ID: 1985-02.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning the applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 207, Seating Systems, 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belts in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.

If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.2.3(c) of the standard provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt that conforms to Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belts anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

ENCLS.

PRECISION PATTERN INC.

April 18, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

This letter is a request for a ruling concerning a safety standard as applicable to passenger van seating. Specifically, I need to know if putting a stationary side facing seat, with lap seat belts is legal and acceptable.

This side facing seat would be equipped with lap seat belts if necessary. It would be located at the rear of the vehicle, behind the drivers seat.

The vehicles in question are for under 10 passengers, and are of 15', 17', and 20' lengths.

We are in the middle of a design project on this and your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please call 316/ 942-0905 if you have any questions. Thank you.

Mr. William Smith in your engineering dept. requested that I consult you for a permanent ruling. His interpretation of the rules would allow the use of this side facing seat.

Russ L. Bomhoff

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-02.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of May 30, 1984, asking for interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to center high-mounted stoplamps.

In your letter you stated that the preamble to the final rule discussed the definition of "window opening" and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. You have presented two rear window designs in which (1) ceramic opaque dots descend in increasing size to the bottom of the glazing and in which (2) shaded material becomes progressively darker as it descends, though the material is translucent, not opaque. You also show a design with an interior-mounted windshield wiper, including motor and cover, placed on the rear vertical centerline above the bottom of the glazing. In each instance you have asked at what point would the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) consider an "obstruction" exists for purposes of defining the bottom of the window.

The phrase "window opening" does not appear in Standard No. 108. The preamble discussion appears to be irrelevant with respect to the final rule, and was intended as a clarification of proposed location requirements which, in fact, were not adopted. The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 8, 1981, proposed a definition of "daylight opening" as "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface...," relating to three alternative locations proposed for the lamp in which the term "daylight opening" was used as a locational reference. For instance, in Alternative 1, proposed paragraph S4.3.1.9(a) would have placed "the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside bottom edge of the rear window daylight opening." When the final rule was adopted in October 1983, none of the three alternatives was judged acceptable and a requirement allowing more design freedom was adopted omitting all reference to "daylight opening." Paragraph S4.3.1.8 simply specified that "no portion of the lens shall be higher than the top of the back window or lower than three inches below the bottom of the back window." The requirement was even further relaxed in the May 1984 response to petitions for reconsideration in which paragraph S4.3.1.8 was amended to allow mounting "at any position on the centerline" (note, no limitation on upper mounting height relative to the rear window) and if "mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars" The preamble also clarified that, if the lamp were mounted on the interior, photometric compliance would be judged with the glazing in place.

Thus, whether glazing is opaque or obstructed is not the question a manufacturer must ask in determining the location of the lamp with respect to the lower edge of the window. If the lamp is mounted on the interior, it must meet photometric and visibility requirements with the glazing in place, taking into account any graduated dots on or opaqueness of that glazing, and any wiper motor. If the lamp is mounted on the outside, its upper permissible height is determined by the height of the car and not by the window. The question of opaqueness or obstruction is irrelevant to the lower permissible height of 3 inches below the window. The window is the perimeter of its glazing, and 3 inches is measured from the lower edge.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated Equipment - High Mounted Stoplamp

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The recent final rule amending Standard No. 108 addresses many issues raised by manufacturers, including the definition of "window opening". The preamble of the final rule discussed this definition and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. Applying this definition to the bottom rear window opening boundry, certain aspects of the final rule establishing this boundry as the reference for the mounting location are still not clear. Our questions are as follows:

1. In Figure 1, two examples are shown (out of many possible designs) that are aimed at minimizing the visibility of objects in the passenger compartment by means of a graduated shade. Design A employees a series of ceramic, opaque dots forming an array that become progressively larger (and allow less light transmittance) as they descend toward the glazing/body interface. Also, Design B utilizes a material that becomes progressively darker (and allows less light transmittance) as it approaches the bottom of the rear window glazing. However, the material is translucent, not opaque. For purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider individually each graduated shade design and identify the point (A, B or C) at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom rear window opening obstructed (should reference point B be identified, please quantify).

