ID: 2842o

Morris East, Assistant Director
Bureau of School Transportation
State of Louisiana
P.O. Box 94064
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064

Dear Mr. East:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers assume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 568.3 as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body- even an old body- is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehicle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of motor vehicle repair (e.g.. a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification. Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to show that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#567#568#571 d:3/16/88

ID: 7532

Mr. David H. Milligan
7287 S. 300 E.
Midvale, UT 84047

Dear Mr. Milligan:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Car Seat Support," an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints.

Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear-facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars.

Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The "standard seat assembly" used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward- slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck.

The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as "blocks of wood" and "rolled up towels" to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support.

NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213

applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket supporting devices.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your device contain a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of '108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear-facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product.

In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear- facing restraint that needs a "support" to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:9/27/92

ID: nht79-2.26

DATE: 12/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 7, 1979

Mr. Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennyslvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of June 26, 1979, questioning an opinion contained in our December 12, 1978, letter to you regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. Our letter stated that your company should stamp the words "not applicable", or words of similar import, in any spaces on your certification label which are for axles not present on the vehicle to which the label is affixed. You responded that the blank spaces on the label would not be confusing, and that the likelihood of a discrepancy between the vehicle and the label is very remote.

Our letter did not address the question of the wrong label accidentally being affixed to a vehicle. Such an occurrence would mean that the vehicle would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120, and it could not legally be sold in the United States. Hence, any questions about a discrepancy between the information appearing on the label and the vehicle are beyond the scope of this reply.

S5.3 of Standard No. 120 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 - S5.3.3 appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3. As explained in the December 12 letter, minor variations on what is set forth in the truck example are permitted, but only if those minor variations do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Minor variations consist of slight differences in punctuation or a substitution of words for a punctuation mark. The purpose of the labeling requirement is to clearly convey to the user of the vehicle the information specified in Standard No. 120.

Leaving blank spaces for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle being labeled does not, upon reconsideration, change or obscure the meaning of the label. Nor is it reasonable to assume that blank spaces will confuse the average reader of the label, when those blank spaces correspond to axles not present on the vehicle. Therefore, I am hereby withdrawing the statement in our previous letter that Mack Trucks should stamp "not applicable" or words of similar import on certification labels for axles not present on the vehicle being labeled. It would be more accurate, however, to insert these words and it would be a simple matter to do so at the same time the other variable information is applied to the label form.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 26, 1979

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

Dear Sir:

Subject: Vehicle Certification Label/FMVSS 120 Ref: NOA-30

On January 5, 1979, we sent the attached letter to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., who was Chief Counsel at that time. As of this date, we have not received a reply to this letter.

The letter concerns the blank spaces present in the FMVSS 120 portion of our Vehicle Certification Label which Mr. Levin felt were confusing. We do not feel that they could be confusing.

Please review both Mr. Levin's attached letter and our response to his letter and advise us of your findings.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards vy Attach.

January 5, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: Vehicle Certification Label Ref: NOA-30

In your letter of December 12, 1978, you noted the following:

"The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide information for the front, rear, and three intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp 'Not applicable', or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled. Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fail to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. An indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact."

Mack Trucks, Inc. does not understand how one (1) to three (3) blank axle/tire/rim spaces could be confusing since the label is affixed to the vehicle. If, for some reason, the number of axles on the vehicle does not agree with the number represented on the label, obviously, something is wrong. Whether there are "blank spaces" or "not applicable spaces" is of little consequence. The likelihood of a discrepancy between the label and the vehicle is very remote.

Please note the GAWR requirement on the label was effective January 1, 1972. We have used the "FRONT, 1ST INT., 2ND INT., 3RD INIT., REAR AXLE" format with blank spaces since that date (7 years). We are not aware of any problems associated with this format.

Therefore, we would appreciate an explanation of how blank spaces could be confusing under the outlined circumstances.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

T. P. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

bcc: Messrs. L. F. Donnelly S. Robson C. D. Trexler

ID: nht92-3.44

DATE: September 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David H. Milligan

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/10/92 from David H. Milligan to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7532)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Car Seat Support," an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints.

Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear-facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars.

Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The "standard seat assembly" used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward-slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck.

The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as "blocks of wood" and "rolled up towels" to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support.

NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to supporting devices.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your

device contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear-facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product.

In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear-facing restraint that needs a "support" to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TO: TAYLOR VINSON--ATTORNEY ADVISOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/15/88 TO LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to help determine the desirability of adding a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" warning light to the light configuration which is normally used on automobiles. As presently envisioned, this light woul d be amber in color and would be illuminated when the driver removes pressure from the accelerator pedal sufficiently to cause the automobile speed to start to decrease, due to the effect of engine compression, and would be extinguished automatically whe never the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal.

SwRI considers that a "deceleration light" of this type has the potential to reduce the incidence of automobile rear-end collisions (see Attachment 1) and that this potential is maximized if the light is located in as conspicuou a location as possible . The "best" location is considered to be immediately adjacent (or as close as possible) to the location of the "high-mounted stoplamp" since this location appears to offer the highest degree of visibility and would also serve to attract attention to th e high-mounted stoplamp area.

