ID: nht88-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1988

FROM: C. I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT, WESBAR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, D.O.T., NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-30-88, TO C.I. NIELSEN, FROM ERIKA 2. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 108, REDBOOK A33

TEXT: Thank you for your November 3 letter to our A1 Cunningham clarifying the definition of single compartment and multiple compartment lamps. It is most helpful to understand these terms to assure we comply with applicable D.O.T. requirements.

We now write you to please clarify for us the minimum square inches required of a turn signal lens for a trailer/vehicle, 80" or more in overall width, using a single compartment lamp assembly. We believe the answer should lie in J588e, but we find the text not only unclear, but confusing.

Your response on this clarification will be most appreciated.

ID: nht94-8.30

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D. -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TO: Office of Chief Counsil -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Martin Sackoff (A42; Std. 109)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

The subject of this request is in reference with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 - New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.

The specific question is with reference to S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, which states "S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength. Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table 1 when tested in accordance with S5.3".

I shall very much appreciate receiving a reply concerning the definition or interpretation of the term "breaking" of the tire. Does this mean a blowout of the tire, or simply the breaking of the tire caused by forcing the steel plunger into the tread?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: 9017

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard No. 213 specifies a minimum thickness for materials of a certain compression-deflection resistance. You ask whether more than one piece of material may be used to meet the thickness requirement.

The answer is yes. S5.2.3.2(b) does not require the material to be of a single piece, and the final rule that incorporated the requirement into Standard No. 213 did not address the issue. 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979. Accordingly, more than one piece of material may be used.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:10/7/93

ID: nht71-1.15

DATE: 12/30/71

FROM: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gurley Refining Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have examined the proposed label for "GRC" brake fluid you have submitted to us for comment.

Generally, the label appears to meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2 of [Illegible Word] Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 (36 f.r. 11987, June 24, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 21594, November 11, [Illegible Date]. The words "or [Illegible Word]" in your conformity statement are redundant; since the standard is a minimum requirement, "conforming to" and "exceeding" it mean exactly the same thing. If the fluid packager is an entity other than Curley, the packager's name or code identification must appear either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can. We assume that the required serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging will be stamped either below Curley's name or on the bottom of the can.

ID: nht68-2.3

DATE: 06/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the State Board of Education's requirement for school bus warning signal lamps.

The warning signal system as described in your letter does not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969. A copy of this Standard is enclosed for your reference. A minimum of four red signal lamps is required and they shall be designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964, a copy of which is also enclosed. Four additional amber lamps are permitted. The red and amber system and the red only system shall be installed in accordance with paragraph S3.1.3.2 and S3.1.3.3, respectively, of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-2.6

DATE: 02/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1971, to Mr. Charles A. Baker of this Office concerning questions on paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

"Red" was inadvertently included in paragraph S4.1.1.7 of the amendment to Standard No. 108 published on October 31, 1970. It is anticipated that this paragraph will be further amended in the near future by changing" . . . requirements for Class A red turn signal lamps . . ." to ". . . requirements for Class A turn signal lamps. . ."

The answers to your questions are therefore as follows:

1. Amber turn signal lamps shall conform to the minimum candlepower requirements for Class A amber as specified in Table 2 of SAE J575d.

2. There is no maximum candlepower requirement for amber front turn signal lamps.

ID: aiam3685

Dear Senator Percy: This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010 requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.; A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such a the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter hi vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles b their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mrs. Parutti may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further question (202- 426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4829

Dear Mr. Lau: This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991 asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an 'additional brake lamp' that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask 'if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product', and, further, 'does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?' Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp orignally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, l985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. 108. For lighting equipment this certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an Identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. 108, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of MOtor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA. We enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam4860

"Dear Mr. Pacheco: This responds to your letter in which you aske about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a 'Walk Machine,' looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your letter did not indicate whether the 'Walk Machine' would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a 'motor vehicle' even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the 'Walk Machine' indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. Because this vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4194

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo chil safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S 571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations 'provide a higher level of protection.' You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application that is, secured by only a lap belt and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.; With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise 'approve' it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.; Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its firs purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.; With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its chil seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle- specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: 'As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions.' 44 FR 72131, at 72136, December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel