ID: 1982-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/18/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Consumer and Technical Affairs, Woodhill Permatex

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning a product you manufacture which is used to repair breaks in automobile windshields. You ask whether such a repair product would conflict with any present motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (copy enclosed). This standard would not apply to a repair product such as you describe, however. There is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of such a product or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair as a result of damage sustained, for example, in shipment could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, which would be the responsibility of the person selling the windshield. Therefore, we do not recommend use of windshield repair kits prior to the first purchase of a new windshield by a consumer.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 26, 1982

Legal Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

We are manufacturers and marketers of maintenance, service and repair products for the professional and the do-it-yourselfer for use around the home and in the repair of vehicles.

It has come to our attention that there exists a need to develop a product to repair stone damaged and bulls eye breaks in automobile windshields.

My question is whether or not such a repair product would conflict with any present motor vehicle safety standards.

Your prompt counsel would be appreciated since we are beginning to formulate plans for our next fiscal year.

Very truly yours, Robert J. Carter -- Director, Consumer and Technical Affairs, WOODHILL PERMATEX

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: 1982-2.16

DATE: 06/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grebe; Gross; Jensen & Peek; P.C. -- J. Mack Shively

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Grebe, Gross, Jensen & Peek, P.C. 1530 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205

This is in response to your letter of May 11, requesting our views as to the applicability of vehicle identification number requirements and certification label requirements to a semi-trailer to be manufactured by Cranston Diversified Industries. This trailer would have three interchangeable sections.

You are correct in your interpretation of the manner in which our requirements would be applied to the trailers in question. Only one vehicle identification number and one certification label are required. Affixing the label to the left side of the front section would be consistent with our regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel

RE: Manufacturer Identification Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc.

Dear Sirs:

My client, Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc., is currently negotiating with the patent holder to construct a semi-trailer which can be converted from a "flat" to a "drop center" trailer configuration. The design utilizes interchangeable front, rear, and center sections.

I have concluded that pursuant to 49 C.F.R ampersand 571.155, Standard No. 115, S4.1, each vehicle manufactured requires only one vehicle identification number. I have also concluded that the label to be attached to each trailer should be affixed to the left side of the front section (the hitch structure) and that only one label is required pursuant to 49 C.F.R. ampersand 567.4(d).

Please advise me as to whether my interpretation of your Regulations is correct. I have enclosed a copy of the Letters Patent of the United States issued for the trailer which include a detailed description of its structure.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

J. Mack Shively JMS:vs Enclosures cc: Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc.

ID: 1982-2.23

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ron Gustafson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking about requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.

All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.

You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agency prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.

In addition, you would be required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 et seg.) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.

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

ENCLS.

June 28, 1987

Furudals Bruks Kursinternat 790 70 FURUDAL Sweden

National Highway Safety Administration

To Whom it May Concern:

I am interested in receiving information concerning rules, regulations, requirements, procedures for testing, etc. concerning child safety seats in automobiles. There is interest in introducing a such a product in the USA. Therefore I would like to know of any minimum requirements (re: design, construction, materials, etc.) as well as any permits or licenses regarding those requirements. Also if there are any US testing organizations, procedures, or standards for this type of product please inform me. Thank you.

Ron Gustafson RON GUSTAFSON

ID: 1982-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CAPACITY OF TEXAS INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of October 11, 1982, concerning regulations specifying the type of steering system required in vehicles. In particular, you asked if a mechanical link is required in the steering system or whether a hydraulic system is acceptable. As explained below, a manufacturer can use either a mechanical or hydraulic system to meet the requirements of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to vehicle steering systems: Standard No 203, Impact Protection for the Driver Steering Control System, and Standard No. 204, Steering Column Rearward Displacement. Both standards, copies of which are enclosed, establish performance requirements to protect the driver from steering column-related injuries in a crash. Any type of steering system, either mechanical or hydraulic, can be used as long as it meets the applicable requirements of those standards.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400-7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

I have been investigating all regulations pertaining to the type of steering required in vehicles for (trucks, tractors) highway and off-highway use.

It is my understanding there is no type of regulations requiring a mechanical link in the system, and that a straight hydraulic system is acceptable.

I contacted Steve Oesch, from your department and he researched the issue and found no reference to the type of system allowed.

I would appreciate a letter from you confirming that there are no regulations or requirements that require any certain type of steering arrangement.

Thank you, Sincerely yours,

Gene Wright Vice-President, Manufacturing CAPACITY OF TEXAS, INC.

ID: 1983-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/83 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard R. Kelm -- Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services, Libby-Ownes - Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 24, 1983, regarding the certification and marking requirements for glazing under S6 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated that you are interested in "out-sourcing some of your replacements auto glass requirements" to other manufacturers and sought clarification on four points concerning glazing identification.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 deals specifically with the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). You ask whether it is permissible under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to allow another manufacturer, using its own DOT code mark, to put an LOF trademark and logo on its glass.

Section 6 of ANS 226 states that a manufacturer shall mark safety glazing materials with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." The purpose behind these markings was to aid in the tracing of glazing materials and the enforcement of applicable standards. Your letter states that the other manufacturer will place their DOT code mark on the safety glass. Since the other manufacturer is using its own DOT code mark, the tracing and enforcement policies will not be circumvented. Therefore, under these circumstances, the use of LOF's logo and trademark is not violative of Standard No. 205.