This location appears to have already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, since it is mentioned as a consideration in FMVSS No. 108 on page PRE 137, and the principle is in widespread use on schoolbuses which use a manually activated flashing a mber light to warn that the red stop lights are about to be turned on and that all traffic must stop.

A review of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) has failed to locate any requirement which would preclude locating an additional light adjacent to the high-mounted stoplamp; however, this type of requirement was conside red at one time (FMVSS 108, pages PRE 132-133 and PRE 135) and SwRI would like to find out if any requirement exists now, or is contemplated for the future, which would prevent the use of this location.

If I can provide further information or answer any questions which might expedite the answer to this question, please call (512) 522-3017.

Sincerely,

DECELERATION LIGHT MAXIMUM BENEFIT SITUATIONS The following three categories of driving situations are considered to be the situations in which deceleration lights would be of maximum benefit in reducing rear-end collisions.

HEAVY TRAFFIC (High speed/high traffic density with decreased vehicle separation distances)

High traffic density, with the associated decrease in visibility and increased need for enhanced reaction time, leads to a situation where reaction times become additive and eventually reach the point where a following driver is placed in a situation where his vehicle has exceeded its physical capability of stopping in time to avoid an accident. Deceleration lights offer the potential for minimizing this progressive lengthening of reaction time and thereby permitting long strings of cars to stop saf ely. Deceleration lights would also provide valuable information about adjoining lane driver intentions, particularly in lane change situations where an apparent opening in an adjoining traffic lane may be about to vanish if the driver of the vehicle at the front of the opening has decided to slow down and has taken his foot off the accelerator preparatory to stepping on the brakes.

MERGING TRAFFIC (Converging situations between vehicles entering or leaving limited access roadways)

A particularly volatile and rapidly changing situation occurs when two streams of traffic merge and the driver of the vehicle with the right-of-way is often forced to guess whether or not a merging driver is going to yield, speed up, or slow down. Th is guess is made harder by the fact that most drivers control their merging maneuver by use of the accelerator pedal only, and thus leave only the rate-of-change of their speed as a clue to their intentions. The driver with the right-of-way is almost al ways driving the faster, overtaking, vehicle and would be able to see a deceleration light which could furnish valuable clues about the other driver's intentions. A deceleration light would also furnish valuable information to drivers following the vehi cle with the righ-of-way if that driver decides to "let up on the gas" and give a merging vehicle more room to complete the merging maneuver.

DECREASED TRACTION (Braking situations where low traction may cause skids or other loss of control situations if brakes are applied too heavily)

Many drivers fail to realize the need for increased spacing between car during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.). At the same time most drivers are taught that the proper way to slow down in slippery conditions is to let up on the accelerat or and allow the vehicle to decelerate gradually. This combination is likely to cause accidents involving following cars which do not realize that they are following a car which is slowing down until it is too late for them to make a controlled stop. A deceleration light would provide this information for following drivers and allow them to initiate their own stop, or speed reduction, in time to remain in control.

ID: 19664.ztv

Mr. Ron Dawson
4224 Quince Road
Portsmouth, VA 23703

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of March 3, 1999, telling us that you are preparing a business plan to produce a new kit car. You have asked about our policy regarding kit car manufacturing, and, specifically, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to a kit car manufacturer.

Under your plan, you would sell "all necessary parts required to formulate an automobile except for engine and gear box." These parts would be new. You would sell the kit of parts "in any stage of assembly from a box of unassembled parts to a completely assembled automobile minus engine and gearbox." The purchaser of the kit would provide "a previously owned or used engine and gearbox." The purchaser would assemble, or complete assembly of, the vehicle. The vehicle would be for personal use, on public roads, and not for resale.

We have no regulations that apply per se to the manufacture of kit cars. However, a seller of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the statutory requirement that the equipment item must conform to all applicable FMVSS, if any are in effect that cover the equipment item. We find that, generally, equipment manufactured in the United States is certified by its manufacturer as conforming to applicable FMVSS. The items of passenger car motor vehicle equipment that are the subject of specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards are brake hoses (FMVSS No. 106), items of lighting equipment (FMVSS No. 108), pneumatic tires (FMVSS No. 109), brake fluids (FMVSS No. 116), non-pneumatic temporary spare tires (FMVSS No. 129), glazing materials (FMVSS No. 205), and seat belt assemblies (FMVSS No. 209).

This equipment is required to be marked with a DOT symbol as a certification of compliance (alternatively, the containers of lighting equipment other than headlamps may bear a certification statement). Therefore, you may rely upon this certification, unless NHTSA or the manufacturer has determined that a noncompliance exists.

We have encountered compliance problems from time to time with equipment manufactured outside the United States, particularly lighting equipment. Were you to import noncomplying equipment for a kit, we would regard you as the manufacturer of the equipment and responsible for notifying purchasers and remedying the noncompliance through repurchase of the equipment, or replacing it with a complying item, at no expense to the owner, even if the equipment were certified. You would also be liable for civil penalties for importing and selling noncomplying equipment if it is not certified. If the noncomplying equipment is certified, you would not be liable for a penalty unless you actually knew the equipment was noncompliant.

