ID: 77-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: State of New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for our comments on the flashing of ambulance headlamps for signaling purposes. You enclosed a copy of a Bulletin dated June 27, 1977, that New Jersey recently sent to its Inspection Stations advising rejection of ambulances equipped with headlamp flashing devices.

Paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that lamps other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals be steady-burning in use, "except that means may be provided to [automatically] flash headlamps . . . for signaling purposes." The purpose of the exception was to allow continued use of automatic flashing devices in jurisdictions where it was permitted when the standard was adopted, for without the exception manufacture and sale of vehicles so equipped would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The exception provided by S4.6(b) has a preemptive effect only in that a State cannot forbid the sale and registration of a vehicle equipped with a flashing device, but there is no restriction on a State's authority to forbid the use of such mechanisms when it deems it in the interests of traffic safety to do so.

Thus, we have no objection to New Jersey's Bulletin of June 27, 1977.

SINCERELY,

State of New Jersey DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 28, 1977

Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is written in connection with our recent phone conversation concerning the flashing of headlamps for signaling purposes as permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108.

As a matter of interest we are enclosing a copy of a Bulletin recently sent to our Inspection Stations concerning the flashing of headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Your comments on this subject would be appreciated.

John A. McLaine, Chief Automotive Engineering Standards

VEHICLE INSPECTION BUREAU

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

BUREAU OF VEHICLE INSPECTION ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATION

DATE ISSUED: June 27, 1977

DATE EFFECTIVE: Immediately

DISTRIBUTION: Stations

STANDARD PROCEDURES:

OPERATIONS ORDER:

BULLETIN: Stations

SUBJECT: FLASHING OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEADLAMPS

ISSUED BY: Ass't. Chief

APPROVED BY: Chief, Auto. Eng. Stds.

We understand that some new ambulances are being sold in New Jersey equipped with a device which is activated when the ambulance is on an emergency trip and which causes the headlamps to flash continuously. An ambulance equipped with such a device should be rejected for the reasons given below.

New Jersey law prohibits flashing lamps on motor vehicles except as a means of indicating a left or right turn, or for hazard warning signals, or school bus warning lamps, or emergency warning lamps used on authorized emergency vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 states that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes. We also have to permit this but we do not think that Federal Standard 108 was intended to permit a new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be equipped with a device which will flash the headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Motor vehicle headlamps are manufactured to produce the amount of light required to properly illuminate the road ahead. When headlamps are flashing for signaling purposes the flashing lasts for only a few seconds and does not greatly reduce the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps. However, when headlamps are flashing continously for emergency warning purposes the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps can be reduced below the amount of light required by the Standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

It is recognized that emergency warning lamps of some type are needed on ambulances and a permit to equip an ambulance with approved type flashing red emergency warning lamps can be obtained from the Enforcement Bureau in the Division of Motor Vehicles. An approved type flashing red emergency warning lamp is designed for continous flashing and is placed on our approval list after we receive a report from a recognized independent testing laboratory showing that the lamp meets Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J595b or SAE Recommended Practice J845. It should also be pointed out that an ambulance using a siren is required to display at least one red lamp visible at least 500 feet to the front of the vehicle.

In case of an accident involving an ambulance using flashing headlamps for emergency warning purposes there could be a legal problem because headlamps are not designed or approved for this purpose. In addition, when improper flashing lights are used there is confusion on the part of motorists who are required to react to these lights on the highways.

The Division's policy is to encourage uniformity in the use of recognized emergency vehicle warning lamps. Please explain this policy to any emergency vehicle operators who question our disapproval of the flashing headlamps.

ID: 77-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: Cox Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1977, informing us of your wish to relocate combination stop, tail, turn signal and side marker lamps "to the upper rear fender" of the boat trailers that you manufacture. You have asked whether this location complies with the requirements of Standard No. 108.

I am sorry that we cannot give you the interpretation you seek. Standard No. 108 requires that rear side marker lamps be mounted "as far to the rear as practicable," and stop, tail, and turn signal lamps must be mounted "on the rear." Even though, in your opinion, at your planned fender location "the lights will pass all of the required photometric and visibility requirements", when the trailer is carrying a boat the lamps are more likely to be visible "on the rear," as the standard requires.

SINCERELY,

July 7, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

With reference to Motor Vehicle Standard 108, we intend to relocate some of the combination stop, tail, turn and side marker lamps to the upper rear fender of our boat trailers. At this location the lights will pass all of the required photometric and visibility requirements.

We need from you an interpretation of the statement that "these lights must be mounted on the rear of the trailer". Could we use this mounting as long as these lights meet the other requirements and can be considered mounted as far to the rear as practicable. The distance from the rear would normally not exceed four (4) feet.

Our reasons for deviating from the rear most position on the trailer is due to trailer construction which makes rear mounting highly impractical.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

COX TRAILERS, INC

William F. Cox President

ID: 77-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. On your certification labels, you list the symbol "W/" before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol "x" between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

May 20, 1977

N.H.T.S.A. Attn: George Shifflett

Re: Code NMV-22

Please give me an interpretation as to whether our proposed certification labels per attached drawings AB-2381A and AB-2383A meet the requirement of 49CFR571.120-5.3 and 49CFR567.

The peculiar aspects of these labels and reasons for them are as follows:

1. Since the GAWR, tire size, rim size, and tire cold inflation pressure are the same for all axles on a trailer, this information is listed once. Note that a trailer typically will have 1, 2, or 3 axles.

2. The actual tire sized delivered on a trailer and its inflation pressure will be stated to avoid misinforming the customer as to the proper inflation pressure required and the possible associated product liability. For example if our label called out GAWR = 20,000. With 11-24.5 (F) tires with 24.5 x 3.25 rims, at 75 PSI cold dual, but the trailer was delivered with Michelin 11 R 24.5 x (G) tires, and our customer followed the 75 PSI inflation pressure per our label instead of the inflation pressure stated on the tire sidewall, the tire capacity per axle would only be 1d, 185. Note that the 11-24.5 (F) is a popular tire used to achieve the 20,000 maximum per axle load bridge law and that its 75 PSI inflation pressure is a maximum.

3. The label per AB-2387A lists (8) different popular sizes. Since tires sizes are change frequently on stock trailers at the (Illegible Word) level this should reduce the required frequency of exchanging certification labels and thus reduce the number of circarded or called labels that get into the hands of thieves for use on stolen trailers to misrepresent the actual V.I.N. California State Highway Petrol has stated, that handling of replacement certification labels is a real problem today.

Please answer within two (2) weeks, as we must order new labels by mid June, in order to be ready for September 1, 1977 effective date. Call me at (213) 965-1541 if I can be of any help in answering questions.

Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer

NOTES:

TABLE FOR STAMPING INFORMATION TO BE BRIGHT BRASS. NO PRINTED MATTER LESS THAN 3/32 HIGH. ALL PRINTED MATT TO BE CAPITALS. BACKGROUND GLOSSY BLACK MATL. NOT LESS THAN .032 BRASS.

(Graphics omitted)

MASTER DWG. RETURN TO FILE. IN DRAWER #17 INDEX PG. #1

REVISION DATE REFERENCE DRW NO. THIS DRAWING IS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UTILITY TRAILER MFG CO. UTILITY TRAILER MFG CO. CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA D.O.T. CERTIFICATION LABEL SPECIAL VEHICLES DRN PAT.C SERIAL AND SHOP ORDER CHD. SALES OFFICE PT. NO. 03-5600-0-027 DATE: (Illegible Words)

OWG NO.: AB-2383-A

NOTES: (Illegible Data)

C. ALL DIM. FOR INDIVIDUAL BLOCK LETTERING PER DWG AB-2383A EXCEPT AS NOTED.

(Graphics omitted)

REVISION DATE: REFERENCE DWG NO. THIS DRAWING IS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA D.O.T. CERTIFICATION LABEL STD DUAL AXLE VEHICLES DRN.: (Illegible Word) SERIAL AND SHOP ORDER CHD. SALES OFFICE DATE: MAY 30, 1977 DWG NO.: AB2383A

ID: 77-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

FROM: WILLIAM B. STOVER

TO: BRIAN YOUNG -- OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/23/77 (EST) FROM ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER U.S. CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 3/4/71 FROM MR. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO EISUKE NIGUMA OF TOYOKOKYO COMPANY, LTD.

