ID: nht80-2.38

DATE: 05/21/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety and Security Consultants

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 21, 1980

Mr. D. J. Hitt Vice President Safety and Security Consultants 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Dear Mr. Hitt:

This is in reply to your letters of April 11, and April 25, 1980, respectively to this agency and to Mr. Vinson of this office, These letters reference requirements for side marker reflectors and clearance lamps for trailers used to carry agricultural products over the public roads.

You say that your trailers travel "as much as several hundred miles on the highways at all hours of the day and night". Therefore, they are "motor vehicles" subject to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.108). You will see that marker lamps and reflectors are required on all trailers, while rear clearance lamps need be added only if the overall width of a trailer is 80 inches or more. A clearance lamp facing to the rear may be combined with a rear side marker lamp; we assume that is what you mean by a "side clearance lamp" as the standard speaks only in terms of "front" and "rear" clearance lamps.

You have also asked for the "early history" of why these lamps are required pursuant to "Regulation #393.15". As a matter of clarification that section of Title 49 is enforced by a different agency, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, and covers lighting equipment required for commercial vehicles being used in interstate commerce. Our lighting standard, essentially identical, must be met before the vehicle is used, i.e., from time of manufacture until time of sale. To answer your question, clearance lamps must indicate the overall width of the trailer, in order that other drivers may be alerted to the presence on the road of a large vehicle. Side markers help identify the presence of a vehicle whose head lamps or taillamps may not be seen by a driver approaching it from a 90 degree angle, such as at an intersection.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood for

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

SAFETY & SECURITY CONSULTANTS 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Telephone: 853-9525

April 25, 1980

Mr. Taylor Vinson Chief Counsel Room 5219 Department of Transportation Headquarters 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In reference to my telephone conversation with Mr. Brooks of your office, I am sending the additional information you requested. We are interested in side markers and side clearance lamps for farm hauling equipment such as peanut haulers, cotton haulers and other typed of trailers which are not self propelled. These trailers would be used to carry the product from the farm to market or other distribution point. Sometime traveling as much as several hundred miles on the highways at all hours of the day and night. We would like to know what the legal requirements are for this type of equipment. Also the early history of why side markers and side clearance lamps are used on small semi-trailers and full trailers as required by the Department of Transportation, Regulation #393.15.

If you can not supply this information, could you direct us to where we can find it.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

D. J. Hitt Vice-President

DJH/dc Enclosure

SAFETY & SECURITY CONSULTANTS 702 Candy Mountain Road Birmingham, Alabama 35217

Telephone: 853-9525

April 11, 1980

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Sir:

Our firm is conducting a research on Reflective side markers and body side clearan-ce lamps for agricultural and farm related equipment that is being towed.

We would like to know what the legal requirements for side markers are, also the early history of such requirement, and why side markers and side clearance lamps are required. If you do not have this information, can you direct us to where we might find it?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

D. J. Hitt Vice President DJH/dc

ID: nht80-3.18

DATE: 07/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: George D. Lordi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether there are any Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of center arm rests that are to be installed between bucket seats in passenger cars, as aftermarket equipment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Currently, Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201), specifies requirements for arm rests that are installed on new passenger cars. Although this standard does not apply directly to arm rests sold only as aftermarket does not apply directly to arm rests sold only as aftermarket equipment, installation of arm rests on both new and used cars may give rise to certain responsibilities on the part of the person making the installation.

Any person who alters a completed vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, must place an additional label or tag on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). A person who installs a center arm rest on a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase would be considered an alterer under this provision, and would have to certify that the passenger car was in compliance with Standard No. 201.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor 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 in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that none of the persons mentioned could install a center arm rest in a passenger car if the installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety Standards. For example, if it were necessary to permanently remove the vehicle's seat belts in order to install the arm rest, the installation would be prohibited since seat belts are required by Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. It is up to the person making the installation to determine if any safety standards would be affected, and you should so advise your client.

