ID: 1982-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Baily Ford, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 26, 1982

Mr. Lloyd L. Bailey President Bailey Ford, Inc. West Main Street Road Malone, NY 12953

Dear Mr. Bailey:

This responds to your letter of December 4, 1981, requesting current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis. Your letter also asked about regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, and transmission changes. We apparently did not receive your letter of October 16 and regret the delay in responding.

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, is the agency's regulation on glider kits. It states that when a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for the purpose of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. We have enclosed a copy of Part 571.7 for your convenience.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you plan to add a new cab and other components to an existing vehicle's engine and axles. Unless you also use a transmission that is not new, the truck would be considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e). If the truck is newly manufactured under that Part, you must certify compliance with all applicable current Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If the truck is not considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e), the changes would be considered in the nature of repairs and certification would not be required. However, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you as a repairer of a vehicle other than your own must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would mean that the reassembled truck with the glider kit installed must continue to meet the standards that it met before the alteration.

The agency does not have specific regulations concerning repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, or transmission changes. In making such changes, however, a person other than the vehicle's owner must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (except temporarily during the course of repairs).

The changes you refer to could affect compliance with a number of safety standards. For example, repowering a truck from gas to diesel could affect compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. Changing axles could affect compliance wit standards in such areas as braking and tires.

We suggest that you examine the various Federal motor vehicle safety standards before making such changes. Due to the volume of requests, the agency does not provide copies directly. We have, however, enclosed an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Glancy, you asked what model year designation should be given when a glider kit is used. This agency is interested in the compliance of motor vehicles with safety standards and does not regulate the model year designation of vehicles. However, it is our belief that a vehicle considered to be newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e) would receive a new registration, while other vehicles would continue to carry their original registration. State laws may cover the question. Further, you should consult with 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.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

December 4, 1981

Dept. of Transportation Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen: Would you please send us current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis; also regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles and transmission changes.

We asked for this information back on October 16th, and never received a reply.

Very truly yours,

Lloyd L. Bailey President

LLB:rm

ID: 1982-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki, Engineering Office of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Engineering Office of North America Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

This responds to your letter asking whether your new wiping system design meets the frequency requirements of Safety Standard No. 104. Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

The system described in your letter operates on two settings. One of the settings provides continuous operation at a speed of about 75 cycles per minute. The wipers operate at the same speed for the second setting, but there is intermittence between each cycle. Because of the intermittence, the wipers operate only about 45 cycles per minute. As explained below, it is our opinion that such a system meets the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104.

Section S4.1.1 reads as follows:

S4.1.1 Frequency.

S4.1.1.1 Each windshield wiping system shall have at least two frequencies or speeds.

S4.1.1.2 One frequency or speed shall be at least 45 cycles per minute regardless of engine load and engine speed.

S4.1.1.3 Regardless of engine speed and engine load, the highest and one lower frequency or speed shall differ by at least 15 cycles per minute. Such lower frequency or speed shall be at least 20 cycles per minute regardless of engine speed and engine load.

S9.1.1.4 Compliance with subparagraphs S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 may be demonstrated by testing under the conditions specified in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

The primary issue for this interpretation is whether the system meets the requirement in section S4.1.1.1 for "at least two frequencies or speeds." This issue arises because the wipers operate at the same speed for the two settings, using intermittence to achieve a different number of cycles per minute. It is our opinion that the system does meet this requirement, since the language of the standard speaks of frequencies or speeds. While the speed may be the same for the two settings, the frequencies are different.

The system satisfies the requirements in sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 that one cycle or speed be at least 45 cycles per minute, that the highest and lowest frequency or speed differ by at least 15 cycles per minute, and that the lower cycle be at least 20 cycles per minute (assuming that the requirements are met regardless of engine load and engine speed).

While your wiping system design appears to meet the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104, we do have a possible concern about its safety. On its lower setting, between the periods of intermittence, the speed of the wiper blades would still be at a rate of about 75 cycles per minute. It is possible that operation at such a fast speed might cause chattering of the wipers when used during light precipitation. If that happened, drivers might be less likely to use their wipers during light precipitation. We suggest that you consider that possibility before going forward with your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1981 Ref: 81-106-S

Mr. Raymond A. Peck, Jr., Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5220 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Peck:

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation concerning the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of FMSS 104.

