ID: 1982-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Dianne Palmer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1982, on behalf of the Northstar Youth Organization asking for "authorization for our vehicles (buses & trucks) to operate on highways within the United States." You indicate that this group is planning "an extensive trip" through the States shortly.

The Department has no objection to occasional use of U.S. highways by foreign vehicles that do not conform to all applicable U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards but it has taken the position that vehicles used in cross-border activity on a daily basis should meet those standards. Your letter indicates that your planned trip may be a one-time occurrence. At the border your drivers may be asked by U.S. Customs officials to execute a Form HS-7, which applies to importation of vehicles not meeting U.S. standards. In this event, Box 5 should be checked which is a declaration that the importer is a non-resident of the U.S. importing the vehicle primarily for personal use for a period not exceeding one year, and that he will not sell it in the U.S. during that time. This should be sufficient to allow your group to enter the country and travel through it.

We hope that the trip will be both pleasant and educational for your youth group.

SINCERELY,

Northstar DRUM CORPS INC.

September 14, 1982

Department of Transportation Reciprocity & Insurance Section

Dear Sir:

On behalf of the Northstar Youth Organization of Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, I hereby request authorization for our vehicles (buses & trucks) to operate on the highways within the United States.

Our vehicles are privately owned by the Organization and are used for the sole purpose of transporting the members of the Drum Corps and their equipment.

We are planning an extensive trip throughout the United States during the upcoming season and would like this information as soon as possible.

If anything further is required, please advise.

Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

Dianne Palmer

ID: 1982-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rynex Industries

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, detailing a plan of business and asking our comments on its legality under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and how you might accomplish your plan.

In essence, your wish is to import newly-manufactured Volkswagen Beetles which are complete except for the engine, and which do not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your intended customers are owners of older model Beetles the engines of which would be installed in the new Beetles, while the older cars would be scrapped.

Notwithstanding the lack of engine, we would view importation of the newly-manufactured Beetles as importation of "motor vehicles" which would have to be brought into conformance with all standards applicable to new motor vehicles. If you wished simply to install a new body on the old chassis, the resulting assemblage would nevertheless have to meet the standards in effect when the original vehicle was manufactured, i.e., if the vehicle being modified is a 1971 model, it would have to continue to meet the standards that were in effect in 1971 when the new body was installed but if the chassis were manufactured before January 1, 1968, none of the standards applicable to vehicles would have to be met. If no standards applied to the vehicle, nevertheless the Federal standards that currently apply to equipment items would have to be met by those items for them to be validly imported into the country.

You have asked about these standards. They are found at Part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations and they are: No. 106 (brake hoses), No. 108 (lighting equipment and reflectors), No. 109 (tires), No. 116 (brake fluid), No. 205 (glazing materials), No. 209 (seat belt assemblies), and No. 211 (wheel covers and nuts).

In essence, while you term your business the "repair and restoration" of Beetles, you are neither repairing nor restoring an older motor vehicle, but simply planning to sell a vehicle that is entirely new except for its engine. It must therefore be treated as a new motor vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Rynex INDUSTRIES

September 15, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel, Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Rynex Industries, an individual proprietorship which is the d/b/a of the undersigned and is registered with the Saratoga County Clerk, Ballston Spa, NY 12020, desires to begin a business project as an importer of new motor vehicle parts and equipment with a view toward providing a unique repair and restoration service for a specialized group of Volkswagen Beetle owners. We apply herewith for a legal determination in terms of which we will become able to complete and implement our business plan in a manner such that we would remain characterized by NHTSA as an importer of new automotive parts and equipment for the repair and restoration of existing VW Beetles, and not become characterized instead as an importer of new VW Beetles for resale.

OUR CUSTOMERS

Members of the customer group we wish to serve regard their Beetles not as mere transportation until they are no longer dependable, but as "members of the family" whose welfare, function, and concept must be perpetuated. They are hard-core Beetle Buffs who begin where others give up in their attempts to continue driving their faithful but aging Beetles.

Each such customer would like most of all to purchase a bew Beetle, but cannot because none have been imported here since 1979. Some have taken their Beetles to re-conditioning ("re-con") shops for restoration, but have been quoted prohibitive prices there without credible guarantees of quality results commensurate with the prices. Therefore, Rynex desires to fill this obvious need for repair and restoration service in a very economical manner by importing the necessary new body-chassis assemblies from countries where the Beetle is still being manufactured.