Finally, in addition to the Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any defects in their products which affect motor vehicle safety. Under 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 579.5, each manufacturer of an item of aftermarket equipment is responsible for safety-related defects in that equipment. This means that a manufacturer of aftermarket arm rests would have to recall the equipment and remedy free of charge any defect that is determined to exist (15 U.S.C. 1414). For example, arm rests constructed of highly flammable material could be determined to be defective.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you require any further information (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

LORDI & IMPERIAL

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

June 18, 1980

Frank A. Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that I represent a company which is about to commence production of a center arm rest which will be installed in automobiles with bucket seats which do not offer this type of option.

In reviewing the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, I have been unable to find any standard relating to the manufacture and installation of arm rests. In fact, I am of the opinion that there are not any such standards.

My opinion was confirmed by a telephone call to your office and a conversation with one of the attorneys at your office.

Would you kindly provide me with the position of the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration in regards to the manufacture and installation of center arm rests in automobiles containing bucket seats and advise whether there are any applicable safety standards.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated as my clients are a small company who are totally dependent upon a steady cash flow in order to remain competitive.

GEORGE D. LORDI

ID: nht73-6.19

DATE: 05/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James E. Wilson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By petition for rulemaking dated November 15, 1973, the Ford Motor Company requested an amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 with respect to the strength required of the anchorages for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly. After considering the merits of the requested amendment, we have decided to deny your petition.

As stated in your petition, the anchorages for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 assembly are presently subject to two strength requirements under Standard 210. Section S4.2.2 provides that, when tested in conjunction with the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 3,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly. Section S4.2.1 provides that, when tested separately from the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 5,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly.

It is Ford's position that the 5,000 pound requirement of S4.2.1 was intended to be applicable to anchorages used with Type 2 assemblies having detachable shoulder belts, and that it was not intended for use with integral Type 2 assemblies. Although the NHTSA would agree that the most widely used Type 2 assembly at the time of the standard's adoption had a detachable shoulder belt, the agency does not agree that the 5,000 pound requirement should be limited to anchorages used with such belts.

The 1974 model year will be the first in which integral Type 2 belts are installed in all passenger cars. We anticipate that a measurable percentage of persons riding in cars with the new belts will somehow avoid using the shoulder belt, thereby placing

the lap belt under the same potential stress as any other lap belt when used by itself. In light of this possibility, and in consideration of the fact that keeping the pelvic anchorage force at the currently required level of 5,000 pounds will not impose additional manufacturing costs on manufacturers, we do not consider it advisable to grant the requested amendment at this time.

The petition of Ford Motor Company for an amendment of S4.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 and for a complementary amendment to the test procedures of S5.1 of the standard is therefore denied.

November 15, 1972

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Ford Motor Company, with offices at The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48121, as a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicles, hereby submits this Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (hereinafter "the Standard"). This Petition is filed pursuant to Section 553.31 of the procedural rules of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The purpose of this Petition is to request an amendment to S4.2.1 and S5.1 of the Standard that would eliminate the requirement of applying a 5000-pound force to the anchorages of the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a non-detachable upper torso portion. Sections S4.2.2 and S5.2 of the Standard adequately cover the anchorage loading for such a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This 5000-pound test criteria was developed originally for seat belt restraint systems that were independent of upper torso restraints and is still applicable to such systems as well as those that include a detachable upper torso belt system.

Ford Motor Company plans to incorporate non-detachable upper torso straps as required by S4.1.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 in its 1974 model vehicles. The present requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210 cause the restraint system to be dismantled before it can be tested, resulting in redundant and unnecssary tests and, therefore, are not practicable for this type of restraint system.

Ford test and development programs for these vehicles are now at that point where prototype bodies incorporating 1974 restraint system component designs are available for tests according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210 demonstration procedures to determine that design levels are appropriate for production tooling. We urge your prompt attention to this matter to assure that our current product programs are not affected.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold

Director, Automotive Safety Office

ID: nht74-1.25

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bruck Caulkens, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 4, 1974 requesting information concerning the existence of any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to auxiliary fuel tanks.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated no motor vehicle safety standard relating to auxiliary fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems. Thus, if installation of the auxiliary tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of @ 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make a determination as to whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though auxiliary fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be safely designed.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Safety Standard relating to motor vehicle fuel systems.

