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: nht75-5.31

DATE: 03/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Michael P. Dixon

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1975, requesting information concerning penalties available for failure to provide an odometer disclosure form upon sale of a vehicle.

As you know, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's correct mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, however, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. Violation of any of these requirements may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.

If you have reason to believe that the odometer mileage was altered by someone other than the person who actually sold you the vehicle, you are not precluded from suing him. The Act does not limit your recovery for a violation to your immediate transferor.

Where a vehicle has been rebuilt, the odometer mileage that is relevant for purposes of the Cost Savings Act, is the number of miles the chassis has traveled.

I have enclosed the materials you requested.

YOURS TRULY,

U.S Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

GENTLEMEN:

Could you please send me a copy of the exact wording of section 409(a) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513. I have the fact sheet on the odometer law that the GSA was so kind to send, but it does not answer the questions that pertain to my situation.

The dealer from whom I purchased my used car did not provide any odometer certification - the booklet says he must, but doesn't tell me what to do when doesn't, I asked for the certification and was told that it wasn't required - even though his own invoice says it is required. I have no reason to believe that the dealer has tampered with the odometer.

Secondly, the car has been made from 2 wrecks - the front of one and the rear of another and a previous dealer (with whom I had no dealings) did the work and in the process, deliberately altered serial numbers. I understand that he will be prosecuted for this by the State of N.C.. This rebuilding was discovered by me after I had the car for more than a month and I brought it to the attention of the N.C. Department of Motor Vehicle and they found out who tampered with the numbers and when.

Now, my problem is that the title is now mashed as "Reconstructed" and has a serial number of the N.C. Dept Mtr Vehicles and certainly has less resale Value than if not a patched up job. Surely the time cars used didn't have precisely the same mileage.

Can I sue the firm that did the altering in November, 1973? I bought the car from someone else (another dealer) in November 1974.

Would appreciate your comments if possible for you to do soon. Please send a copy of the law as there is little point in my (Illegible Words) if I have no grounds for suit.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Michael P. Dyson

ID: nht90-2.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 10, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 0-0-0 To John Cerisano and From Phil Gramm; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Phil Gramm and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated January 29, 1990 To All Ford Rent-A-Car System Members and From W .A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out F ord's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional informati on about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tha t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events., Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States"

2

any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety

standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applic able school bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statment indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified scho ol bus.

Pursuant to section 108 (b) (1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, t he person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicl e is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation. Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact

3

the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to

vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional inform ation.

ID: nht90-2.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloyd Bentsen; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 To All Ford Rent- A-Car System Members and Fro m W.A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and as ked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that tbe vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tba t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from tbe customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are "sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle manufactured on or aft er the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to

sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for, ensuring tbat the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable scbool bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified sch ool bus.

Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of tbe vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students i s not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person wbo plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation.

Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about a ny State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's

recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to youCr constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional infor mation.

ID: 2516y

The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen
United States Senate
1100 Commerce, Room 7C14
Dallas, TX 75242

Dear Senator Bentsen:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends that dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are "sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable school bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportation, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified school bus.

Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation.

Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety considerations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. W.A. Jacques Dealer Fleet Operations Manager Ford Rent-A-Car System 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43311 Detroit, MI 48243

ref: VSA d:5/25/90

ID: aiam2112

Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whethe rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.; In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.; In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider th addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company -- Paul Scully, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Company 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency.

With respect to paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Standard No.108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment you have stated your understanding that paragraph applies only to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978, and that turn signal lamps must now comply with SAE Standard J588e, September 1970.

Paragraph S.4.1.1.7 did allow vehicular compliance with SAE J588d as an option to J588e. J588d required that any turn signal lamp used on a vehicle whose overall width was 80 inches or more have a minimum of 12 square inches effective projected luminous lens area. On the other hand, SAE J588e requires a minimum of 8 square inches effective projected luminous lens area on all single compartment rear turn signal lamps, regardless of vehicle width. However, on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width, two turn signal lamps or compartments per side may be mounted closer together than 22 inches provided each meets single compartment photometric requirements and each has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches. Thus, your understanding is correct.

I would also point out that, pursuant to Section S4.7.1 of Standard No. 108, the continued manufacture of turn signal lamps meeting J588d is permissible as replacement equipment for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978.

Mr. Cavey has provided the copy of BMCS regulations which is enclosed.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 22, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

I need a copy of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and I no longer have in my files the address of that agency. Would you be kind enough to telephone them and request that a copy of that booklet be forwarded to me. I would certainly appreciate it.

