ID: 2860yy

Mr. Billy S. Peterson
President
Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.
at TRC of Ohio, Bldg. 20
Rd. 152 & SR 33
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, l99l, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. l08, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. l08 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:3/8/9l

ID: 77-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Clarence D. Long - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 9, 1977, to the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of Mr. Edward L. Armstrong, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, expressing his concern that new passenger car manufacturers will discontinue supplying spare tires, has been referred to this office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, for additional consideration and reply.

We believe that Mr. Armstrong's concern deals with the recently approved "temporary use" spare tire that will be manufactured and used with some of the new 1978 model automobiles. The use of a temporary use spare tire is not a new concept. These tires have been used with compact sport cars, such as Firebird and Camaro, since 1967. The further development of these spare tires has been fostered by the desire of the U.S. automobile manufacturers to produce small, lightweight cars in furtherance of the national energy conservation program. I am sure that you have noticed the new 1977 models by some domestic automobile manufacturers are, in fact, smaller. Of course, the development of these smaller, lightweight, energy-efficient automobiles has resulted in a substantial reduction in usable car trunk space, and therefore, providing a second reason to develop a spare tire which takes less storage space than a conventional tire.

Since this spare tire is designed for use on the nation's highways, it must conform to the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, for strength, endurance and high speed performance. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of this standard.

ID: nht75-1.14

DATE: 08/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Business

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether S5.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, requires that the brake fluid level warning system specified by S5.3.1 be instantaneous when the brake fluid level reaches the condition described in S5.3.1(b).

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes that a minimal interval between the occurrence of the specified condition and the appearance of the required signal is a physical fact. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of a similar requirement of Standard No. 105-75 for your information. In the case of the brake fluid level indicator, a time interval that is insignificant with respect to the time required to respond to the signal would be permissible.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ATTACH.

June 18, 1975

Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Specification S5.3 of Regulation FMVSS 105-75 includes a requirement of brake system indicator lamps but does not, as I read it, mention the time permitted for such devices to signal after the brake fluid has reached the "danger" level.

Must it be instaneous? If not, what time intervals at various temperatures do you consider adequate?

As a United States citizen I respectfully request your advice on this point at your early convenience.

Very truly yours,

W. J. JOYCE -- CONSULTANT, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

ID: nht76-3.33

DATE: 03/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Clarence J. Baudhuin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 29, 1976, letter to Secretary Coleman, concerning problems with your 22 foot Executive "MINI" Motorhome.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that a motor vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) shall

not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Your letter and its enclosures indicate that your vehicle's weight is 9180 pounds, its designated seating capacity is six, and the GVWR specified by Executive is 9000 pounds. From this information, there appears to be a violation by Executive of Part 567. In addition, the possibility that the rear axle may be overloaded under normal conditions of use may constitute a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

Please note that a final-stage manufacturer is not automatically prohibited from certifying a GVWR that differs from that specified by the chassis manufacturer. For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, Executive is free to certify a lower GVWR, provided the above-cited constraint is observed.

The remaining questions presented in your letter are not matters over which we have jurisdiction, and probably are most appropriately handled by a private attorney.

ID: nht80-4.12

DATE: 10/20/80

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: OVSC

TITLE: OVSC Investigatory Activities Concerning Possible Violations of UTQGS Treadwear Grading Requirements

TEXT: This responds to your request for direction concerning when the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Enforcement, must open a formal standards enforcement investigation (known as a "CIR" [certification information request] of a possible noncompliance with the treadwear grading requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CER 575.104.

UTQGS is a consumer information regulation. While the regulation does require tire manufacturers to provide grading information in the important safety areas of traction and temperature resistance, the treadwear grades, on the other hand, are primarily economic rather than safety information. Moreover, as a consumer information regulation, UTQGS requires no minimum level of safety performance, but, rather, requires relative ranking information. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that it is imperative that a CIR be opened immediately whenever there is a testing result indicating that a small number of tires may be at variance with their manufacturer's rating. OVSC may conduct further testing and/or analysis, including inquiry to the manufacturer, prior to opening a CIR. (Any records of these activities will be treated according to the particular applicability of the Freedom of Information Act.) Such a practice is akin to the Office of Defects Investigation conducting a preliminary inquiry of engineering analysis, which may or may not lead to the opening of a formal defect case investigation.

