those slated for export to the U.S. a few steps are left out. These consist of the installation of the front and rear ends and the engine. Aside from these omissions the completed cars are identical."

The completeness of the initial manufacturing process is highlighted in the Puma Kit Car Inc., brochure:

The Puma kit car is complete in every sense of the word: body, special floor pan, wiring, gas tank, rear torsion, steering wheel, tinted safety glass, roll up windows and plush upholstery. All you require in addition to the Puma kit is a VW ball joint front end, swing axle transmission, VW or Porsche engine, wheels, tires, and a battery."

The missing components are available from Puma Kit Car according to the brochure:

"In addition to the basic Puma Kit, complete factory engines, front end assemblies including disc brakes and brand new transaxle assemblies are available. You can assemble a new Puma car from off the shelf factory parts." CLASSIFICATION OF THE PUMA KIT CAR FOR IMPORTATION

COBEC commercial invoices of July 1977 show that Puma kit cars have been identified as "Replacement Body GTE for Volkswagen 1966" and "Replacement Chassis for Volkswagen 1966." The merchandise appears invariably identified as replacement equipment for 1966 Volkswagens.

As the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not apply to passenger cars and equipment until January 1, 1968, it appears that COBEC is attempting to argue that the merchandise is not subject to Federal regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But generally Federal standards covering replacement equipment apply as of the date the equipment is manufactured. Therefore, any item of motor vehicle equipment supplied in the Puma kit that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (e.g. headlamps, glazing) must comply with it.

RESPONSIBILITY OF COBEC AS IMPORTER OF THE PUMA KIT CARS

If an equipment item does not comply, Pumas must be entered pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii) as nonconforming motor vehicle equipment that will be brought into compliance before being offered for sale, and COBEC is responsible for submission of compliance documentation under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii).

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

September 20, 1977.

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: PUMA KIT CAR IMPORT PROGRAM

With reference to the above-mentioned program we would like to express our opinion that these kits are in every way incomplete cars and, therefore, we so classified them on your Special Customs Invoice.

As per your request and for your own evaluation we enclose pictures as well as the following pertinent technical data about our kit car.

1. Our kit car consists of:

- fiber glass body shell,

- metal floor pan,

- AS1 safety glass (U.S. approved windshield),

- AS2 tempered glass, side and rear windows, - full set of dash control instruments,

- one set of seal beam headlights, (General Electric), U.S. made,

- one set of tale lights (U.S. approved).

2. Optional items:

- Seats and safety steering wheel.

3. Our vehicles do not include the following items:

- wheels,

- tires,

- front and rear axle,

- differential,

- transmission,

- motor,

- suspension components,

- steering components,

- break components,

- gas system,

- heating system.

These kits are intended to the sale to "DO IT YOURSELF MECHANIC" who in turn might have an old Volkswagen. By using components of the vehicle and the kit car it is possible to assemble. Within a time frame of 80 hrs., a small personal 2 (two) passenger car.

Please note that all of the service is accomplished by the owner himself. We feel that this explanation is sufficient for all your requirements, however, in case you need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, since as of this moment we have ceased all current shipments into the U.S. until your final decision has been reached.

COBEC BRAZILIAN TRADING & WAREHOUSING CORP. OF THE U.S.

Egon Poisl Assistant Treasurer

(Graphics omitted) (Graphics omitted)