Further, you ask whether another glass manufacturer can use LOF's "M" number on his glass with LOF's permission. As long as the model number is an accurate description of the specified glazing material being produced, the other manufacturer may use it.

Lastly, you ask if the name of the country of manufacture must appear on the safety glass if not manufactured in the United States. The standard does not mandate that the country of manufacture be marked on the safety glazing materials.

Original Signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Empire Construction Co. Inc. -- H.J. Lindekugel, Consultant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. J. Lindekugel Consultant Empire Construction Co., Inc. East 10310 Montgomery Box 11012 Spokane, Washington 99211

Dear Mr. Lindekugel:

This responds to your recent letter asking if the rim marking requirements of Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars, apply to "remanufactured truck wheels." They do not.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth rim marking requirements applicable to all new rims manufactured on and after September 1, 1977, and designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Remanufactured wheels are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purpose of Standard No. 120, and so are not subject to the rim marking requirements.

Should you need any further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt

Attention: Attorney for Rulemaking

Re: DOT number for remanufacturing process

Greetings: This writer was referred to you by Lauretta Carlson, Highway Safety Program Area Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Seattle, WA.

The point of inquiry is whether or not a DOT identification number is necessary for a re-manufactured truck wheel, not a repaired wheel. The review made with Lauretta Carlson showed no such standards as a pre-requisite. She sent me a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, 57-119 and 57-120 which confirmed her judgement she suggested this letter.

Please advise the writer if the position she has taken is correct.

Very Truly Yours,

H. J. Lindekugel, Consultant

ID: 1983-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eaton Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking a question concerning Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You note that there is an ambiguity in the formula referenced in paragraph S8.3.2(e) of that standard as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, you ask whether the entire fraction that is specified is multiplied by "100" or whether only the denominator of the fraction is multiplied by "100".

The correct formula is as follows:

(W3-W4) - (W1-W2) / (W1-W2) X 100

The formula as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations should, therefore, include additional brackets around the fraction, separating the fraction from the "X 100" figure. We will notify the Federal Register concerning this error.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you may have had.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

APRIL 11, 1983

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sirs,

I have been comparing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 106-74, Brake Hoses, with the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49 - S571,106 - Standard 106 - Brake Hoses.

I would draw your attention to paragraph S8.3.2(e) ref calculation of the percentage increase in volume. In 106-74 the formula is given as:-

Percent of increase = (W3-W4) - (W1-W2) / (W1-W2) x 100

In S571,106 the formula is given as:-

Percent of increase = [(W3-W4) - W1-W2)] / (W1-W2) x 100

This could be interpreted as:-

Percent of increase = [(W3-W4) - (W1-W2)] / (W1-W2) x 100

which is not the same as the formula given in 106-74.

This, I believe, could lead to problems. I enclose the appropriate pages from the standards mentioned with the paragraph highlighted in red.

I should be pleased to receive your comments as we are endeavouring to get a potential supplier of hoses to comply with S.571.106.

Yours faithfully,

N. COPE

Standards Engineer -- EATON LIMITED TRUCK COMPONENTS OPERATIONS

ID: 1983-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in response to your September 23, 1982, letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle, Safety Standard No. 118, Power-Operated Window Systems, to power sunroofs. The agency apparently has never previously addressed this question.

Standard 118 specifies requirements only for power-operated window and partition systems. A power sunroof would be considered neither a "window" nor a "partition" and therefore would not be subject to the standard. Our standard was intended to apply to the typical power side windows and the power tailgate window of station wagons. The reference to "partitions" in the standard was adopted as part of the July 23, 1970, final rule establishing Standard 118 and was intended to assure that power-operated interior partitions, such as might be used in a taxi or a limousine, would comply.

Although Standard 118 does not apply to power sunroofs, we strongly recommend that safety precautions along the lines of those established in that standard be incorporated in power sunroof designs. It appears possible that the types of accidents which the standard was intended to prevent could also occur as a result of the unsupervised operation of power sunroofs.

If you have any further questions to this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by Frank Berndt Cheif Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt: We sincerely request information concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118: "Power Operated Window Systems" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of MVSS 118 are applicable to a power-operated sunroof.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this inquiry. We are looking forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

ID: 1984-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; FRANK BERNDT; NHSTA

TO: H.K. Porter Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager H.K. Porter Company, Inc. 1301 W. Sandusky Avenue Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311

Dear Mr. Netzer:

This responds to your September 19, 1984 letter to Mr. Vern Bloom of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter was referred to this office for our reply.

You asked whether Standard No. 106 would permit the manufacture of an air brake hose for use with permanently attached end fittings when the size of the hose is not listed in Table III of that standard. The answer to your question is yes. Table III of Standard No. 106 specified dimensional requirements for air brake hose intended for use with reusable end fittings. The table does not limit the sizes of hoses used with permanent fittings.

He wish to emphasize that all other requirements applicable to air brake hoses which are found in Standard No. 106 would apply to your air brake hoses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 19, 1984

Mr. Vern Bloom U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA NRM11 CAD 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as air brake hose manufacturers, have been requested by several customers to produce an air brake hose having an inside diameter as listed under SAE J1402 table "A" specification for permanently attached fittings. We find that the DOT 106 specification table "III" does not list a hose diameter for permanently attached fitting and would like to know if we would have any problems if we manufactured a hose with the dimensions as listed in SAE J1402 table "A".

Thank you very much, I remain

Very truly yours,

A. F. Netzer Hose Development Manager AFN/jah