NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht68-1.37

DATE: 01/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: United States Auto Club

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Secretary Boyd has asked that we reply to your letter of November 27, 1967. Your letter raises questions concerning joint regulations to be issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Transportation governing the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment subject to motor vehicle safety standards.

You are correct in your understanding that the Act was not intended to apply to vehicles prepared for auto racing or race tracks and not intended for use on the public streets or highways.

The question you raised concerning the use of the words "by bona fide auto vehicle manufacturers" has also been raised by others who have commented on the proposed regulations. Accordingly, you will note that the regulations, a copy of which is attached, have been changed so as to eliminate this phraseology and make it clearer that vehicles intended for "competition" and which "will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads" may be admitted. This provision will not require an affidavit on the part of the importer but merely a declaration to this effect.

We believe that the regulations, as amended, will provide for the unhampered entry of foreign built race cars for the Indianapolis 500 race and other USAC sanctioned events.

ID: nht68-3.46

DATE: 07/31/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Associazione Nazionale Fra Industrie Automobilistiche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 3 to the National Highway Safety Bureau asking "whether the solution given in the enclosed drawing N. 591-1559 of Ferrari is in line with the requirements" of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 211.

This standard states that "wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars . . . shall not incorporate winged projections". The Ferrari plan appears to incorporate such a projection, even though it is recessed. Accordingly the proposed solution by Ferrari does not meet the requirements of Federal standard No. 211.

ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONALE FRA INDUSTRIE AUTOMOBILISTICHE

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

June 3 1968

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard n. 211

Reference is made to your letter of December 21st 1967 and we wish to thank you very much for the explanations about the standard N. 211.

Further we would appreciate it very much your letting us know whether the solution given in the enclosed drawing N. 591-1559 of Ferrari is in line with the requirements concerning "wheel nuts, hub caps and wheel discs".

Thanking you in advance, we remain

Faithfully Yours,

(Illegible Word) Direttore (Francesco Palazzi)

ID: nht71-1.35

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON For Lawrence R. Schneider -- NHTSA

TO: G & D Communications Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 22, 1971, and your phone call to Michael Peskoe of November 15, 1971, requesting a copy of the Consumer Information regulations and asking what penalties may be imposed on manufacturers if their vehicles cannot perform as well as the figures they provide pursuant to the regulation. You stated in the above conversation that you have obtained the volume entitled "Performance Data for New 1971 Passenger Cars and Motorcycles" which contains a copy of the Consumer Information requirements. I have enclosed certain amendments to the Consumer Information regulations which will bring the regulations as they appear in this volume up to date.

With reference to your question regarding penalties for violations of the Consumer Information requirements, Section 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C.@@ 1397, 1398) authorize the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, and up to $ 400,000 for any related series of violations, against manufacturers whose vehicles cannot perform at least as well as the data they supply indicates. In addition, injunctive proceedings may be utilized pursuant to section 110 of the Act (15 U.S.C.@ 1399).

I trust this answers your question. We regret that it was over-looked in our first response to your letter.

ID: nht71-4.13

DATE: 09/18/71

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

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE ASSEMBLIES

This is in reply to your letter of September 3 asking questions about compliance of hydraulic brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106.

With respect to your first two questions, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require that you demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 106 prior to supplying Japanese car manufacturers with brake hose assemblies to be installed on cars intended for export to the United States. If the Japanese vehicle manufacturers request proof of compliance from you (apparently in the form of a certification from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based upon test reports from only one of two test laboratories) such a request is solely a business matter between you and the vehicle manufacturer.

Your third question points out that proposed Standard No. 106 (Docket No. 1-5, Notice 7) would eliminate the specification of braid material for hydraulic brake hoses and asks whether you may implement this "revision" at the present time. Notice 7 is a proposal only, and the current requirements specifying braid material remain in effect until a formal amendment of Standard No. 106 occurs. The brake hose manufacturer's code number, the subject of your fourth question, is also a proposal which may or may not be adopted in the final rule.

ID: 17569.ztv

Mr. Peter Borne
SuperHero Cars Ltd.
6336 Humboldt Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423

Dear Mr. Borne:

This will confirm that we regard as a 1971 motor vehicle the Bat-Mobile you described in your letter of March 12, 1998, as follows:

This is a custom built fiberglass molded body, which has been mounted to a 1971 Chrysler New Yorker Frame. All the running gear and mechanical elements are 1971. The engine . . . has been replaced by the same 1971 Vintage Chrysler 440. This car is registered in Vancouver B.C. as a 1971 New Yorker.