Our questions can be found on the attached page.

Your interpretations will be appreciated very much.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:rk

Attachment

cc: Mr. C. H. Raehn Head, Lighting & Visibility Group

QUESTION CONCERNING WIPING SPEED FOR MVSS 104

Please let us know if the following new wiping system meets the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of MVSS 104.

New System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle (T) is all the same between low speed and high speed cycles.

*Insert figure here

Ordinary System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle is different from each other

*Insert figure here

ID: 1982-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1982, letter asking whether the hose that connects the air pressure gauge to the service reservoir system must comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You also ask whether the air pressure gauge is part of the Standard No. 121, Air Brake System.

The air pressure gauge to which you refer is required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 121. Accordingly, it is considered as part of the air brake system. With respect to whether the tubing connecting that gauge to the air supply reservoir must comply with Standard No. 106, that standard defines brake hose as:

"a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes."

The agency has previously determined that hoses connected to air pressure gauges need not comply with Standard No. 106 if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To determine whether your system transmits or contains the pressure, you must determine whether a failure of the hose to the gauge would result in a loss of air pressure in the system. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106. This answer would also apply to other air pressure gauges that you may install to monitor other portions of the brake system performance.

SINCERELY,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

January 19, 1982

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of General Council

Gentlemen:

Subject: Requirements for the Air Brake System Air Pressure Gauge and Supply Line Ref: FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 106

Mack Trucks, Inc., as a major producer of heavy duty vehicles, is in the process of releasing for production a new cab-over-engine vehicle designated as the MH model.

Section S5.1.4 of Standard 121 requires that we install in these vehicles a pressure gauge to monitor the service reservoir system air pressure. Since Standard 121 is entitled "Air Brake Systems", we have considered such a gauge to be part of the air brake system.

In light of the above facts, and since the supply line to the gauge does contain brake system air, we have assumed that the hose or tubing used for the supply line should comply with the requirements of Standard 106, Brake Hoses.

We are, therefore, requesting clarification on the following subjects:

(a) Is the air pressure gauge required by S5.1.4 of Standard 121 considered part of the air brake system?

(b) If the answer to part (a) is yes, must the supply line (hose or tubing) to this pressure gauge comply with the requirements of Standard 106, Brake Hoses?

In a related situation, we will be supplying, as an option, an air application gauge in these new models that will monitor the

Subject: Requirements for the Air Brake System Air Pressure Gauge and Supply Line Ref: FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 106 air being applied to specific parts of the brake system (e.g., front brakes, rear brakes, or trailer brakes). We would assume that if the answer to part (b) above is yes, then the supply line to these gauges would also be required to comply with Standard 106. Is our assumption correct?

We would appreciate a timely response to our questions since the manufacture of certain preproduction MH models is to take place in the very near future.

S. Robson Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations

ID: 1982-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Norton Motors Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1982, asking whether a proposed motorcycle taillamp assembly would comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you point out, the standard requires a minimum distance of 4 inches edge to edge between turn signal lamps and stop/tail lamps. Since you state that you cannot achieve this with your design, the lamp as currently designed would not be permitted by our standard. This will confirm the oral interpretation provided by Taylor Vinson of this office when you telephoned on March 22.

You will be interested to know that we are presently studying side and rear conspicuity of motorcycles. This research is being conducted by Ketron in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, and the final report is expected in July 1982 should you wish to obtain a copy of it from us.

As you requested confidential treatment of your engineering drawing, we are returning it to you.

ENC.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAWING

NORTON MOTORS (1978) LIMITED

MARCH 5, 1982

Frank Berndt Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dept of Transportation

Dear Sir,

NORTON REAR LAMP UNITS 92-1068

1. We have designed a new rear lamp unit, and enclose a print of the drawing, which we would ask you to regard as confidential.

2. As you will see, the rear lamp unit comprises a very wide stop/ tail light assembly, with three separate lenses.

3. Your regulation (MVSS 108 issue 1, March 79) calls for minimum horizontal separation centre line to centre line, of 9 inches between turn signal lamps. Ours are 12.2 inches apart.