YOURS TRULY,

BRUCE CAULKENS, INC.

April 4, 1974

Lawrence R. Schnieder Chief Council Office of the Administrator -- NHTSA

Enclosed you will find a copy of U.S. Letters Patent #3,433,246 which affords a physical description of a portable, auxiliary fuel tank, designed primarily for stowage and/or transport of gasoline inside the trunk or other enclosed areas of an automobile or similar vehicle.

Briefly, the patented design concept is a small, 2-gallon, metal tank, having a filler spout and cap, on-off spigot, and a pressure relief valve from which a polyethylene or nylon tube provides continuous venting to the outside air.

The tank is easily removable from a harness assembly which holds it firmly in place. The tank must be removed from the vehicle when being filled, thereby eliminating the possibility of spillage into the trunk or enclosed area.

A Polyethylene tube attached to the spigot acts as a flexable carrier for transfer of gasoline/fuel from the auxiliary tank to the main fuel tank.

The tank has been tested by the Ethel Corporation Laboratories, 1600 E. 8 Mile Road, Ferndale, Michigan for Emission Control data and rendered an overall emission vapor factor of less than two (2) grams.

I am attempting to have the auxiliary tank manufactured and, because this will involve a great deal of money to set up (tooling, etc.), the manufacturer and I would like to be assured that the United States Government will not look unfavorably upon our auxiliary tank device.

Mr. Peter Cooley, Research Engineer, Michigan Highway Safety Research Program, Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor, Michigan, Phone (313) 764-0248, has examined and noddingly (unofficially) approved of our tank device from both principle and practicality of design. Mr. Cooley suggested that the National Highway Safety Administration and the E.P.A. Departments of the Federal Government would not be interested from a control standards point of view because the auxiliary tank device is portable and not intended to be a fixed, permanent installation in an automobile.

We would appreciate receiving a letter from your department stating that due to the "portability" of our tank device, we would not be subject to Federal Control Standards, other than those set forth as generally acceptable standards and laws, local and federal, that regulate gasoline tanks, etc.

Bruce Caulkens President

Enc. (Patent Omitted.)

cc

Mr. Colver R. Briggs Automotive Safety Planning & Research Staff Ford Motor Company

Mr. Joseph Innes Administrative Chief National Highway Safety Administration

Mr. Emmett E. Hixon Automotive Corporate Sales Hercules, Inc.

Mrs. Julie Candler Automobile Editor Woman's Day Magazine

ID: nht79-4.3

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Webster & Chamberlain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as applicable to vehicles sold to the U.S. Postal Service.

Under the general requirements of paragraph S4.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Type II seat belt assemblies are required for outboard designated seating positions. That paragraph does provide optional requirements, however, for certain vehicles that are designed to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service. Under the optional requirements, these vehicles can instead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 which allow the use of Type I seat belts at outboard designated seating positions in convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles and for outboard seating positions that do not include the windshield header in the head impact area. Therefore, if the "X-1" vehicles described in your letter are any of these vehicle types and are sold exclusively to the Postal Service, they may legally be equipped with either Type I or Type II assemblies, at the manufacturer's option.

Regarding your second question, whether or not the "X-1" vehicles conform to Postal Service specifications is a matter of contractual agreement that must be determined by the contracting parties. The most the agency can say is that the "X-1" vehicles would be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 208 if they qualify as one of the vehicle types discussed above.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

SINCERELY,

August 2, 1979

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would like to respectfully request a ruling from your office concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 S4.2.2, 49 CFR @ 571.208 S4.2.2, to the fact situation set forth below. Since clarification of this issue is necessary to enable the affected parties to submit accurate bids for a government contract by mid-August, we would greatly appreciate a response from your office at the earliest possible time.