On a completely separate subject, a question arose today concerning the meaning of Paragraph S4.1.1.7 in FMVSS 108. The specific question related to the square inches of area needed for a turn signal on vehicles over 80".

My interpretation of the regulation has been that turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80" must comply with J588e dated September, 1970. This standard requires 8 square inches of area for single compartment lamps. That standard also spells out that when lamps are mounted closer together than 22" on vehicles over 80", they must then individually meet all of the requirements and must be 12 square inches.

Paragraph S4.1.1.7 only applies to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978 and simply permitted compliance with the prior standard J588d. This specific paragraph, in my judgment, only relates to vehicles built between the dates spelled out above and does not impact the area requirements as otherwise spelled out in J588e. Specifically, it is our understanding that the rear turn signal area for single compartment lamps is eight square inches regardless of the width of the vehicle. The only exception to this requirement is spelled out in the SAE standard which states that the area must be 12 square inches if indeed the units are placed closer together than 22". Can you please advise me if my interpretation is correct?

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

PS/sld

ID: nht74-3.14

DATE: 06/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Adams & Westlake Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1974, concerning an interpretation of the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217). You appear to ask whether bus windows containing tempered glass must meet the release requirements of paragraph S5.3.2 after (as well as before) the retention test required by S5.1 when the glass breaks during the retention test. You state that tempered glass, once broken, is easily removed from the entire lite by touch, implying that when this is the case there is no longer a need for any release mechanism to be further tested.

Paragraph S5.3.2 requires the release mechanism to meet specified requirements both before and after the window retention test of S5.1 irrespective of the glazing material used in the lite. Consequently, release mechanisms for windows of tempered glass must conform to the requirements even though the glass may be broken during the retention test

While your argument that the requirement seems unnecessary when tempered glass is used is not without some basis, it is also quite likely, in our view, that bus passengers in a crash may be ignorant of the quality of tempered glass to which you refer and thus still attempt to operate the emergency exit using its release mechanism.

Yours truly,

April 16, 1974 Larry Schneider Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In regards to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release", please refer to S5.3.2 which states:

"When tested under the conditions of S6. both before and after, the window retention test required by S5.1, each emergency exit shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer either to (a) or (b)"

In the design of our particular application, we use a single sliding lite in a vehicle less than 10,000 lbs. GVWR and have opted to meet the low force application described in (a). See attached drawing DM-8991-2.

Our question centers on the above quote from the specification particularly when tempered glass is used. We foresee no difficulty in meeting the release test before the retention test but does the tempered glass, once broken, qualify as an uncostructed opening due to the ease of removal of any glass that might remain in the opening. Tempered glass as you are probably well aware, once stressed to the point of breakage, crumbles into small cubes over the entire lite and may be easily removed by touch.

Your earliest reply will be appreciated.

Ronald J. Hansing Project Engineer

Attachment cc: H. C. Gildnor

C. M. Miller

R. Prey

E. V. Gordon

July 10, 1974

Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Richard Dyson

Please find enclosed drawing DK-1553 which should have been sent with letter dated July 3, 1974.

Ronald J. Hansing Project Engineer

RJH:cpp Enclosure

ID: nht80-3.2

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Corporation

COPYEE: D. F. MITCHELL -- V. P. AND GEN. MGR, QUESTOR JUVENILE FURNITURE CO.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1980, to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You requested an interpretation of whether, an alternative configuration you are considering for the Kantwet "One Step" child restraint would comply with Section 6.1.2.2.1(c) of the standard.

You described the configuration as one in which the crotch strap would be modified so that it "is permanently attached to the shield (in a manner similar to the two upper torso restraints which the [agency's] April 29th letter stated were integral parts of the shield. The bottom end of the crotch strap would be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is seated."

As you have described the modified crotch strap, it is an integral part of the movable shield since it is not a separate device that must be attached to the shield each time the restraint is used, but is formed as a unit with the shield. Since the crotch strap is an integral device, it can be attached during the testing of the restraint.

As mentioned in our letter of April 29, 1980, we urge that you and other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the upper torso restraint and the crotch strap permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment or anchorage device to which they are attached.