4. However, you also call for a minimum distance of 4 inches, edge to edge between turn signal lamps and stop/tail lamps. This we cannot achieve because of our very wide rear light.

5. We feel the wide rear light makes a positive contribution to road safety. We need your assistance to determine whether or not you consider this rear lamp unit satifies the spirit of your legislation, if not the letter.

We shall await your reply with great interest, and thank you for your assistance.

G.K. BLAIR SALES MANAGER

ID: 1982-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).

My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement of what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 5, 1982

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sir

With reference to your letter to us of June 1 1981, I assume that where you have referred to Clause 5.2(d) in your letter you mean 5.1(d).

You state in your letter that Clause 5.1(d) will be amended and that strength after abrasion will be compared to the breaking strength specified in Clause 4.2(b). For consistency, Clause 5.1(e) and 5.1(f) would also need to be altered.

I would suggest that it is not Clause 5.1(d) that needs changing, it is 4.1(d) to bring it into line with 4.1 (e) and (f). Clauses 5.1(d)(e) and (f) need no change. Additionally I feel sure that the minimum breaking strengths listed in 4.2(b) should remain, even after abrasion, light or micro-organisms test and that clause 4.2(d) might finish . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the strength before abrasion and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(e) might read . . . . have a breaking strength of not less than 60% of the strength before exposure to the carbon arc and greater than the appropriate strength listed in Clause 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(f) might finish . . . . have a breaking strength not less than 85% of the strength before subjected to micro-organisms and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b).

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

ID: 1982-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: NOA-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to a practice of the AAMVA which we believe should be reviewed.

Recently we received copies of Certificate of Equipment Approval Nos. 800643, 800641, 800642, and 800193, rendered "Candle Power Inc." of Rockville, Maryland. In each instance, the Certificate describes the item as a "Motorcycle Headlamp Unit," specifies its use "on Motorcycles" and states that the unit is "in compliance with the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." It is the implications of AAMVA's certification of compliance that we question.

First of all, we believe that a legal certification of conformance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards can be made only by the manufacturer of the unit. We believe that the role of the independent test laboratories is to provide data indicating compliance upon which a manufacturer can base its certification, but that a single test report cannot alone establish certification. It has been the policy of this agency never to judge conformance on the basis of test results of a single lamp because of the multitude of test points to be met and variables in the manufacturing process and the quality control procedures of the individual manufacturers. Indeed, the agency has said that test failures will not lead to a noncompliance determination if they are "random" or "occasional." We therefore believe it is inappropriate for the AAMVA Certificate to state that a lamp conforms to Standard No. 108 when that statement is made on the basis of a single test report submitted by the manufacturer and when it is intended to cover production for five years after the issuance of the Certificate. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the test report showed the unit in compliance with appropriate SAE requirements.

P2

With respect to Candlepower's headlamps, they are unsealed units which we believe to be intended primarily for use on passenger cars but which may also meet the requirements of J584 for motorcycle use. In our litigation presently pending against importers of these headlamps, we are taking the position that the manufacturer, with knowledge of the capacity for dual use of these headlamps, must certify conformance (in the words of 15 U.S.C. 1413) "with all applicable safety standards" which means standards applicable to both passenger car and motorcycle headlamps. We do not approve of a split certification whereby a headlamp capable of two end uses is certified only for one. We therefore view the AAMVA statement of compliance with Standard No. 108 inappropriate from this standpoint as well. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the unit complies with SAE J584.

We request that AAMVA review its practice with regard to statements of Federal conformity on its approval certificates and that you provide us with its view.

Sincerely,

ID: 1982-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION NOA-30

Mr. Dick Premo Superior Division Sheller-Globe Corporation 1200 East Kibby Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your telephone call of March 10, 1981, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked two questions about the requirements applicable to a vehicle which is completed as a school bus: (1) What symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a heater which is placed in a vehicle, either next to a door or in the rear of the vehicle, for the purpose of providing heating capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary heating system, and (2) what symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a fan which is mounted along a vehicle is instrument panel for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. You stated that the controls for both the additional heaters and the fan are located on a panel mounted on the vehicle 's engine cover, next to the driver, and that the controls are illuminated.