The specific fact situation with respect to which this ruling is requested is as follows: Corporation A enters into a contract with the Federal government to sell to the United States Postal Service certain vehicles meeting the specifications set forth by the Postal Service in its request for bids. The Postal Service specifications state, in relevant part, that, "The restraint system hardware, mounting, and performance shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208, 209 and 210, . . ." All vehicles sold to the Postal Service by Corporation A (hereinafter referred to as "type X-1" vehicles) have "Type 1" seat belt assemblies in conformance with the requirements of Standard 208 S4.2.1.2. Corporation A sells type X-1 vehicles exclusively to the Postal Service.

Corporation A also manufactures "type X-2" vehicles, which are identical to type X-1 vehicles, with one exception: all type X-2 vehicles have seat belt assemblies which meet the requirements of Standard 208 S4.1.2.1, Standard 208 S4.1.2.2, or Standard 208 S4.1.2.3. Corporation A sells type X-2 vehicles to various public and private purchasers.

The questions with respect to which a ruling is hereby requested are the following:

1. In the fact situation presented above, are all type X-1 vehicles manufactured by Corporation A and actually sold to the Postal Service "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service" within the meaning of Standard 208 S4.2.2, so that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not require such type X-1 vehicles to be retrofitted with seat belt assemblies which meet the requirements of Standard 208 S4.1.2.1, Standard 208 S4.1.2.2, or Standard 208 S4.1.2.3?

2. Assuming that the "Type 1" seat belt assemblies installed in all type X-1 vehicles conform to Standard 209 and Standard 210, do all type X-1 vehicles sold to the Postal Service conform to Standard 208 by virtue of the provisions of Standard 208 S4.2.2, so that all type X-1 vehicles would be in compliance with the requirement of the Postal Service specification that the seat belt assembly "shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208, 209 and 210?

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Charles E. Chamberlain

ID: nht80-1.22

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Diesel Fuel Saver, Jay Blanchard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter requesting confirmation of statements made to you by an NHTSA engineer, Robert Williams. Apparently, Mr. Williams stated that your product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver," would comply with Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75).

As you describe the product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver" is a piece of aftermarket equipment that can be readily attached to diesel fuel systems to heat the fuel and ostensibly increase fuel economy. However, Safety Standard No. 301-75 is only applicable to new vehicles and, therefore, would not apply to motor vehicle equipment such as yours unless it is installed on new vehicles. Further, Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for individual components of fuel systems. Rather, the standard specifies performance requirements that must be achieved by vehicle fuel systems during barrier crash tests.

There are no other safety standards that would be applicable to your product. However, you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), our enabling authority, for any defects in the "Diesel Fuel Saver" relating to motor vehicle safety. This means that you would have to notify purchasers of your product of any such defects that might exist and remedy those defects at your own expense.

Although Safety Standard No. 301-75 is not directly applicable to the "Diesel Fuel Saver," the standard does create responsibilities for certain persons who may install the product.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that none of the mentioned persons, which could include your own company, would be permitted to install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" on a motor vehicle if the equipment would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 (or any other applicable safety standard). Therefore, as a responsible manufacturer, you should determine whether vehicles can meet the performance requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 301-75 with your product installed. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) only applies to those persons mentioned above. Therefore, a private individual (the vehicle owner, for example) could install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" with impunity, regardless of whether the vehicle thereafter complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75. This, of course, would not remove your liability in private litigation.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

D.F.S.

DIESEL FUEL SAVER

February 8, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel Debra Winer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mrs. Winer:

I talked with Bob Williams at 1-202-426-1828 and I told him about our unit and he said that the unit we have would meet the MVSS-301 Safety Standards.

What I would like you to do if you would is to say what Bob Williams said and put it in black and white so that if we are asked about it then we can say that it does meet the requirements.

The only thing we are doing is using the water from the radiator block to heat the fuel(we have a water jacket and a coil inside a steel jacket and the water goes through that and heats the fuel and then we have a plug in heater so that when the vehicle is not in use then it can be heated so that you have hot fuel.