OUR PROPOSED BUSINESS PROCEDURE

We are tentatively planning to conduct our importing business according to the following basic procedures:

1) Upon receipt of a customer order for a Beetle body-chassis assembly, Rynex would forward the order to the foreign manufacturer.

Rynex would simultaneously forward to the customer an acknowledgement of the order together with complete instructions for the service garage designated by the customer.

2) The manufacturer would ship the assembly with Rynex's Customs declaration directly to the customer's service garage for us by dropshipment, through a suitable freight-forwarding firm if necessary, on and for the account of, and in the name of, Rynex Industries.

3) Upon receipt of the new assembly, the garage would remove the engine from the customer's old Beetle and install it in the new assembly.

4) In compliance with applicable state regulations, the garage would also transfer the chassis number from the old assembly to the new one, together with the license number plates.

5) The garage would then make all necessary modifications to the new assembly to bring it into full compliance with applicable NHTSA Equipment Standards, and with applicable state inspection standards for the condition and performance of automotive equipment.

6) The garage would then apply a complete undercoating treatment to the new assembly to prevent the recurrence of rust damage.

7) The garage would then road-test the restored Beetle and return it to the customer.

8) The garage would then take possession of the customer's old body-chassis assembly and dismantle it for parts and scrap metal, because the customer would no longer need it, because it would no longer have an identification number, and because it would probably have become unsafe for continued use by anyone.

9) The customer would then apply to his underwriter for "stated amount" comprehensive, fire, theft, and collision (Coverage D) insurance to protect the larger equity he or she would then have in the restored Beetle.

10) The customer would then contact his or her state motor vehicle bureau concerning changes in registration. However, this step would be unnecessary unless the color of the restored Beetle were different, inasmuch as the customer would have legally the very same car described on his registration certificate or title. He would have the same engine and engine number, same license number plates, same chassis number in particular; and of course the make, year, model, and all other required information would be the same.

WHY BODY AND CHASSIS MUST BE REPLACED TOGETHER

We must point out why it would be necessary to restore a VW Beetle in this manner by replacing the body and chassis as a unit, and never by attempting to replace just one or the other. It is a fact that an aging Beetle is subject to severe and irreparable rust damage to both members all around the bottom edge precisely where the body is joined to the chassis. This rust damage, once it appears in an aging Beetle, continues until the entire assembly is unsafe -- the driver's seat and/or the battery might begin to come through the floor pan, for example.

Therefore, to render worthwhile and thoroughgoing service to the customer and in the public interest of highway safety, Rynex must replace the entire body-chassis assembly for each customer, and must provide undercoating to prevent rust damage to the new assembly. However, the customer would benefit not only from gaining this essential safety, but also from having his or her repaired and restored Beetle become as much like a new car as possible, as it would indeed become with a complete new body-chassis assembly.

THE LEGAL HELP WE THINK WE NEED

Desiring as we do to comply with all Federal regulations which would apply to this business project, it appears to the undersigned that we would need to learn at least the following through a legal determination:

1) On Form HS-7, 39 CFR 12.80, the Customs declaration, we would check paragraph 7 and the box therein to declare that our automotive equipment was being imported for repairs and alterations, in accordance with the statement to be attached to the HS-7, which statement would describe fully the use and final disposition to be made of the merchandise. We would need advice concerning, in view of our business procedure described above, the exact content our attached statement should have in order to satisfy Customs officials so that they could admit our shipments without delay.

2) Our proposed business plan calls for the importing-to-order of a VW Beetle complete except for the engine, which we have called herein a "body-chassis assembly". Our question about doing this would be whether we could do precisely that, or whether we would have to import a less-complete body-chassis assembly and have the customer retain and re-use more of the parts from his old car, in order that we sustain our characterization as an importer of automotive equipment for repair and restoration; in this latter event, we would need to know which parts in addition to the engine the customer would have to retain and re-use.

3) We would need a list of the NHTSA Equipment Standards which the body-chassis assemblies we would import would have to meet -- such as those for lamps, tires, brake fluid, window glass, and the like. These equipment items could be brought into compliance after being imported, or be specially ordered to be in compliance when imported, if necessary.

We therefore request a legal determination concerning the viability of our plans as described above for conducting our importing business for the repair and restoration of VW Beetles, and concerning changes which you might decide that we would have to make in our plans before we proceed further.

Donald F. Conine President

ID: 1982-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bede Design Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Bede President Bede Design Inc. 901 E. Orchard Street Mundelein, Illinois 60060

Dear Mr. Bede:

This in reply to your letter of September 29, 1982, asking for an interpretation that your modified motorcycle is a "motorcycle" under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In addition to the standard motorcycle configuration of a single front and rear wheel, your design incorporates two small wheels in outrider positions, both of which hold the vehicle at rest, but which, in motion, do not touch the ground simultaneously. The purpose of the wheels is to add stability so that in a left turn the left outrider will touch the ground, and in a right turn, the right wheel.

This configuration appears to meet the definition of "motorcycle" contained in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as a machine "designed" to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." Although the vehicle rests on four wheels, it travels on only two or three depending upon whether it is proceeding in a straight direction or in a turn.

We appreciate your interest in motorcycle safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington D.C. 205900

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We have developed a very efficient, high-mileage modification of a motorcycle. Not only have we significantly reduced the aerodynamic drag, which accounts for the one hundred mile per gallon plus mileage that we have been able to obtain from this vehicle, but we have also substantially enhanced the safety characteristics of a standard motorcycle.

Fundamentally what we have done is taken a standard motorcycle, split the frame, and put a 5 1/2 foot extension between the front wheel assembly and the rear wheel the engine assembly. To this we then added a computer designed streamlined body around the entire motorcycle frame. The body is fabricated from urethane RIM high- impact material and also incorporates numerous internal structural frames for energy absorption in all directions that may result from impact. Attached to the sides of this streamlined body are two outrigger wheels that provide rollover stability during turns and at a standstill.

We see this vehicle as an efficient, safe commuter vehicle that could be made available as a complete unit ready-to-drive as well as a retro fit kit for present motorcycle owners to convert their bikes to this type of vehicle. The purpose of this letter is to ask your office to verify that this vehicle meets the requirements of a motorcycle.

The vehicle is designed so that the front and rear motorcycle wheel essentially carry the entire weight of the vehicle. The two balancing outrigger wheels have been designed so that when one is in contact with the ground, the other is approximately 1 1/2 inches off the ground. When this vehicle is driven, it drives on the two main wheels either one of the outrigger wheels sometimes in contact with the ground and other times not. When making a turn, we have found that it is best to permit the vehicle to turn in an upright position with the outrigger wheel located on the outside of the turn to be in contact with the road thus providing rollover stability. This configuration is found to be the easiest to handle and seemingly the safest when operating on snow or wet slippery surfaces. The handling and turning stability is equal to or in excess of the present four-wheel automobile. The vehicle as we originally designed it would permit the operator to raise the two outrigger wheels so that when suitable speed is obtained the vehicle could maneuver and turn like a motorcycle. This would require the whole body to lean into a turn and all side loads to be absorbed by the two main wheels. This configuration would be very enjoyable to drive and maneuver, however it would provide less safety in bad weather operations. For example, if one of the wheels would lose its traction, the vehicle might skid or roll an excessive amount before the balancing outrigger wheels could permit the driver to regain control. For this reason we have chosen the arrangement the allows one outrigger wheel to remain close to the ground while the other one is in contact. Although this system is not as enjoyable to maneuver, it is safer.

Therefore, we would like your advise and guidance as to the best way for this vehicle, and those converting their motorcycles, to maintain their motorcycle classifications. I am enclosing several photographs of the vehicle that illustrate the "three- wheel in contact with the ground" as well as an information booklet that dicusses additional technical features of this design.

Very truly yours,

BEDE DESIGN, INCORPORATED

James R. Bede President

JRB/se

Enclosures

Last fall we drove our prototype vehicle from Cleveland to Washington D.C. and had the opportunity to have Mr. Karl Clark of N.H.T.S.A. along with others form the agency view our vehicle.