SINCERELY,

Questor Corporation

May 9, 1980

Steven Oesch National Highway Traffic Administration United States Department of Transportation

Re: NOA-30

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Mr. Frank Berndt's letter of April 29, 1980, addressed to our Mr. J. P. Koziatek, P.E., has been referred to my attention for follow-up. As stated in our phone conversation of today, it appears that the basis of the opinion expressed in that letter is contained in the first sentence of the third paragraph: "The crotch strap used in the Kantwet 'One Step' is not an integral part of the movable shield." That paragraph continues, "The crotch strap is a separate device . . . In Contrast, the two upper torso restraints appear to be integral parts of the shield since they are designed to remain attached to an adjustment device and anchorage which are in turn permanently affixed to the shield."

The purpose of this letter is to suggest an alternative configuration for the subject seat embodying a crotch strap that would fall within the above quoted parameters, and request an interpretation of the modified configuration vis-a-vis Section S6.1.2.2.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The modified crotch strap to be used in the Kantwet "One Step" would be an integral part of the movable shield, that is permanently attached to the shield (in a manner similar to the two upper torso restraints which the April 29th letter stated were integral parts of the shield). The bottom end of the crotch strap would be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is seated.

Your department's prompt opinion would be greatly appreciated, inasmuch as we need to finalize design of the seat at this time in order to be in compliance with the Standard by its effective date, and to comply with the catalog printing deadlines of certain of our customers.

Ronald A. Kramer Assistant General Counsel

ID: nht68-1.26

DATE: 07/29/68

FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER FOR ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY -- NHTSA

TO: Anadite Products Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1958, in which you ask that:

1) We "confirm in writing immediately that all forward facing windows in multipurpose passenger vehicles must be glazed with S-2 laminated with .030 plastic film [and] . . . etched as required in Z25."

2) We confirm that anything less than edges(Illegible Word) specified in J573 [Society of automotive Engineering Recommended Practice J573 'automotive glazing', June 1950] will(Illegible Word) a window with unbanded edges a non-complying article.

3) We forward "the proper instructions for manufacturers who are being undersold due to non-complying competitors."

With regard to your first request, we cannot confirm that all forward facing windows in multipurpose passenger vehicles must be glazed with S-2 laminated with .030 because windshields of multipurpose passenger vehicles must comply with the S-1 requirements. However, your request that slide-in campers be allowed to use S-1 liminated with an .030 plastic film in under consideration, and further reply will be made. You also ask for confirmation that the glazing be etched as required by Z25. This matter is also being considered as part of a rulemaking which would amend the glazing standard to provide for this type of etching.

With regard to your second request, Standard No. 205 presently requires that, except in school buses, expanded edges of glazing materials shall have an edge radius of between one half the nominal thickness of the material and inch. Exposed edges not meating these limits are not in compliance with the standard.

Finally, with the regard to your third request, if you have any additional information available concerning "non-complying competitors" please submit it to the National Highway Safety Bureau, Office of Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, 400 5th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, and whatever action is considered appropriate will be taken.

Once again we wish to thank you for your active interest in the motor vehicle safety program.

Sincerely,

May 23, 1968

David Schmeltzer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Dear Dave:

This letter will serve as a formal request for information which we discussed in our telephone conversation of May 22.

Please confirm in writing immediately that all forward facing windows in multipurpose passenger vehicles must be glazed with AS-2 laminated with .030 plastic film. Also, confirm that each glass pane must be etched as required in Z26.

One question we did not discuss has to do with windows with exposed edges. At the present time, Standard 205 requires that in all except school buses, windows with exposed edges must be treated in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineering Recommended Practice J673, "Automotive Glazing", June 1960. This includes the window we refer to as a 4" Jalousie. It would be convenient if you could justify written instructions that the radii specified in J673 for edge treatment will be necessary for compliance with Standard 205. The reason for this is that we "webber" (grind to no specific radius but remove enough edge material so that you would not cut your finger if you rubbed it along the edge of each unbanded pane) 4" Jalousie panes and have for many years. The information available from SAE is a little confusing, for it looks like a webbered edge; however, it specifies a radius from 3/16" to 1/4". As you know by now, it is difficult to take some of this Automotive Engineering data and use it without expanding its meaning when concerned with pickup canopies and campers. We are not asking for you to give us any relief or to approve the webbered edge as satisfactory. We concur in your decision that an unbanded edge should have a close tolerance and responsible radius. We only want to ascertain that anything less than edges as specified in J673 will make a window with unbanded edges a non-complying article.

One last point -- please expedite if possible the proper instructions for manufacturers who are being undersold due to non-complying competitors. I have requested this previously.

Sincerely yours,

ANADITE, INC.

PRODUCTS DIVISION --

John E. Orr

Director of Marketing