2. Contained in Figure 2 is a depiction of a rear window wiper motor, cover and blade. The motor and motor cover are mounted inside the vehicle along the vehicle centerline for reasons of symmetry. Although a small obstruction is projected onto the rear glazing, the device does not contact the glazing and is limited to only a narrow portion of the bottom rear window opening. Again, for purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider this design and identify the point at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom window opening obstructed. Further, does availability of such a device as a factory option or as standard equipment have any bearing on this matter?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these aspects of FMVSS 108 at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

NH/mls

enclosures

ID: 1985-02.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ernest Astle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent Alco Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 724 Logan, Utah 84321

Dear Mr. Astle:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically you asked if the requirements of that standard apply to aftermarket seat covers. While the standard applies only to new motor vehicles, its requirements do indirectly affect some aftermarket seat covers. As explained in greater detail in the attached letter to Mr. Cederbaum regarding the same issue, rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed in a vehicle pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is prohibited if done by certain commercial enterprises, but is permitted if done by the vehicle owner. Thus, if a seat cover in a complying vehicle were replaced with a noncomplying seat cover by one of those enterprises, that act would violate the above prohibition. The same act, if done by the owner, would not be a violation.

Should you need further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Alco Manufacturing Company

April 7, 1985

Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Council NHTSA Room #5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve

Reference to the phone call on February 22, 1985, concerning Motor Vehicle Saftey Standard NO. 302, pertaining to manufacturers of after market seat covers.

Does the after market manufacturer need to comply to the Federal Standard by law. Or does it not matter, except for product liability Insurance, if the covers should be flammable enough to cause fire.

I understand that as long as the ultimate consumer installs the covers the product Liability claim are void.

Do the Jobbers, that install covers, need to meet the 302 if they manufacturer covers?

J. C. Penney Company states that the 302 is their standard. Could this be their policy to protect them from any suits?

Please answer the above questions and statements by letter and/or by publication.

Thank You

Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent

kj

ID: 1985-02.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Victor Felice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 18, 1985 Mr. Victor Felice President Eurospec, Inc. 109 Treetops Circle Nanuet, New York 10954 Dear Mr. Felice: This responds to your letter of March 29, 1985, concerning two aftermarket products you intend to import. The products, which you call the "Super Klip" and the "Klumk Klip" safety belt comfort devices, consist of plastic devices which attach to the upper torso belt anchorage. The belt webbing through a wedge attached to your device. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt. You asked for the agency to review the devices and inform you of any comments or objections. As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your devices. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards. Your particular aftermarket products are not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your products. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed. The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could use your product to reduce the effectiveness of the upper torso belt by moving the belt so close to the edge of the shoulder that the occupant could rotate out of the upper torso belt in a crash. Likewise, your product could be used to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt, which would also reduce its effectiveness. The instructions you provide with the "Klunk Klip" do include information about how much slack to introduce into the belt and warns users not to introduce excessive slack. The instructions for the Super Klip contain no information or warnings on belt slack. We urge you to include a warning in both your instructions to advise belt users about the consequences of introducing too much slack in the belt. I am returning the samples of your products that you enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-02.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Gillipsie -- President, Salem Quality Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles E. Gillipsie President Salem Quality Equipment, Inc. 501 East 8th Street Salem, Virginia 24153-6385

This responds to your April 30, 1985 letter asking if your leasing company is allowed to occasionally rent 10- and 15-passenger vans to schools for special school activity trips. As Ms. Hom of my staff informed you in a telephone conversation on April 26, 1985, you are not prohibited by Federal statute or regulation from renting vans to schools on a one-time or very occasional basis.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of new school buses and persons selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards.

When Congress passed the 1974 amendments to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress adopted the following definition of a "school bus": "Schoolbus means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools...." (Emphasis added.)

Two basic considerations are relevant, therefore, to the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a "school bus" and the applicability of the Act's requirements to school bus sellers. The first is the vehicle's passenger capacity, and second, its intended use. If you buy a new 12- or 15-passenger van to rent to schools on a regular basis, that van would be a "school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus" and is school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus' and is "likely to be significantly used" to carry school children. A dealer or distributor who sells you the new van would have to ensure that the van meets our school bus safety standards. Conversely, the less frequently a bus is used for school service, the less likely it is that its use is "significant." If you use your van to carry students on a very infrequent basis, as the case appears to be, then it would not bc considered a "school bus," and the van would not have to meet the school bus safety standards.

In your letter, you referred to a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) that amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" and discussed leasing arrangements. NHTSA's definition of a school bus covers buses "sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." The notice explained that NHTSA's definition includes buses "introduced in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You asked for clarification of this discussion.

The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and the reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction involved. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the school bus safety standards.

If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 30, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller Office of Chief Counsel Nations Highway Traffic Administrations R5219, 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20596

Dear Mr. Miller:

We rent and lease 15 and 21 passenger vans to colleges, churches and other businesses. We have had several requests from public and private schools to rent these vehicles for special trips or small groups, normally 10 to 15 students. We have always refused because of the Preamble To Amendment To Part 571 ---- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Recently Roanoke City asked for a van to take 11 students on a special camping trip on the Virginia Coast. We refused, so the instructor rented a motor home. One of the patrons was upset and called Deirie Hom, she advised us that we would not be in violation to rent these vehicles for a short term. I can understand the school concern because driving a large school bus from Roanoke to Washington is quite an expense and certainly not comfortable.

As a school bus distributor I certainly do not plan to sell or lease these type vehicles to a public or private school, however, I would like the opinion of your department concerning short term rental for special field trips.

Your consideration and response to this request would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

SALEM QUALITY EQUIPMENT, INC.

Charles E. Gillipsie, President

CEG/tah

ID: 1985-02.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dick Kruse -- Secondary School Principals Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dick Kruse Secondary School Principals Association 1904 Association Drive Reston, Virginia 22091

This responds to your May 30, 1985 telephone call to this office asking two related questions about our school bus regulations.

Your first question asked whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the sale of a used commercial-type bus to a school district for use on school-related events. The answer to your question is no. The Act only applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Persons selling a used bus to a school district are not subject to the Act's requirement to sell certified school buses, and a used commercial-type bus, regardless of its model year, may be sold as an activity bus.

Your second question asked whether section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is applicable to manufacturers and dealers who sell used commercial-type buses to school districts. The answer is no. Section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the manufacture and sale of any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling a used commercial-type bus for school use.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr P. O. Box 52592 Houston, Texas 77002

Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.

You described your product, which you call a glare-shield, as a 1/8-inch thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

P. O. Box 52592 Houston Texas 77002 March 12, 1985

Mr. George Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing about a product that I would like to manufacture and market in the United States. Since the product is for use on vehicles being driven on public roads, I respectfully request your comments as to whether or not you think the product is in compliance with the laws as they are now written.

The product name is glare-shield. Its' purpose is to reduce motor vehicle accidents. It functions on the same principal as do sunglasses. except it has several advantages over sunglasses. Some people have vision defects for which prescription sunglasses cannot be made. Other people would prefer a glare-shield rather than sunglasses because of the fatigue caused by the physical discomfort of the sunglasses while being worn.

A glare--shield is made from a 1/8" thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. It is the same plastic manufactured by the General Electric Company and known as MR-50T4. Lexan MR-50T4 sheeting has been successfully tested for compliance with FMVSS-217 by bus manufacturers (A.M. General Corporation, General Motor Truck and Coach and Flxible/Rohr). MR-50T4 is approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. MR-50T4 meets or exceeds the requirements of items 4 and 5 of FMVSS-205.

A glare-shield can come in either one or two pieces, depending on the vehicle. A glare-shield is large enough in size to cover the entire area of the windshield of the vehicle it was designed to fit. A glare-shield is mounted on the inside of the vehicle as close to the windshield as possible. It is mounted in such a position that it does not interfere with the defroster device and can actually aid in its' operation, by directing more air toward the windshield. A glare-shield is not a permanent installation and can be removed for night driving in less than ten (10) seconds. Three or six stainless steel latches are used to hold the glare-shield in place. depending on whether it is a one or two piece unit. These latches are separately and permanently mounted to the vehicle using stainless steel rivets and rubber washers. Each latch has been designed to support the full weight of the glare-shield, should the other two latches not be functioning for some unknown reason. The latches cannot be accidentally opened by vibration, because they are mounted in rubber. Stainless steel sheet metal guards are attached to the edge of the glare-shield in the area where the latches make contact, in order to prevent damage to the coating on the Lexan. A vinyl molding is glued around the edge of the glareshield, to prevent the "Lexan" from coming in contact with any hard surface of the vehicle which could cause rattling from road vibration. The light transmission of various glare-shields will be equal to the various shades obtained from sunglasses found on the market today. The driver will decide which light transmission percentage is best for him, just as he now does when choosing sunglasses.

The main function of a glare-shield is to reduce the blinding glare from the sun at both sun-up and sun-down. The second important function is to reduce driver fatigue caused by reflections of shiny surfaces on a sunny day. An added benefit of using glare-shield is that windshields will no longer be tinted on their top part, or lightly tinted all over, which is a common practice today to reduce daytime glare. This tinting of windshields is bad, of course, because it reduces the driver's visibility at night. Another advantage of a glare-shield is that in the event of an accident, it will keep the driver's and passenger's heads from coming in contact with the windshield which usually results in facial lacerations. The glare-shield also helps in preventing a body being thrown through the windshield. The last advantage of a glare-shield, is that it acts as a protective shield against windshield glass fragments and foreign objects which strike and may penetrate the windshield.

Your immediate attention is requested on this project, as it appears to all those who have heard about glare-shields that they can reduce the number of accidents, and reduce bodily injuries and deaths, when accidents do occur.

Sincerely yours, L. D. Pitts, Jr. LDP/bjs

ID: 1985-02.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Pat Reese -- Mannesmann Pipe and Steel Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 24, 1985 Mr. Pat Reese Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corp. 1900 Post Oak Blvd., 18th Floor Houston, TX 77056

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). Specifically, you indicated you were writing on behalf of Mannesmann Kronprinz, a German branch of your company which manufactures wheels. You noted that section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120 requires rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to be marked with the name, trademark or symbol identifying the rim manufacturer, and asked if this requirement meant that the German branch of your company had to register its logo or trademark with this agency. Standard No. 120 does not require manufacturers to register trademarks whose vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are imported into the United States to file a designation of agent with NHTSA, and this designation must include a listing of the marks, trade names or other designations of origin used by the manufacturer on its products. A check of our files shows that no such designation has ever been filed by Mannesmann Kronprinz. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth the rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. One of the items of information required to be marked on such rims is "a designation that identifies tha manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol;" S5.2(d). This information allows the agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim if there is some problem with it. The use of a trademark or symbol is allowed, instead of the manufacturer's name, because the agency can easily determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbols would be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the case of foreign manufacturers, 49 CFR 551.45 requires them to file a designation of agent with this agency. One of the items of information required to be included in the designation agent is a listing of the marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" which appear on any of the manufacturer's products in lieu of its legal name. Both 49 CFR 551.45 and 15 U.S.C. 1399(e) require all foreign manufacturers to file a designation of agent with NHTSA before importing motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, including wheels, into the United States. I have enclosed copies of the regulation and the statute for your reference. As you will see Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on Mannesmann Kronprinz under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address for Mannesmann Kronprinz; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin for any of Mannesmann Kronprinz's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Mannesmann Kronprinz; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by Mannesmann Kronprinz, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Further, 49 Cfr Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment covered by our standards to provide certain information to NHTSA. The required information is simply the manufacturer's full name, address, and a brief description of the motor vehicle equipment it manufactures. Should you have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-02.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: James H. Westlake -- National Automobile Dealers Assocaition

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James H. Westlake Associate Director American Truck Dealers Division National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephen Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.

"1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?"

Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("safety standards") contain the terms "rebuilding" and "first stage manufacturer". Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a "new" vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.

The agency's regulation on Combining new and used components, 49 CFR 571.7(e), provides:

"When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle".

Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components are reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.

Your reference to "first stage manufacturer" implies that there may be rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is "new", then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages. If the truck meets the definition of "incomplete vehicle", then the "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the "intermediate stage manufacturer" or the "final stage manufacturer" as the case may be (Sec. 568.3).

"2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?"

As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 Certification. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 Manufacturer Identification.

"3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federal regulations?"

As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating any provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 25 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your telephone assistance Friday morning, and for directing our question to the appropriate individual.

The American Truck Dealers division of the National Automobile Dealers Association represents over 1,700 medium and heavy duty truck dealers. Many of our members are engaged in the business of rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks. On their behalf, we are requesting NHTSA provide guidance on the following questions.

1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered "rebuilding" when the three major components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from "rebuilding" to "first stage manufacturer"?

2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as "new manufacturing", what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?

3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these federal regulations?

Your assistance in answering these questions and providing specific citations is greatly appreciated. If our questions require additional detail, please feel free to contact me at the above number.

Sincerely, James H. Westlake Associate Director, ATD

ID: 1985-02.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert M. Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert M. Levy Manager, Design Engineering Abex Corporation Signal-Stat Division P.O. Box 438 Somerset, New Jersey 08873-3492

Dear Mr. Levy:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, asking for clarification of an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 108 that tnis agency furnished last year to Wesbar Corp.

On May 16, 1984, Wesbar asked whether the correct minimum effective luminous lens area on stop lamps and turn signal lamps was 8 square inches or 12 square inches, when intended for use on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. This office advised Wesbar on July 3, 1984, that, as specified in SAE J586c for stop.lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, the answer was 8 square inches. Your letter calls to our attention the fact that these SAE standards require each stop and turn signal lamp to have a minimum of 12 square inches in those vehicle configurations where two stop or turn signal lamps are mounted on the same side of the vehicle and are closer to each other than 22 inches.

Thank you for calling this oversight to our attention. Indeed, SAE J586c and J588e establish this exception to the general minimum requirement of 8 square inches. We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Wesbar and apologize for any confusion that the earlier letter has caused.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. C.I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095