ID: nht72-3.18

DATE: 05/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: GO Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1972, requesting an opinion as to whether "Abcite," a product of the Dupont Company, may be used in campers and "mini-mobile homes."

Whether a particular glazing material may be used in motor vehicles or campers depends upon whether the material meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (49 CFR 571.205), which incorporates, as you indicate, the American National Standards Institute Standard Z26.1-1966. That standard also specifies the locations in motor vehicles where specific materials may be used.

Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers. While we are not familiar with the phrase "mini-mobile home," we consider mobile homes to be trailers, and the standard does not apply to them. With respect to campers, Standard No. 205 allows the use of any material meeting the requirements of Z26 in any location except for forward-facing windows. Forward-facing camper windows may not be manufactured of item 6 and item 7 material (AS6, AS7), but may be manufactured of any of the other materials (AS1-AS5, AS8-AS11) that meets the requirements of Z26.

Whether Abcite conforms to the requirements for glazing allowed to be used in campers is a determination that should be made in the first instance by its manufacturer, Dupont. If the manufacturer determines that such use is within the requirements of Standard No. 205, he is required by section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that the material conforms to the requirements of the standard. He is also required by the marking requirements in Section 6 of Z26.1-1966 to indicate on the material its AS designation. Any material that is so certified can be used in the camper locations listed on the standard as appropriate for that designated type.

ID: nht92-5.29

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/92 from Guy Dorleans to Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1992, asking for confirmation that your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is correct.

As you state, "Standard No. 108 specifies different levels of photometric requirements for signal lamps, depending on the number of lighted sections which they have", whether there are one, two, or three such sections (see Figure 1b). You further state that "the use of light-emitting diodes does not permit to distinguish at a glance several distinct lighted sections." Thus, when a single diode fails, "a variation will be easy to identify." Where "light-emitting diodes . . . are used in quantities bigger than three, we consider that the provision for 'lamps with three lighted sections' applies a fortiori, because its severeness will keep the user on the safe side, even though the standard does not specifically address the problems raised by the multiple light sources."

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference two different SAE standards for turn signal lamps, J1395 APR85 for vehicles 2032mm or more in overall width, and J584 NOV84 for narrower vehicles. SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. Section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamps on vehicles to which SAE J1395 APR85 applies are to be made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J584 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections." Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

ID: aiam0347

Dear Mr.Jones: The 'Flash Notice' that you forwarded to us on April 23, 1971, and you telephone conversation of May 10 with Mike Peskoe of my staff have raised certain questions concerning your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.'; On page 1 of the 'Flash Notice' you state, 'But, so far as testin goes, it's apparent the risk for retreaders not to do their own testing to prove compliance is substantially greater than anticipated.' You proceed to discuss whether manufacturers should test their own tires in order to prove 'due care.' As part of this discussion you refer to the statement in the preamble in the Notice of March 5, 1970, concerning what could suffice for a valid certification, and state that we have told you that this preamble is 'still basically valid.'; There is evidently some confusion as to the purpose and meaning of 'du care' under the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act, and also as to the difference between compliance and certification.; A manufacturer of a retreaded tire that did not comply with th standard but who used due care in manufacturing the tire to comply with the standard cannot be subject to a civil penalty. The answer to your hypothetical question on page 3, 'What if due care is used, but the tire doesn't comply' is that the manufacturer cannot be subject to a civil penalty in this situation. (He may, however, be required to send defect notification letters and be urged to recall.) We do not agree that one is 'guilty until proven innocent.' A finding of noncompliance must first be made by the agency. Once the agency, through testing or otherwise, discovers a noncompliance, it is then up to the manufacturer to show that he exercised due care. Although the issue of due care is one that is ultimately decided by a court, the agency, in determining whether to seek a civil penalty, will make a preliminary determination on this issue.; You asked in your conversation of May 10 that we amplify what is mean by 'due care.' 'Due care' is a legal concept embodying the care that would be exercised by a reasonable man under the circumstances, and the circumstances of each situation must be considered in determining whether due care has been exercised. The set of circumstances set forth in the preamble of March 5, 1970, might constitute 'due care' in a large number of situations. To be sure, a manufacturer who tests his own tires might be considered in some cases to have exercised more care to insure that his tires complied with the standard than one who relied on tests by a third person on other tires that were similarly manufactured. Each potential case would be considered, and decided, by the agency on the facts peculiar to it.; The 'Flash Notice' also motions 'certification' in such a way tha clarification of the term is indicated. First, all tires manufactured after the standard's effective date must be certified. Certification is accomplished, as you know, by placing the symbol 'DOT' on the tire in a prescribed location. In practice, all tires will have the symbol 'DOT' affixed to them after January 1, 1972, as manufacturers could not manufacture these tires without placing the mark on them. The answer to your question on page 3, 'What if one certified does not comply' is that even if the tire fails to comply, if the manufacturer has exercised due care, in the view of the court, in manufacturing the tires to comply to the standard, his certification will not be considered 'false or misleading,' and no civil penalty can be imposed. The same 'due care' that will suffice for compliance will suffice for purposes for certification. Manufacturers' efforts should be directed to manufacturing tires that conform to the standard.; Your 'Flash Notice' also incorrectly explains certain provisions of th standard. First, with reference to which tests a particular tire must pass, S5.1.1 requires each tire to be able to pass every test, but when a single tire, during the agency testing, is subject to one of the groups of tests specified in S5.1.1, that particular tire will not be tested further. As indicated to you on the phone, this is similar to the test procedure of Standard No. 109. It merely reflects that fact that certain test, such as strength, normally destroy the tire.; Your statement on page 4 concerning the labeling requirements, tha retreaders can 'buff off the labeling required in retreading without worry, since it is displayed in other areas,' is unclear to us. The standard requires each item of information required by Standard No. 109 to be retained in at least one location (Standard No. 109 requires each item to be on both sidewalls) on the complete retreaded tire. Retreaders must therefore take care that each tire retains the original marking to this extent.; Finally, with reference to the physical dimensions requirements o S5.1.2, the 10 percent tolerance refers only to the maximum dimension, with respect to the section width specified in the tables of Standard No. 109. Your reference on page 4 to '10% under' is incorrect, since no minimum measurement is stated in the standard. However, the section width is a variable in computing the size factor which must be at least the minimum specified for the tire in the tables in the Appendix.; If you have further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0368