You may import this vehicle pursuant to the declaration that the vehicle is 25 or more years old, which means that it does not have to be brought into conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this exemption does not apply to those items of equipment which are the subject of certain individual Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These items are brake hoses and brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies (if the Bat-Mobile is equipped with them). These items of equipment must conform in order to be imported. Generally, conformance with our requirements is indicated by the DOT symbol which the manufacturer has placed on the item to certify compliance.

We are unable to advise you on the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency for exceptions to the emissions regulations.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office who spoke with you on April 16 (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.5/14/98

ID: 8589r

Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
Dept VER/LB
SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

FAX 07142/73 28 95

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your FAX letter of June 25, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our FAX letter to you of May 28, 1993, provided an interpretation of SAE J588 NOV84, incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You mention the l990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual which refers to SAE J588 September l970, and ask which is the correct SAE reference.

Standard No. 108 was amended with an effective date of December 1, 1990, to substitute "SAE J588 NOV84" for "SAE J588 September 1970" as the U.S. Federal requirement for turn signal lamps used as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches overall width. Turn signal lamps may still be manufactured to the requirements of "SAE J588 September 1970" if they are intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps that were manufactured in accordance with "SAE J588 September 1970." We understand that your earlier letter asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it related to the design of lamps for future production, and trust that this answers your question.

As you have requested, we are also FAXing a copy of Table III. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/8/93

ID: nht80-3.26

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR M. HAENCHEN -- ADMINISTRATOR VEHICLE REGULATIONS VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/15/88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/22/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES' FROM M. IWASE RE INSTALLATION OF TAIL AND STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980, asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section states that lamps "shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle ... that is not designed to be removed except for repair." It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license plate lamps could be mounted on the deck lid.

We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to insure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flamps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy.

Sincerely

ID: nht93-2.50

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Jim Keizer

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Jim Keizer (A41, Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Jay Lee (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Steven C. Friedman (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 6-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 1-19-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT: I'm an individual that has a dream of starting my own small business or repacking or replacing air bags in automobiles.

To begin with, I need to know what legal ramifications might be involved. What kind of liability is needed, etc. Next, I need to know the technical side of the business, such as, must I be certified by the national auto makers and if so how do I get this done?

I also would like to have yur input on whether you feel there is a market for this service, keeping in mind insurance companies savings by having an individual like myself doing this job. The amount of auto recyclers rebuilding cars to help our environment comes into play also.

Please advise me on anything that you might feel would be of assistance to me to start this business. I will appreciate any and all information you can provide.

ID: nht93-5.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1993

FROM: Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, DOT

TITLE: Painted reflex reflectors for passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/13/93 from John Womack to Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This responds to my fax from May 3, 1993, Mr. Womack's reply from May 10, 1993 and our telephone call from today.

I had asked you whether it is permissible to paint reflex reflectors (exterior painting) for motor vehicles and under which conditions. Although you had already told me that it is permissible provided that all requirements of Standard 108 including the referenced SAE J594f are met I have to ask for further information.

1. Does the combination "Plastic + paint" have to meet SAE J576c? (Outdoor exposure test takes three!!!! years so that we cannot start our production now!)

2. Is it sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested according to SAE J576c?

3. If it is not sufficient how can we get an exception to the rule?

I want to highlight again that our production will be changed from painting to 2-color-molding in December 1993. Painting is only a transitional process!

Please protect this request as a confidential business information.

I would appreciate your response until next week.

Thank you very much in advance.

ID: nht68-1.41

DATE: 06/10/68

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: HARRY F. BARR -- VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEERING STAFF GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Barr:

The interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 regarding cable type and bar type brake controls for driver training vehicles described in your letter of May 24 are quite correct. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 does not apply to the installation of add-on driver training brake controls following retail sale of a new car. In the case of installation of add-on driver training brake controls in new cars prior to retail sale, the following apply:

a. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 does not apply to the add-on brake control itself; however, the installation of such controls must not affect compliance of the regular hydraulic brake system to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105.

b. Following installation of a mechanical-type add-on brake control, the installing dealer is responsible for determining that compliance of the regular brake system is not impaired by verifying that the add-on control does not interfere with normal driver access to and application of the regular brake pedal.

Although endorsing your understanding of the requirement imposed by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, I am not endorsing these brake devices or passing on their safety from a crash standpoint.

I appreciate your interest in driver education and training and your efforts to further traffic safety through this program.

Sincerely,