Enclosed is some information concerning the Presca Diesel Fuel Saver that I'm sure will help you understand how it works and that there is no way that our unit has any danger to it.

I shall look forward to hearing from you.

For information purposes: We are getting 14% increase in mileage on Long Haul Trucks. 17-30% on Farm Tractors, A V W Rabbitt was getting 43 MPG and we brought it to 55 around town and 60 on the highway.

The prices run: $ 299 $ 269 & $ 249 for each one.

Jay Blanchard Administrative Assistant

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht80-1.39

DATE: 03/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lombard, Bardner, Honsowetz & Brewer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 8, 1980, on behalf of your client, Ideal Welding and Machine Company. That company intends to market a one-piece unit coupling device for the connection of electrical and air-brake lines on tractor-trailers. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106-74), would be applicable to this device.

The device described in your letter would not be considered a brake hose assembly or a brake hose end fitting. Rather, according to the drawings enclosed in your letter, a completed brake hose assembly with its own end fitting would be attached to the coupling device, similar to the attachment of a completed assembly to a manifold. Therefore, certification of compliance with Safety Standard No. 106-74 would not be required. This answer dispenses with your remaining questions concerning certification.

Although there are no Federal safety standards applicable to a device such as you describe, it is a piece of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381), a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any safety related defects that may exist in its products. The manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of any such safety related defects and remedy the defects at its own expense (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). Therefore, your client should ascertain through testing or other means that there are no safety problems with its coupling device. Obviously, this is particularly important with any system involving vehicle braking.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ & BREWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW

February 8, 1980

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Ideal Coupling - Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 And Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On behalf of my client Ideal Welding and Machine Co., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon, the undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 or any related standards dealing with air-brake systems. Ideal Welding and Machine Co., which commenced business in August, 1977, is currently engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing products for industrial use. The company has designed a coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air-brake hoses of a truck and trailer which would provide a simplified one-piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air-brake lines. Arrangements have been made with Clarion Shoji Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, for the manufacture of this device. Because the device involves the connection of air-brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labelling, and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the import and sale of the device in the United States.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling does not constitute an air-brake hose, end fitting, or assembly that requires labelling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some form of certification, labelling, or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form of label, certification, or testing is required?

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e, the Japanese manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Ronald A. Irvine

Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, including the accompanying documents, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

IDEAL WELDING AND MACHINE CO.

By: (Illegible Words) Its President

By: Sandra Dean Its Secretary

Enclosures

United States Patent [19]

Wetzig

[11] 4,183,599 [patent omitted]

ID: nht79-1.35

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7, P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 15, 1979, asking for an interpretation of S4.3.1.1.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that dimensional changes in refrigeration units on the front of commercial trailers mean that clearance lamps are no longer visible at 45 degrees inboard if they are mounted as they have been in the past. You have proposed three alternate solutions to the problem.

S4.3.1.1.1 provides in pertinent part that "clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first proposed solution is that "The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45 degree inboard visibility requirements waived in accordance with S4.3.1.1.1."

We believe that this is preferable to your other suggested solutions that utilize angle-mounted combination lamps. Standard No. 108 appears to prescribe alternate requirements for location and visibility of clearance lamps--preferably on the front and visible throughout 45 degree angles, but if not, elsewhere than the front and where they need not be visible through the 45 degree angles. Your first proposed solution comprises elements of each of Standard No. 108's alternatives, and while it is not expressly permitted by Standard No. 108, it does not appear to violate it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 15, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

Recently there have been dimensional changes in the refrigeration units used on the front of commercial trailers and these new dimensions restrict the visibility of the front clearance lamps. These new refrigeration units are up to 80 inches wide, 83 inches high and extend out from the front of the trailer up to 23 inches. These larger units restrict the mounting location of the clearance lamps on the front of the vehicle.

With this obstruction the in-board 45o visibility angle cannot be met if the clearance lamps are mounted as they normally have been.