ID: 1982-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; State of Hawaii

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A) (2) (A); LETTER FROM MABLE Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THRONBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence T. Hirohata Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist Department of Transportation State of Hawaii 79 South Himitz Highway Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. Hirohata:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether persons who apply tinted films to motor vehicle glazing would be considered motor vehicle distributors, dealers or repair businesses and thus be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from rendering inoperative components that have been installed on vehicles pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The answer to your question is yes. The persons you described fall within classes of persons listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) and the application of tinted film to motor vehicle glazing can constitute "rendering inoperative." Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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,.... For purposes of this paragraph, the term "motor vehicle repair business" means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Without knowing more about the film appliers you described, we find it difficult to determine the number of classes into which they would fall. However, the film-appliers are clearly considered to be dealers. This conclusion is based on the definitions of "motor vehicle equipment" (section 102(4)), and "dealer" (section 102(7)). The tinted film is an item of motor vehicle equipment since it is an "accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle." Therefore, any person who sells the tinted film primarily to persons, typically vehicle owners, for purposes other than resale is a dealer. The status of such a person does not change because he or she also applies the film to motor vehicle glazing.

The film appliers you described may also be motor vehicle repair businesses. You stated that the film appliers argue that they are not repair businesses. Implicit in their argument is a narrow interpretation of the term "repair." We don't believe that such an interpretation was intended by Congress since it would frustrate Congress' stated purpose in attempting to ensure that safety equipment remains operative over the life of the vehicle. The only type of person mentioned in the legislative history as being permitted to render safety equipment inoperative is the owner of the Vehicle on which the safety equipment is installed. In addition, we believe that the references in the history to service, maintenance and replacement further suggest that a narrow interpretation was not intended.

The agency has consistently stated in its past letters of interpretation that the installation of tinted films on vehicle glazing constitutes rendering inoperative if the installation destroys the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205. The legislative history of section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that "render inoperative" includes permanent removal, disconnection or degradation of the safety performance of any element or design of a vehicle (Conference Report). Therefore, the activity described in your letter definitely falls within the scope of section 108(a)(2)(A).

In conclusion, it is the agency's opinion that businesses which are installing tinted films on motor vehicles and thereby destroying the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205 are in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As such, the businesses are liable for civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Our Office of Enforcement is currently investigating the practice of applying tinted film to motor vehicle glazing. Accordingly, we have forwarded a copy of your letter and the advertisement to that office for its action.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to reiterate my telephone request of August 5, 1982 relating to the federal interpretation of the phrase "motor vehicle repair business" as used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

In Hawaii, there are numerous businesses engaged in the trade of applying film or liquid tinting materials to motor vehicle window glass for a fee. All window glass, including those required for driver visibility, are tinted to a shade where under normal sunny condition the occupants or objects inside the vehicle cannot be readily visible from outside the vehicle. The minimum 70% luminous transmittance required for driving visibility as recommended in the American National Standard (ANS) Z26.1 and referenced by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205 are being rendered inoperative by these businesses.

We believe these businesses may be in violation of the Act. However, the operators of these businesses contend that they are not in the motor vehicle repair business because they do not repair anything mechanical. They perform only superficial facelifting of vehicle exterior.

In your opinion, would you consider these businesses as a motor vehicle repair business within the scope of the Act? Can these businesses also be considered as a distributor or dealer of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in Section 102(4), (6) and (7) of the Act?

Enclosed is a typical advertisement offering a special for auto glass tinting by a business here in Honolulu. This ad appeared in the August 13th issue of a weekly classified ad.

We would appreciate any legal opinion or assistance you can share with us to effectuate a solution to this monstrous problem.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist

ID: 1982-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/29/82 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: J. L. CAMPBELL, JR.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: SEPTEMBER 14, 1982 FROM BENNETT TO GORTON IS ATTACHED

TEXT: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorton concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.

As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority from Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.

Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issue exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1)). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined "special use", the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use; (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.

Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength, NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808; May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).

These options remain the ones available to manufacturers of ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.

The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for the exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR @ 571.214).

If you need any further assistance or information on either of these subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.

Enclosures

ID: 1982-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco -- Robert C. Craig, Quality Control Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 13, 1982, concerning the application of the belt buckle requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to child restraints meeting Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. As explained in the enclosed letters of interpretation of May 12, 1981, and May 21, 1981, the only requirements of Standard No. 209 that apply to child restraint belt buckles are the corrosion resistance requirement of S4.3(a) and the temperature resistance requirement of S4.3(b). The buckle release requirements of S4.3(d) and the buckle latch requirements of S4.3(g) do not apply to child restraints.