Both the heaters and the fan must be identified as provided in Standard No. 101. Section S5 of Standard No. 101 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of the standard regarding the location, identification and illumination of such controls. Controls for both heating systems and defrosting/defogging systems are listed in column 1 of Table 1. Since the additional heaters" comprise part of the completed vehicle's heating system and the fan comprises part of the completed vehicle 's defogging system, the controls for those devices are subject to Standard No. 101's requirements.

I will first discuss the requirements for the heater controls. If the heater has a fan for which there is a control, it must be identified by the symbol specified in Table 1 of the standard. Identification must be provided for each function of any heating system control and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. The standard does not specify the means of such identification other than to require that it be in word form unless color coding is used. Also, if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the standard specifies that the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

Section S5.2.1 states:

. . .any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. . . Neither a symbol nor identifying words are listed in Table 1 for the controls of a heating system, with the exception of the control for a heating fan.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of . . .any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

The requirements for the defogging fan are simpler. Table 1 does specify a symbol for a defrosting/defogging system. Since the fan constitutes a part of the completed vehicle' s defogging system, that symbol must be used to identify the control.

While it is not required by the standard, we suggest that you use words in addition to the symbol to indicate that the fan is for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. For example, you might use the words "Auxilliary Defog" or "Aux. Defog." The use of such words in addition to the symbol would help prevent a driver seeing the control identification from incorrectly concluding that the control operated the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 2, 1982

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. McEnvoy:

This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing our denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternatively to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.

Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing you to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.

The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rather than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult; we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.

I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1981, denying our request for permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

Your conclusion that "the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements" is in error. The purpose of our research, development, and testing is to insure that the motor vehicles which are imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x) are brought into full compliance with Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements and will remain in compliance with these requirements. It is felt that this purpose is indeed consistent with the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well as that of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is unlikely that our research, development and testing program will have any effect on the number of motor vehicles imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x). Since our proposed emission control system will be somewhat more expensive than those systems currently being used to enable non-certified imported automobiles to pass Federal emissions tests, will not become any easier or less expensive to import a non-certified motor vehicle. Similarly, if It was deemed feasible to modify the European bumper systems to comply with Federal bumper requirements (49 CFR Part 581), these modifications would most likely be more expensive than simply exchanging the European bumpers for U.S. style bumpers.

Your suggestion that we complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting our test program would, in effect, prevent us from carrying out that part of the program having to do with the bumper modifications. This is due to the fact that we must test different types of bumper support structures and shock absorbing units with the European bumpers in place. With the U.S. style bumpers installed, this would be impossible. We would, however, be agreeable to performing all of the safety related modifications, except for the addition of the U.S. style safety bumpers, upon receipt of the test vehicles. We expect that this work could be completed within 30 days of receipt of the test vehicles. This would allow us to carry out our test program while at the same time complying with all Federal safety requirements except the bumper standard.

We would also be agreeable to importing only two of the German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), at this time. This would allow us to get our testing program underway and to demonstrate to the NHTSA that we truly are engaged in a research, development, and testing program. Once this had been done, we would then apply for permission to import the three remaining test vehicles.

Although our testing program will require some operation of the test vehicles on public highways, this operation will be minimal. We anticipate that each test vehicle will be driven not more than 3,000 miles for the duration of the test. These vehicles will be operated for testing purposes only, and will not be used for general transportation. Such limited operation certainly will not represent a safety or health hazard.

As you can see, we are agreeable to almost any conditions which will allow us to get this testing program underway. We therefore request that you reconsider our original request of October 19, 1981, for permission to import five motor vehicles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). As an alternative, we request that permission be granted for the importation of at least two of the five test vehicles listed in our letter of October 19, 1981, under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). The test vehicles which we would want to import first are the BMW 323i and the BMW 635i.

Attached is a copy of the testing exemption granted by the EPA. Your prompt attention to our request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. McEvoy President

RPM:smm

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

Enclosures

November 25, 1981

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy, President Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

Dear Mr. McEvoy:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1981, in which you requested a testing exemption to cover five (5) light-duty vehicles. The purpose of the test program is to develop a closed-loop emission system for use on BMW vehicles.