So that the public and the industry may understand this direction, we are placing a copy of this memorandum in the Interpretations File in the Technical Reference Library, and sending a copy to the Rubber Manufacturers Association.

ID: nht90-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARGARET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TELEFAX DATED 6-3-90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM MARGRET SCHMOCK ATTACHED; (OCC 4508) TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, 1990, with respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and "CAC Title 13, Article 9".

You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. 108 has been changed.

We understand that "CAC" refers to "California Administrative Code". The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustm ent range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement.

We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pi erce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854).

ID: nht90-2.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 20, 1990

FROM: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TO: General Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Sterling Superlocking System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from B. Felrice to D.T. Johnston (A36; Part 543)

TEXT:

Rover Cars of North America (formerly Austin Rover Cars of North America, d.b.a. Sterling Motor Cars), importer of the British Sterling passenger car, manufactured by the Rover Group Ltd., U.K. sent you a letter dated March 14, 1990 outlining a proposed modification to our antitheft system in the 1991 Model Year. Due to marketing considerations, this enhanced system, referred to as 'superlocking' will not be available for the 1991 Model Year. Therefore Sterling would like to withdraw that submission. If we elect to offer this system at some point in the future we will resubmit a request for de minimus change to our currently approved theft prevention system.

We would like to introduce a minor revision to our currently approved system for the 1991 Model Year, however. Our present system, once armed, will activate if the trunk is opened, even using the key, unless the system is disarmed. Our proposed modific ation would allow the system to be disarmed when the trunk is opened by the key and rearmed when the, trunk lid is closed. Forcing open of the trunk without using the key would still activate the alarm.

If you have any questions regarding this request please feel free to contact me on (213) 437-6282 at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht91-2.20

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TO: Billy S. Peterson -- President, Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. at TRC of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-7-91 from Billy S. Peterson to Office of Chief Council (OCC 5709)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1991, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. 108, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. 108 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

ID: nht88-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/88

FROM: LANCE E. TUNICK -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Maserati Automobiles Incorporated (MAI) requests an interpretation of the requirements in S.4.1.3. of FMVSS 208 concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with passive restraints. More specifically, because the s tandard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. and because, under Section 108 (b) (5) of the Safety Act, the standard does not apply to vehicles intended solely for export, MAI assumes that if, during a "phase-in" period, vehicles that we re previously imported into the U.S. by MAI are exported to Canada (where we have one dealer) would be deducted from the U.S. production total to arrive at the base figure to which the phase-in percentage would apply.

We would greatly appreciate your confirming this interpretation as soon as possible, so that we can report under 49 CFR Part 585.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht93-5.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: Joel Trim -- Manager - Mechanical Service Dept., Neal and Massy Motors

TO: The Secretary -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Joel Trim (A41; Part 567)

TEXT:

Within recent times various owners of motorcars who have had their vehicle bodies modified (extended) in the main for Limousine Service have solicited my assistance in inspecting the modifications before inspection for licensing by our Road Transport Authorities. However, our country does not have any laws or regulations pertaining to the inspection and certification of these vehicles, nor for vehicles falling under the categories: Kit Cars or Homemade Vehicles.

As a result of this the owner of such vehicles are unable to obtain a license from the Transport Department to operate them legally on the roads. There are however a number of private modified (extended) vehicles on our roads.

I have discussed this matter with several persons some of whom are directly related to the Transport Department and it is in the general view that if proof is shown where these vehicles are modified, assembled, built and inspected according to certain National or International Standards, the Licensing Department of the Ministry of Transport may be willing to license these vehicles.

Could you be so kind to assist in obtaining copies of any existing regulations/standards which govern the certification and operation of such vehicles on highways.

Thanks very much for your assistance. I look forward in anticipation to your favorable response.