Because of reports of problems relating to difficulty in operating child restraint buckles, the agency is considering issuance of a proposal to apply the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) and S4.3(g) to child restraint system belt buckles. Any such proposal would be published in the Federal Register to provide all interested parties with notice and opportunity to comment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

August 13, 1982

Mr. Steve Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Cosco/Peterson has received notice from Richard Jasinski, Contract Technical Manager, that we had problems on three tests on the 78 Safe-T-Seat.

One was the corrosion resistance. On this portion we agree about the standard.

The other two we do not agree, and we would like for you to review and give us your judgment. One was the size of the push button, that it has to be greater in size than 0.7 sq. in. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3d). The second was the engagement force of no more than 5 lbs. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3g).

We feel that both of these refer to a Type 1 or Type 2 automo-bile belt and not to a child restraint system. Our reference is F.R. Vol 44 No. 241 December 13, 1979, N.H.T.S.A. 49 CFR, Part 571, Docket No. 749, Notice 6, page 72135, last paragraph: "Base on its review ... adopt this approach".

We have been tested many times by Cal-Span and the University of Michigan, and this was never a question on size or engagement.

We need your immediate attention to this. If we have made the wrong interpretation of the standard we want to rectify it immediately.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Craig Quality Control Manager

RCC:ch

c.c. Richard Jasinski Roy Schwartzkopf Don Moore

ID: 1982-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kastar Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry Epstein Kastar, Inc. Station Road at Sunrise Highway Bellport, New York 11713

Dear Mr. Epstein:

This responds to your letter of October 1, 1982 (and letter of August 31, 1982) requesting information concerning the Federal requirements applicable to auxiliary wind deflectors for passenger car doors. Your letter states that Mr. Kevin Cavey of this agency indicated that plastic wind deflectors do "not have to meet any government regulations."

We apologize, but the information given to you by Mr.Cavey was incorrect. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The wind deflectors you plan to manufacture are pieces of motor vehicle equipment, and they are subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (copy enclosed).

Incorporating by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standard's Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard). The acrylic plastic material you propose to use is probably an Item 4 glazing, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. An AS-4 glazing material must meet Test No. 2, "Luminous Transmittance," which requires that the material "show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent irradiation." You will have to make the determination whether your material in fact qualifies as an Item 4 material, or any of the other Item numbers mentioned above.

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing to be used in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are set out in Paragraph S6.4 and S6.5. By reference to section 6 of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to Section 114 of the Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Safety Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Section 151 et. seq., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any more questions. (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thatcher Unified Schools

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Max Peck Superintendent Thatcher Unified Schools District No. 4 P.O. Box 610 Thatcher, Arizona 85552

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in response to your letter of September 30, 1982, enclosing a "petition for exemption...on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center". The petition concerns a single motor vehicle consisting of the body of a 1974 Dodge school bus which has been removed from its original chassis and attached to a new 1981 International Harvester chassis.

This agency does not regulate the use of motor vehicles. That is a matter for State governments. We do enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and grant exemptions as appropriate consistent with our authority.

I regret that the exemption process is not available in your case. Part 555 is intended to cover the future vehicle production of bona fide motor vehicle manufacturers, and not a single conversion, performed in the past, by what appears to be a service garage. Under our regulations, the combination of an old body upon a new chassis results in a new motor vehicle required to meet the motor vehicle safety standards in effect when the chassis was manufactured. Compliance is especially important in this instance because of all the school bus safety standards that have become effective since the bus body was manufactured in 1974, and which affect its structure and that of its seats.

This means that Capps and Lancaster are technically in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for which a penalty of up to $1000 may be imposed. We do not intend to pursue this, however, unless other violations come to our attention. However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting Capps and Lancaster to make them aware of their responsibilities in order to prevent further violations by that company.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 30, 1982

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Find enclosed the petition for exemption as executed by Mr. James Capps and Mr. Bill Lancaster on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center. As you can see from the documentation accompanying their petition, they performed extensive labor in the removal and reattachment of the Superior Coach to the new International Harvester chasis. Their efforts and our ability to utilize the Superior Coach have resulted in a substantial economic benefit to the Thatcher Unified School District and therefore to its taxpayers while at the same time providing totally safe and reliable school bus transportation for the district.