A testing exemption is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Memorandum of Exemption. If Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. elects to accept the exemption, please notify this office by returning a signed copy of the Memorandum to this office within thirty days.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Fields, Jr., Chief Manufacturers Programs Branch Manufacturers Operations Division (EN-340)

Enclosure

ID: 1982-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 27, 1982, letter asking whether a vehicle which transports 10 or fewer persons could be classified as a bus if it is built with a traditional bus body. The vehicle transports fewer persons than normal, because it is designed for wheelchair occupants. The answer to your question is no.

The classification of a vehicle as a bus or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle definitions of "bus" and "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in 49 CFR 571.3. A vehicle that transports the number of persons that you mentioned in your letter must be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The fact that the vehicle is designed as a bus has no relevance to its classification. The controlling factor is passenger capacity.

Since the vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it would be required to comply with all of the standards applicable to those vehicles. This would include complaince with Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

SINCERELY,

February 27, 1982

Office of Chief Counsil United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admn.

Dear Sir:

American Transportation Corporation manufacturers buses used on both school buses and as transit buses.

One of the small (under 10,000# GVWR) buses, when equipped for transporting non-ambulatory passengers in wheel chairs could reduce the passenger capacity to 10 persons or less. Since the bus body does not change, could this bus still be classified as a bus and not a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV)?

If the classification should have to be MPV, would the entrance door and the special access door to the loading and unloading lift have to meet the performance requirements of FMVSS 206 for door locks and door retention components?

We would appreciate very much an early reply. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

E. M. Ryan, Sr. Project Engineer-Specifications

CC: TERRY HARRELL

ID: 1982-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/82; JANUARY 13, 1982

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter to Roger Tilton of this Office regarding the applicability of vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to trailer kits manufactured by your company.

It is our view that these trailer kits must comply with the VIN requirements of FMVSS 115. Your kits contain all components necessary to assemble a complete trailer, and are advertised as capable of being readily assembled with simple tools such as screwdrivers and wrenches. We see no relevant basis for distinguishing between such kits and completed trailers for purposes of determining the applicability of FMVSS 115.

While the VIN requirements do provide anti-theft benefits, they also are important to this agency in administering the defect recall program as well as to State motor vehicle departments and insurance companies. Further, even if this agency exempted trailer kits from VIN requirements, purchasers of your kits would likely face difficulties when they attempt to register their trailers with the States. We expect most states to soon begin checking VIN's as part of the vehicle registration process, and vehicles without a VIN or with a nonconforming identification number might face rejection by the state motor vehicle departments notwithstanding a technical exemption from NHTSA. We feel that in the long run, the best and simplest solution is for vehicle manufacturers to assign a VIN which meets the requirements of FMVSS 115.

Should you still wish to seek an exemption from the standard, procedures for obtaining exemptions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Such exemptions are available for not more than three years.

You should also be aware that certification labels must contain both the month and year of a vehicle's manufacture. See 49 CFR 567.5(b)(5). The copy of the label you sent us contains only the year of manufacture.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us again.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

November 25, 1981

Roger Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: V.I.N. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPACT UTILITY TRAILER KITS

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In accordance with our telephone conversation of November 24, 1981, I have enclosed information on our trailer kit consisting of the following:

- Sales Brochure

- Picture of the Unit

- Copy of the Nameplate Label

- Copy of the M.S.O. (C.O.)

A question has occurred in one state regarding the application of FMVSS 115 (576.115) requirements for Vehicle Identification Numbers (V.I.N.) to these trailer kits. The problem being that to comply with the requirements of 115 would impose a workload on us that cannot be justified based on the unit volume and low selling cost of these units.

We have no problems in working with the various agencies in the several states and meeting their various legal, administrative, taxing, and construction requirements for these units, even though they represent a new or separate category in some cases. However, the 115 requirements present a burden which can cause restricted availability in jurisdictions imposing them. This is unfortunate for consumers in those locales, particularly since these units are a natural adjunct to down size cars with limited trunk space.

While the requirements of 115 are a definite improvement in regard to protecting motor vehicles and other high dollar items from theft, we feel that the requirements are not completely logical for these kits. The reason being that these units are low in dollar value at retail and are not a theft prone item. The latter is true especially prior to assembly since the kit still in the box is not very mobile due to the size and weight of the box. We therefore seek your assistance in resolving this matter since our customers are anxious to sell these units in all states.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me if I may be of further help to you.

Very truly yours,

James S. Nasby -- Director of Engineering

enclosures (4)

COMPACTUTILITY TRAILER 1/2 TON CAPACITY

(Graphics omitted)

STORAGE

Unique design of recessed tail lights permits trailer to be easily stored in an upright position. This exclusive feature saves considerable storage space in garage, shed or basement.

CLAM SHELL

The 48 x 41 trailer frame is designed to accommodate most clam shell car top carriers. The rear cross member of the trailer frame adjusts to fit the various mounting spans of manufactured clam shell carriers.

FLAT BED

A versatile flat bed trailer can be built in minutes by simply bolting on a 48' x 41' plywood board to the trailer frame. Additional mounting holes are provided on all four sides of the frame to accommodate tie down cords.

EASY TO ASSEMBLE

All that is required to assemble the trailer is a screwdriver a (Illegible Word) allen wrench and two adjustable wrenches. The assembly time can be greatly reduced with the use of a 1/4" socket set and several open and wrenches.

(Graphics omitted)

Demountable wheel permits easy tire changing and lubrication. Spare tire available separately CT-1010 (02010)

This beautifully designed consumer oriented package contains self selling features which includes explicit application information and product specifies. The entire unit is packaged in a surprisingly compact box and measures 49 1/2" x 21 1/2" x 5 5/8".

Optional fenders constructed of heavy gauge steel are available as separate item. CT-1020(02020)

BOX

The versatility of the frame is enhanced to its utmost when converting the unit to a box trailer. Complete building plans are provided in the instruction manual which will make this an easy job for the "do it yourselfer."

WINTER USE

The 1,000 lb. load capacity of the trailer gives it a wide assortment of winter season uses ranging from hauling a snowblower to most snowmobiles. This added feature gives truth to the fact that it is truly an item for all four seasons.

MOTORCYCLE

The trailer frame can be easily converted to transport most motorcycles and bicycles. It is ideal for off road dirt bikes as well as family bicycle outings.

GARDEN TRACTOR

In whatever configuration the trailer frame is transformed, it can be used with most garden tractors. The compact utility trailer is at least less than 1/2 the cost of most standard garden tractor trailers and yet has greater universal application.

* Each trailer comes complete with easy to read assembly instructions.

* A certificate of origin, which is required in most states for title and licensing, is included with each trailer.

* The trailer is equipped with DOT approved class "A" lighting which meets legal requirements in all 50 states and Canada.

* Pathfinder's hub and sprindle are fully assembled with bearings and seal factory greased and installed.

Master Master Model IBM Carton Carton Carton No. No. Pack Weight Cube CT-1000 02001 1 125 3.39

MANUFACTURED BY Pathfinder Niles, IL, U.S.A. 60648

Date of Manufacturer: 1980

Model No.: CT 100

Serial No: 2275

GVWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

GAWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

MAXIMUM LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY 1000 LBS.

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE.

Manufacturer's Statement or Certificate OF ORIGIN TO A UTILITY TRAILER

The undersigned manufacturer hereby certifies that the new Trailer kit described below, the property of said manufacturer has been transferred this day of 19 on Invoice No. to whose address is

Trade Name of Trailer kit: Compact Utility Trailer

Serial No.

Shipping Weight: 123 lbs.

Maximum Load Carrying Capacity: 1,000 lbs.

G.A.R.W.: 1,100 lbs.

Date of Manufacture (and Model Year)

MONTH

YEAR

Series or Model Name: CT1000

No. Wheels: 2

Width: 40 (Illegible Word)

Length: 44"

G.V.W.R.: 1,100 lbs.

Other Data: Steel Construction Black

(Illegible Line)

Said manufacturer hereby certifies that this written instrument constitutes the first conveyance of said vehicle after its manufacture and that the manufacturer's serial number set forth above has not been and will not be used by the manufacturer on any other vehicle manufactured by said manufacturer, and that there are no other manufacturer's certificates issued by the manufacturer for the vehicle described above.

PATHFINDER AUTOLAMP CO. NILES, ILLINOIS 60648

MANUFACTURER

By:

(SIGN NAME TITLE OR POSITION)

(Graphics omitted)