You may assemble the vehicle up to the point of installation of its power train without becoming its manufacturer. However, if you decided to furnish an engine and transmission with the kit, we would consider you the manufacturer and responsible for the vehicle's noncompliance with all applicable FMVSS, and certifying compliance, even though the vehicle would be assembled by another person. In the situation you describe, in which you do not furnish the engine and transmission, the person installing the engine and transmission, whether the kit purchaser or a commercial entity such as a repair facility, would be regarded as the manufacturer of the vehicle, and responsible for its compliance with the FMVSS. The fact that the kit car may be equipped with a used transmission and engine is not sufficient to relieve it of the legal necessity to comply with all FMVSS that apply to motor vehicles manufactured from all new parts.

Of course, the kit car must meet all State and local requirements in order to be registered and operated.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.3/29/99

ID: 1985-02.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gordon Bonvallet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordon Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, NY 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1985, to this Office asking whether the agency intended to eliminate the maximum allowable value for parking lamp candlepower in the amendments of November 26, 1984 which established Figure 1b.

Thank you for calling this matter to our attention. The amendment appears to have the effect you ascribe to it, though it was not the agency's intention that it do so. The maximum values of SAE J222 December 1970 are those that should apply, and we shall reinstate them in the near future.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 13, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Rule Making 49CFR Part 571 (Docket No. 83-12: Notice 2)

Figure 1b in the reference Docket shows a minimum allowable candlepower value of 4.0 for a one section "Parking" lamp. No maximum is indicated.

Is the intent to eliminate the allowable maximum candlepower for parking lamps or should the maximum values as listed in SAE J222 Dec. 70, referenced in FMVSS 108, be used? (SAE J222 JAN77 eliminated the maximum values.)

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm

ID: nht76-2.39

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 29, 1976, asking whether the "47 Series Tite-Lite," in our opinion, has an "'optically combined' clearance lamp function." The lamp in question is represented as having "two lights [that] provide 15 functions" and you have advised us that "there are no partitions inside the multi-function lens of this lamp."

Paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the optical combination of clearance lamps with tail lamps and identification lamps. This means that a single bulb in the 47 Series Tite-Lite may not provide both tail lamp and clearance lamp functions. It also means that the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function. You have neither identified the function performed by both bulbs nor provided us with their candle-power output and we are unable to determine whether the lamp complies with Standard No. 108.

SINCERELY,

Trailer manufacturers association

October 29, 1976

Frank A. Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. Weber has sent me a copy of your letter to him of October 7, 1976 (reference N40-30).

With respect to paragraphs one and two of your letter, we wish to know if DOT considers the 47 Series Tite-Lite as described inside and on the cover of the enclosed brochure as having an "optically combined" clearance light function, and with respect to this question only, if the lamp is considered to comply with FMVSS No. 108. There are no partitions inside the multi-functions lens of this lamp.

Director of Engineering DONALD I. REED

TITE-LTE

(Graphics omitted)

At last, a Submergible Light System for Boat Trailers . . .

ID: 77-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 6, 1977, question regarding the effective date of the recent amendment to Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, that specifies color coding requirements for brake fluids (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976). You asked whether motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date for the color coding requirements (September 1, 1978) may be equipped with brake fluids manufactured prior to that date that do not conform to the color coding requirements.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 116 specifies that motor vehicles having hydraulic brake systems shall be equipped with brake fluid that has been manufactured and packaged in conformity with the requirements of the standard. The agency interprets this to mean that vehicles shall be equipped with any brake fluid that conformed to the requirements of Standard No. 116 at the time the brake fluid was manufactured.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 6, 1977

Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation regarding the effective date of brake fluid color coding requirements (MVSS 116, Docket 71-13; Notice 12) for the motor vehicles.

My understanding is that even on and after September 1, 1978 the motor vehicles can be equipped with brake fluid manufactured before that date which do not meet the color coding requirement of S.5.1.14 because FMVSS 116 except S5.3 does not apply to the motor vehicle manufacturer but to the brake fluid manufacturer. Is my understanding correct?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

Very truly yours, Tokio Iinuma -- Staff, Safety

ID: nht79-2.35

DATE: 09/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo, Director Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your August 27, 1979, letter asking how the agency tests a floor joint for compliance with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You enclosed a sketch and sample floor joint with your letter and asked in which direction the forces would be applied for test purposes. You suggested that the forces be applied in a perpendicular direction to the floor.

The floor joint that you manufacture is welded in three locations. One weld is located on top of the floor surface and joins the two panels together. The agency concludes that this joint should be tested by applying force in a direction that is parallel to the floor surface, not perpendicular to it. This is the procedure that is specified in section S6 of the standard for testing joints that are constructed in a manner similar to the floor joint in your vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Roger Tilton

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain an interpretation of the testing procedure that will be used to check the underbody joints shown in proposal number 2.

It is our interpretation of FMVSS 221 that both joints, floor panel to crossmember and floor panel to floor panel, would be tested in the direction of the arrows shown on the enclosed proposal.

An early reply will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo, Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosure