ID: nht71-3.17

DATE: 06/08/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1970, requesting an interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574).

The proposals you described in your letter, paragraphs 1 and 2, will certainly meet the minimum requirements of the regulation and are perfectly acceptable. The regulation requires that a record be kept of the type of tire shipped on or in the vehicle. It does not require that the individual tire identification number be(Illegible Word) with the name and address of the purchaser.

If a vehicle dealer sells a vehicle equipped with tires which were not shipped on or in the vehicle, the vehicle dealer is considered a tire dealer under section 574.9(b) and as such, he is required to record the name and address of the first purchaser along with the tire identification number, and forward this information to the tire manufacturer. However, the tire manufacturer may designate someone else to maintain the required records by section 574.7. Therefore, it would be acceptable to have your vehicle dealers forward the required information to you instead of to the tire manufacturer, if the tire manufacturer designates you to maintain the records of tires installed on your vehicles.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: nht69-2.1

DATE: 03/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: The Hail Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1969, to the Office of Standards Preparation, concerning the proposed lighting equipment on your dump trailers.

The lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing 701b1907 dated February 20, 1969, appear to be in conformance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 with the following exceptions:

1. The required license plate lamp is not shown.

2. The minimum mounting height for reflectors is 15 inches.

3. With respect to maximum mounting zones for lamps and reflectors, the limiting dimensions of 16, 30, and 24 inches indicated on your drawing appear to be too liberal for a trailer with essentially square corners.

With reference to Notes 2 and 3 on your drawing, certain restrictions as specified in paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 are applicable for combination lamps.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from (Illegible Word) responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht75-2.15

DATE: 04/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Dominion Auto Accessories Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 20, 1975, inquiring as to the permissibility of selling your "Panamirror" in the United States as aftermarket equipment.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirror, provides minimum performance requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. According to the standard, the inside rearview mirror must furnish the driver with a specified field of view to the rear of substantially unit magnification. Any vehicle manufactured for sale, sold, or introduced into interstate commerce must be equipped with an inside rearview mirror that meets the designated level of performance. It appears that the "Panamirror" would not satisfy the requirements of the provision, because it is convex in structure and therefore would not provide a view of substantially unit magnification.

If the mirror were installed on a vehicle as aftermarket equipment (after the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale) in such a way as to render inoperative the inside rearview mirror, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) as amended (Pub. L. 93-492) would apply where the installation was accomplished by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. The section prohibits the named parties from knowingly rendering inoperative a system installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

ID: nht75-3.26

DATE: 03/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Automotive Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting an opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR @@ 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.

The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on the part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.

If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will be required.

ID: nht72-6.16

DATE: 12/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Center for Auto Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of 20 November, 1972, concerning alleged non-compliance of the Defect Information Report regarding Volkswagen Windshield Wipers, submitted by Volkswagon of American on October 12, 1972, with the requirements of NHTSA's Defect Reports Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. We agree that Volkswagen has failed to supply information required by sections 573.4(c)(2) and 573.4(c)(8) of the Regulation, specifically, the months of manufacture of the affected vehicles and a chronology which includes warranty claims, field service bulletins, and other such information. We are contacting Volkswagon to determine why the Company has failed to furnish that information and to attempt to obtain it. We also agree with your conclusion that 100% of 1948-1949 Volkswagens are potentially affected by the windshield wiper defect. However, Volkswagen's statement that 'no information is available" as to either the total number of such vehicles operating in the United States, or the percentage potentially affected satisfies the disclosure requirement of the regulation (49 CFR 573.4(c)(3, 4)).

We cannot agree, however, with your remaining assertions of non-compliance with the Regulations. While the Volkswagen Information Report is lacking in detail and is a poor example of an informational communication, it does contain minimal responses to the enumerated requirements of the Regulations.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht72-4.29

DATE: 09/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cody Chevrolet Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention of Mr. Jerome Palist of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean a bus "designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children" (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), therefore, "gross vehicle weight rating" should not be computed under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met by inserting, "BUS."

This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes a position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.

ID: nht90-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, IDEAL Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kimmelman (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

When a new car, light truck or van is purchased and delivered to the buyer with a dealer installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it is our understanding that at the time of delivery the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We further interpret the Standards to require the following:

1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer .

2. The hazard warning flasher must be certified as meeting the require- ments of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.

3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage indication is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.

Please inform us if the interpretations noted above agree with those of the Department of Transportation.

ID: nht94-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820

Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301"

Gentleman:

PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems.

For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new.

Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph.

In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested.

We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement".

It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax.

Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133

Thank you very much for your efforts in advance.

Sincerely yours

ID: nht94-2.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5 .3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Randall B. Clark -- A Concerned Citizen

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/16/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDALL B. CLARK (A43; STD. 108; VSA 30122(6)

TEXT: I respectfully request clarification on the following paragraphs S5.1.1.27(a), Table III & Table IV, located in the "Code of Federal Regulations".

I contend the required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment requirements are the minimum requirements ONLY and do not state that this is the maximum stop lamps allowed on the back of any automobile.

In other words, my automobile has the normal two stop lamps and has a spoiler with a stop lamp built into it. The car also has a stop lamp mounted inside the back window which is not currently hooked up due to the fact that "Subaru of America" thinks the procedure is against the law. They have cited the above paragraphs & Tables as their authority.

I would appreciate a specific explanation from the "EXPERTS" stating that an automobile with four stop lamps is perfectly legal in the United States.

Thank you for your dedicated efforts on my behalf to clarify the correct point of view on Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment.

P. S. I have enclosed the specific paragraphs & Tables discussed in my letter.

(ENCLOSURE OMITTED)