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We have been unable to get a third seat belt installed in the back seat of our 1972 Datsun Model 1200 automobile. The denials to accept the work have been based on claims of prohibition by federal law. The seat cover and top shops that used to do seat belt work before the new safety laws no longer do so as far as I have been informed.

The occupancy limit of this model has been repeatedly stated as the reason. A sticker in the glove compartment states that the occupancy of the car is limited to four adults of 200 pounds each plus a specified amount of luggage. This equates to 400 pounds of people in the back seat. Two 200 pound people in the back seat would be a tight fit, especially with the room taken by the bulky seat belt retractors. Three people totaling this 400 pound limit would not fit.

When my wife and I purchased the car, we had two small daughters. During September, 1975, we had a third daughter. Soon after her birth, we tried to get the extra seat belt installed to anchor a car seat for her in the middle of the back seat, i.e., over the bump. We were unsuccessful then and have been unsuccessful at periodic attempts to do so since then. I called Congressman Dornan's local office and discussed the problem with you after the latest attempt; a run-around involving phone calls to over ten automotive businesses.

The weight/occupancy limit is especially frustrating as the total weight of the five members of our family is significantly under 400 pounds. The fact that I was a strong advocate of wearing seat belts long before they were required also makes this conflict with the seat belt laws very frustrating.

We appreciate your efforts in our behalf.

Thank you,

ID: 77-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/77

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

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 23 and July 8, 1977, letters asking several questions about the effect of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, on the construction of school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) below 10,000 pounds.

You first ask whether there are any seat performance requirements for the rearmost seat after April 1978. The rear seat has been exempted from the forward and rearward performance requirements of the standard. This exemption was possible since there are no passengers seated behind the rear seat who could impact with it in a crash situation. Therefore, the rear seat may be positioned against the rear panel if it does not protrude into the emergency exit zone.

In a second question, you ask whether the head protection zone requirements (S5.3), as well as the requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, and S5.1.5, are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less since these buses are required to have seat belts. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5(b) of the standard states that all of the above sections are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less.

In connection with your question concerning the head protection zone requirements, you submitted sketches of the sidewall and roof structure of one of your buses. In that sketch you depict a 50th percentile adult and show the proximity of that adult with the sidewall-roof structure. You question whether a portion of the bus structure above the window is part of the roof structure subject to the head protection zone requirements.

The NHTSA has determined that the portion of the interior skin that is depicted by the diagonal line connecting the horizontal roof line to the vertically contoured line representing the sidewall is part of the roof structure and must comply with the requirements of the standard for head protection.

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC.

JULY 8, 1977

TIMOTHY A. HOYT SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ADVICE, JUNE 29, 1977.

ENCLOSED ARE SKETCHES OF THE COLLINS SUPERBUS INTERIOR SKIN IN RELATION TO A 50 PERCENTILE PERSON SEATED NEAR THE WINDOW. SKETCH A SHOWS THE PERSON IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION, SKETCH B SHOWS THIS PERSON IN A MORE NORMAL POSITION WITH THE BUS LOADED. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE INTERIOR SKIN ABOVE THE WINDOWS, AND NEAREST TO THE OCCUPANTS' HEAD, POSES A HAZARD TO THE OCCUPANT IF THE SKIN IS NOT PADDED?

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

ID: 77-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: J. R. Green

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 8, 1977, to the President of the United States concerning the need for improved motor vehicle headlamp standards has been referred to this office for consideration and reply.