Dear Mr. West: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses (sic), either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ('safety standards') and other regulations.; Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bik Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Act'). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a 'motor vehicle' primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered 'motor vehicles' because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with 'special features for occasional off-road use' it is a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' ('MPV') under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.; Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import either in kit form or as an assemblage, is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under the Act. It is not a chassis- cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of 'manufacturer,' Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.; Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standard are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon importation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.; If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer-manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' and the assemblage an 'incomplete vehicle' as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to S 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in S 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies*, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a 'guideline' before January 1, 1972, because the S 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a *de facto* certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a S568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.; You have also asked if it is possible to 'retail the unit in it present form with an item of equipment on it' that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.; In closing, I want to call your attention to Section 110(e) of the Ac and 49 CFR S 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of S 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.; If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them fo you.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4355

Dear Mr. Chen: This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certai rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of th vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted 'R', are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three systems of lamps, 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D', 'E', 'F' (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.; >>>1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective tur signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This system is permissible as long as ABC and DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No.108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple function. This system is permissible as long a ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functions that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.; >>>2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazar warning system would not operate through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does not mandate use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only 'at least one' on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.; >>>3. The third system differs from the second in that the two mos outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be located 'as far apart as practicable'. In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the 'practicability' requirement as met.; >>>4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lam system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operational restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to section 3.; Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for th turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 104 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would appear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and not more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement (d), i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement assuming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, by arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.; In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combine the condition of your first two questions and attached a table of 'detailed operating states' of the rear lamps, which incorporated three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp 'on' and, individually, the right or left turn signal as 'on'. Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal lamp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal. In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c *Stop Lamps*, August 1970, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns 'Fig. a', 'Fig. b', and 'Fig. c' depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamps. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the 'Operating State' table appears acceptable.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0301

Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which yo submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.; >>>1. 'In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems.'<<<; We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act of Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the 'position' of the child seat nor can they be 'exceeded.' You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: 'This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below.'; >>>2. 'Bobby-Mac can only be used in cars with standard auto seat bel which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reason auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener.'<<<; You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply wit paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make certain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.; With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengthener if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumers will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirements of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.; >>>3. 'When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must b used on auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6 inches above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket.'<<<; In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must b placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely 'older' or 'taller.' In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.; >>>4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, 'For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats,' as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.<<<; Please write if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1939

Dear Mr. Weber: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting a interpretation of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a described lamp design.; In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that 'no clearance lamp may b combined optically with any taillamp.' The lamp design that interests you has separate compartments for the taillamp and for the clearance lamp. You are concerned that at a distance it will be difficult to distinguish the two lamps, and you feel that this violates the spirit of S4.4.1.; We have no objection to the design of this lamp. Since the clearanc lamp and taillamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined, and since Standard No. 108 does not specify a minimum separation distance between the two lamps, the lamp design foes not violate S4.4.1.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0083

Dear Mr. Farmer: 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 th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 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.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam1486

Dear Mr. Baskin: #This is in reply to your letter of March 21 and Apri 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a 'blemish' must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards. #There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and treadwear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires. #We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1039

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.; The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner W. Pudinski was place in Docket 69-19, Notice No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.; The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 10 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or trunk lids open or otherwise having lights and reflectors obscured by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;