Section S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard states, "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45o in-board".

Our interpretation of Section S4.3.1.1.1 would allow for three possible solutions to the problem described earlier.

The methods are as follows:

1. The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #1.

2. A combination lamp meeting the requirements of both a side marker lamp and a clearance lamp mounted at 45o could be installed on the corner of the trailer and again the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #2.

3. The front clearance lamps could be omitted completely from the front of the trailer and a lamp meeting the combination requirements for a side marker and clearance lamp could be mounted on the side of the trailer at the front. This lamp would then meet the requirements for a side marker lamp having 45o visibility each side of the center line and having light directly to the front of the vehicle. The 45o in-board visibility requirements would again be waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #3.

Before making any recommendations to our customers regarding the possible solution to this problem, we would like to have your comments.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering

CJN/aj

Encl.

ID: nht88-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Harris W. Fawell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Harris W. Fawell House of Representatives Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

I have been asked to respond to your recent letter asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks "factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses," and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bu s.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those wit h a gross vehicle weight' rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's 'position is not compartmentalized. Further; because small school buses experience greate r force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening 'c rash forces'); the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful.

With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle... " (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel.

Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety.

We note, however, that 5402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get inform ation on Illinois' S402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin E. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764.

If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Broomfield

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Broomfield United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Broomfield:

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by Congressmen Bob Carr and Carl Pursell, urging favorable consideration of a petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This petition was filed by C and C, Incorporated, and asked us to reconsider our decision to treat convertibles just like all other passenger cars for the purposes of Standard No. 208, as of September 1, 1989. Further, the petition asked us to change our long-standing interpretation that T-top vehicles are not conve rtibles.

We have not yet completed our analysis and response to this petition. We will consider your views, as well as the arguments presented in the petition, in reaching our final decision. I will see that you are informed of our response to this petition as so on as the analysis is completed.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this petition. If you have any further comments or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell The Honorable William Lehman

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

January 11, 1988 The Honorable Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

We understand that on April 29 and October 19, 1987, C and C, Incorporated of Michigan filed a petition for reconsideration (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 51) of a Notice published in the March 30 Federal Register (52 F.R. 10122). We am also aware of your age ncy's notice of October 17, 1986 (51 F. R. 37028, 37029) wherein you concluded that a "vehicle with a T-bar roof would not be considered a convertible." In the March Notice, we understand NHTSA declined reconsideration of a Toyota petition "to exclude T- bar roof vehicles from the automatic restraint requirement." Your Notice explains:

Toyota said that "due to the lack of a door frame or a roof side rail structure, it is impossible to install an automatic belt that is acceptable to customers to the T-bar roof vehicles in view of current technology." Toyota said it will have to disconti nue T-bar roof vehicles after September 1, 1989, unless those vehicles are excluded from the automatic restraint requirement.

NHTSA has decided to retain its current interpretation of the term convertible and thus, is not adopting the proposed revision requested by Toyota. As discussed earlier in this notice, driver-side air bags and automatic safety belt systems will be availa ble for use in convertibles. Since those systems are available for convertibles, Toyota and other manufacturers of cars with T-bar roofs can use those same systems to comply with the performance requirements of the standard.

We observe that C and C's April 29 letter takes issue with the basis for this conclusion, such as your reference to an Alfa Romeo device.

We understand that you have not acted on the C and C petition which raises factual and economic issues unique to this firm and not to Toyota. Those issues, particularly the potential job loss, are not addressed in your March 30 Notice. They would probabl y not be significant in the case of Toyota. They are very significant for this firm. We understand that one manufacturer, Ford Motor Company', has canceled a T-roof contract. That may or may not be related to this matter, but it bodes badly for this firm and its workers.

We point out also that C and C is not seeking a permanent exemption from the 208 rule.

We urge favorable consideration of this petition for reconsideration and development of a proposal that will not cause a job loss at this firm.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM BROOMFIELD BOD CARR CARL PURSELL Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable William Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and related Agencies Committee on Appropriations