We have received considerable information regarding the effects of foreign and domestic motor vehicle headlighting equipment, including engineering papers and test data on "selective yellow" headlamps. All information concluded that filtering of headlamps to produce yellow reduces the photometric intensity of the lamp, thereby reducing the actual seeing distance. Some vehicle operators subjectively concluded they can see further with yellow headlamps, but objective seeing distance tests with specific target characteristics and distances indicate a loss of seeing distance.

It is also true that while the original intent in using yellow headlamps was to reduce the glare from oncoming vehicle headlamps, our current test data indicates that a yellow light does not reduce glare. The white light is, therefore considered safer and is the basis for requiring white light in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed).

Although this lighting standard is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps. However, it does require headlamps which are designed to be aimed properly when installed in prealigned mechanical assemblies. The lamp itself may be sealed-beam (filament is enclosed only by the lamp shell in an inert atmosphere) or it may be a halogen lamp (filament is surrounded by a small envelope containing a halogen gas). Specifically, the halogen-bulb headlamp is legal if incorporated into an otherwise legal motor vehicle headlamp.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AUGUST 18, 1977

James R. Green 3396 Alma Street Lynwood, California 90262

Dear Mr. Green:

In his letter of June 16, 1977, our Mr. Driver, Director of the Office of Crash Avoidance, commented that although the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard "is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps."

This should not be interpreted as an opinion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require sealed beam headlamps. While there is no such requirement per se in the text of the standard, Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J579a Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965, and SAE Standard J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966. Compliance of headlamps with these standards is required, whether as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: 77-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a rim in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disc making a completed wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the rim marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 7, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars

We are writing to request an interpretation of the rim marking requirement of FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

We are interested in the case where a rim manufacturer supplies rims to a wheel manufacturer who then welds these rims to discs thus producing wheels. In such a situation, is the rim manufacturer or the wheel manufacturer responsible for the markings required by FMVSS 120?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry would be appreciated.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

NAME OF AGENCY:

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. PRECEDENCE Action P (Illegible Word) DATE PREPARED: 8/16/77

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

TYPE OF (Illegible Word): [x] (Illegible Word) [] BOOK [] MULTIPLE-ADDRESS

NAME: Fred Koch PHONE NUMBER: 202-426-2800

THIS SPACE FOR USE OF COMMUNICATION UNIT: #26417

TO: ROBERT STEVENSON TECHNICAL SALES MANAGER, WHEEL DIVISION GKN SANKEY, LIMITED

PURSUANT TO YOUR TELEPHONE CALL OF AUGUST 15, 1977, TO FRED KOCH REGARDING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, OUR ANSWERS TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS FOLLOW.

1. REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF MOLDED LETTERING ON RIM SURFACES IDENTIFYING MILL SOURCE OF MATERIAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD, THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO SUCH MARKING APPEARING ON THE FINISHED RIM PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH UNDERSTANDING AND CLARITY OF SEPARATE MARKINGS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD.

2. REGARDING THE SPACING OF NUMBERS ON THE RIM REPRESENTING DATE OF MANUFACTURER, THE INTENT IS TO MINIMIZE AREA OCCUPIED AND TO AVOID IRREGULAR OR INCONSISTENT SPACING AND OPENINGS IN WHICH INFORMATION MIGHT BE LOST OR UNDETECTED. HOWEVER, THE USE OF VERY SHORT SPACING BETWEEN MONTH, DAY, AND YEAR IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STANDARD.

E. T. DRIVER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NMV-30 PAGE NO.: 2 NO. OF PGS.: 2

ID: 77-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 8, 1977, letter asking where a school bus sidewall ends and the bus roof begins for purposes of complying with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

You enclosed a sketch detailing the bus sidewall and roof structure. On that sketch, you have a section of the bus labeled "A" where the sidewall and roof structure join. You have called this a quarter panel section. However, from your sketch, it appears that this panel is divided into two segments, with one extending upward from the window a short distance and connecting with a second more rounded section that continues over the top of the bus. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that your interpretation that the section labeled "A" need not comply with the requirements of the standard is incorrect. The agency concludes that the portion of the "quarter panel" that is a continuation of the bus sidewall is exempted from the requirements. However, the rounded portion of the panel that is merely a continuation of the roof must comply with the standard.