Should you have any questions regarding the petition as submitted by Capps and Lancaster, or if we can provide any additional information on behalf of the District, please let us know.

Respectfully,

THATCHER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4

Max Peck, Superintendent

MP/mb

Enclosures

October 1, 1982 Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 49, U.S.C. 555, we herewith make application for temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards on behalf of Thatcher Unified School District No. 4, Graham County, Arizona. This petition is based upon the substantial economic hardship which the district would incur if it were not allowed to place into service the 1974 Superior Coach which has been reinstated upon a 1982 International Harvester chasis.

We have attached for your review the following: (1) Original bid dated December 18, 1973, for the Superior body mounted upon the original 1974 Dodge chasis; (2) Specification Sheet from Superior Coach Sales and Service, re: the coach which has now been installed upon the 1982 International Harvester chasis; (3) Minutes of school board meeting authorizing the purchase of the 1974 Dodge bus and chasis; (4) Notice of bid for chasis and specification therefore, re: 1981 or comparable International Harvester chasis; (5) Certificate of title for a 1982 International Harvester chasis and Superior Coach as modified; (6) Copy of warranty, re: International Harvester chasis; (7) Photocopy of check drawn upon Graham County and payable to Capps and Lancaster for parts and materials incurred in the modification and reassembly of the International Harvester chasis and Superior coach.

As you can see from the attached data, the Thatcher Unified School District has already incurred significant expense so as to provide safety and reasonable transportation for its students and at the same time so as to utilize the Superior Coach which was in totally serviceable condition. As work undertaken by us in the detachment of the old chasis and the installation of the new was done in a competent and workman manner and the vehicle was fully tested and evaluated by us prior to its being released to the school district. We believe the granting of this extention for a three year period would would be in the public interest and consistant with the objectives of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in that the utilization of the Superior Coach which has been competently reinstated upon the new chasis would give the Thatcher Unified School District the benefit of a new and totally safe school bus while at the same time resulting in substantial economic benefit to the tax payers of the district. Therefore, it is requested that you act favorably upon this request and grant a three year exemption for this vehicle.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 1982.

James Capps Bill Lancaster

ID: 1982-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Zimmer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1982, to the Administrator asking whether there is "any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles."

You are correct that no such waiver exists. Even a single automobile manufactured for use on the public roads must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless exempted by the Administrator under the provisions of Part 555. A manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding filing of his petition does not exceed 10,000 units is eligible to apply for an exemption of up to three years on a hardship basis. Any manufacturer of motor vehicles may apply for an exemption of up to two years on the three remaining bases that you mention but the exemption extends only to a maximum of 2500 vehicles in any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect.

Under the original exemption authority, in effect from 1968 to 1971, exemptions were available on a hardship basis and the threshold of eligibility was 500 units.

SINCERELY,

ZIMMER CORPORATION

August 6, 1982

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

From time to time I am confronted with statements to the effect that if a vehicle manufacturer produces not more than "X" quantity of vehicles, such vehicles are not required to be in compliance with the FMVSS. The quantity of vehicles referenced varies from 250 to 2000 depending on the source of the statement.

I am aware of the provisions of Part 555 covering temporary exemption from the standards under special conditions of economic hardship, development of new vehicle safety and low-emission engine features, and equivalent vehicle safety. But I am not aware of any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles.

Please advise.

R. H. Zelinske Vice President Corporate Engineering

ID: 1982-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Middlekauff Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982, concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.

In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statement which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.

Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provided you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.

We shall consider your petition further when we have this information.

Sincerely,

October 7, 1982

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Transporation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

This is in reference to our letter to you of September 27, 1982 regarding our petition for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301.

In paragraph two of our letter, we stated that "it was the feeling of AM General that they would prefer to certify the completed vehicles themselves rather than have us certify the vehicles as the final manufacturer". This was an error. We have since been advised that they would still require us to certify the vehicles as final manufacturer in compliance with Public Law 89-563. It is their belief, however, that the possession of the temporary exemption to Standard #301, referred to in our letters, would still be benefical in addition to our certification of compliance with all remaining Standards.

In view of the above, once again, we respectfully request that you issue the temporary exemption to Standard #301 for all the reasons outlined in our previous letters.

Thanking you for your consideration,

Very respectfully yours, MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.; F. E. Bettridge -- Board Chairman