In your other sketch you present a roof drawing of a larger school bus. The agency has determined that the section you have labeled "roof section" is the only section of the drawing subject to the head protection zone requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

June 9, 1977 Dictated June 8, 1977

Roger Tilton Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Relating to our phone conversation to-day pertaining to the "head impact zone confines" I pose for you the following question:

Q. Using the simple line sketches enclosed, we request an interpretation of that area "not occupied by bus sidewall"?

It is our interpretation that the area marked "A" is considered to be a part of the sidewall section and would thus be excluded from the impact zone confines.

In that production dates for the post-April standards are rapidly approaching, we respectfully request a prompt response with your interpretation.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice-President

BIG BUS - CONVENTIONAL FULL SIZE

SMALL BUS - VAN CONVERSION TYPE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: Cantey; Hanger; Gooch; Munn; & Collins

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1977, letter asking whether your client, a company that manufactures, distributes, and sometimes installs air conditioners and cruise control units on automobiles prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, must comply with the certification and other requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1403) requires that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers certify that each vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are no standards applicable to air conditioners or cruise controls. Thus, your client would not be required to certify the equipment he manufactures.

Your client may, however, have certification responsibilities as prescribed in the regulation issued under Section 114 (49 CFR Part 567, Certification) in his capacity as installer of air conditioners or cruise controls if such installation places him within the status of "alterer," as that term is defined in Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the equipment, prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, either altered the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating or was the installation of a nonreadily attachable component.

It is unlikely that the installation of an air conditioning unit would alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The installation of air conditioners or cruise controls may, however, constitute an installation of equipment which is not readily attachable or may exceed the gross axle weight rating. If this is the case, your client would have to comply with the requirements of Part 567.7. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise or tools must be taken into consideration.

You ask whether your client would be required to comply with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This part applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies. Since no safety standards apply to the equipment manufactured by your client, he would not be required to comply with this regulation in his capacity as an equipment manufacturer. Further, the NHTSA has determined by interpretation that vehicle alterers need not comply with Part 566. Similarly, 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, may not apply to your client, since the installation of an air conditioner or a cruise control would not make your client an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, an intermediate manufacturer, or a final stage manufacturer of vehicles as those terms are defined in the regulation (568.3). Your client might have responsibilities under Part 568.8 as a vehicle alterer, however.

You should note that if your client is considered an alterer, as defined in Part 567 or Part 568 he would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliances resulting from his installations (the Act, Section 151 et seq.).

If we can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

CANTEY, HANGER, GOOCH, MUNN & COLLINS

March 1, 1977

David Fay Engineering Systems Staff National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our firm represents a company which manufactures and distributes auto air-conditioning units and which sometimes installs such units along with cruise control devices on automobiles before they are sold for the first time at retail. This company is most desirous of complying with all applicable Federal Rules and Regulations governing their area of activity.

Our attention has been drawn to 15 USCS Section 1403, entitled "Certification of vehicle or equipment as to conformity with safety standards." This statute seems to require every manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to certify that each item of such equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and that such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of the container in which such item is delivered. The Regulations do not appear to address manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment unless such equipment is the subject of one of the safety standards set forth in the Regulations. The statute is not so narrowly drawn and our question is whether we must comply with it in the event that there are no safety standards which apply to air conditioners.

Our next question concerns Part 566 of Title 49, Transportation Regulations. Part 566 requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies, to submit identifying information and a description of the items they produce to the Administrator, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. After reading the safety standards set forth in the Title 49 Regulations, I was unable to find any which would apply to air conditioners, and I would like for you to confirm this for me.

Of perhaps greater importance than the problems listed above, is the one which arises out of Part 567 and 568 of said Title 49, Transportation Regulations. The language therein, taken literally, is very broad; nevertheless, it is not without ambiguity. 567.2 states that this part applies to manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles, to which one or more standards are applicable. This statement creates two issues:

1. Is a company which installs automobile air conditioners and cruise control units a manufacturer of motor vehicles?

2. Are there any standards which would apply to them?

Another question we have is whether or not the installation of these devices would subject the installer to the requirements imposed upon manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I was under the impression that the special rules governing manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages were designed to cover cement trucks, campers and the like; however, the literal reading of the definition might cover the installation of the accessories in question, and we would like to get your opinion on this subject.

Finally, we are concerned with 567.7, entitled "Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles." We would like your opinion as to whether or not the installation of either an automobile air conditioner or a cruise control device, or both, would constitute an alteration sufficient to require the type of label specified in this Regulation.

If such a label is required, to what extent must the gross vehicle weight be altered before the modified values provided in the forms specified in Sections 567.4(g) (3) and (5) apply? In that regard, we would like to know if the gross vehicle weight "rating" means something different than the gross vehicle weight. It occurs to me that the weight "rating" may refer to certain categories of variously weighted vehicles. For example, vehicles over 5,000 pounds and under 10,000 pounds, or over 10,000 pounds or under 15,000 pounds, for each of which classes of vehicles a different safety standard might perhaps apply.

We believe that the statutes and Regulations above referred to constitute all of those to which we might possibly be subject. If there are any others, of which you are aware, we would appreciate your calling same to our attention.

We are awaiting your response before undertaking the task of having special labels printed up, installed, etc., and would appreciate it if you would respond as soon as you are able.

Noel C. Ice

cc: JOE BURKETT -- AMC AIR CONDITIONING CO.

ID: 77-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking whether a school bus manufacturer can sell a bus to a private school or to a contractor for use in the transportation of the handicapped that is not built in compliance with the new school bus safety standards.

The new school bus definition to which you refer in your letter was issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the direction of Congress. The definition requires that all buses carrying more than 10 persons to or from school or related events (other than common carriers in urban transportation) must be constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

The buses to which you refer transport children to and from private schools and also transport the handicapped. There is no distinction between private school and public school for purposes of the application of the school bus safety requirements. Accordingly, a bus designed to carry more than 10 persons to and from a private school must be constructed in accordance with the requirements and must be equipped with the lights, paint, and signs of a school bus. The same situation exists for buses designed for the transportation of the handicapped if they carry more than 10 persons to and from school or related events.

In conclusion, a manufacturer is not permitted to sell a bus designed to transport school children to and from school and related events, unless that bus is contructed in accordance with the requirements. Schools may purchase, however, small vehicles (fewer than 10 passenger) that are not built according to the requirements. These vehicles are not considered school buses for purposes of the application of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 7, 1977

Joseph Levin, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is a request for interpretation of the re-definition of the term "school bus" and how it affects current Connecticut statutes. The recent amendment to the definition of "school bus" that appears in 49 CFR 571.3 defines a school bus as a bus that is sold or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related events, but does not include a bus designed or sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Connecticut legislation, specifically Sections 14-275a and 14-275b (copies enclosed) of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle Laws, Title 14, requires the use of a standard school bus. Section 14-275a does not mandate that private schools must provide a school bus when transporting students under the age of 21 years to and from school, and Section 14-275b exempts the use of a standard school bus when transporting the physically handicapped, providing such vehicle has been approved for such purpose by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

It is my understanding that because of the recent re-definition of a school bus, the manufacturers of school bus bodies and manufacturers of reconstructed van-type vehicles will no longer sell a vehicle to a prospective customer unless that vehicle meets all the requirements of a school bus, including construction, flashing lights, color, and appropriate labeling. Persons responsible for transporting private school students and the handicapped are now restricted from purchasing vehicles other than school buses because of the manufacturers' policies concerning the sale of vehicles used to transport students to and from school.

The interpretation I am requesting is: Can a manufacturer sell a vehicle in Connecticut other than a school bus to a private school or to a contractor for use in the transportation of the physically handicapped, if the manufacturer is aware of its intended use? Your attention and response to this question is appreciated.

John L. O'Connell Pupil Transportation Administrator

[Legislation Omitted]