NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht92-1.32

DATE: 12/09/92

FROM: DANIEL K. UPHAM -- PRESIDENT, SYS TEK CORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: SUBJECT: COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS, NEW PRODUCT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DANIEL K. UPHAM (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-17-89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR (STD. 108)

TEXT: We are a new company located in Southern California involved in new product development and manufacturing. We are currently designing a new product that can be used in motor vehicles as an advertising or silent communications device and we would like to be sure that we are not violating any local or federal laws. That being the case I spoke on the telephone with Mr. George Shefflett who suggested that we contact your office for an official opinion even though he believed there did not appear to be a problem.

The product we have in mind is a portable lighted message display using LED technology, that could be mounted inside the vehicle to the side rear or rear window. It will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the cars electrical harness. This is an after market product sold through auto parts stores or various other consumer outlets.

We have reviewed the California Vehicle Code and are aware of the general constraints such as colors, view obstruction, light brightness, etc. Frankly we have found no serious obstacles to our endeavor at this point and we would like to hear your concerns and suggestions with regard to our idea. We would also appreciate any suggestions you may have as to what other agencies or organizations we might need to confer with before we make our final decisions.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

ID: nht94-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: David L. Ori -- Manager Vehicle Control Division, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation

TO: Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David Ori (A42; STD. 205; Part 567

TEXT: I would like to thank you for the assistance you gave to one of my staff members, Kris Singer, when she recently telephoned you regarding Federal glazing standards relating to limousines. Since the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is addressing this issue at the present time, I would appreciate your assistance in confirming the information which Mrs. Singer received.

You explained that limousines which seat less than ten persons are categorized as passenger cars for the purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 (FMVSS 205). As such, these vehicles may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tintin g product which does not meet FMVSS 205. This prohibition also applies to vehicle modifications completed during the second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process. Further, the company which alters the original vehicle is required to ce rtify that the finished product is still in compliance with FMVSS 205.

Limousines which seat ten or more persons are categorized as buses and, therefore, would not be restricted regarding the use of sun screening products on windows located behind the driver's area of the vehicle. These vehicles would also require certific ation from the second stage manufacturer of continued compliance with FMVSS 205.

I would appreciate receiving your confirmation of the above information, at your earliest convenience, at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Room 104, T & S Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120. If there is any additional information whic h you feel may be pertinent to Pennsylvania's efforts to address this issue, please include it with your response, or contact me at (717) 787-3184.

ID: nht89-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1989

FROM: JOSEPH PERRY

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: IMPORTING A KIT CAR

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO JOSEPH PERRY FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; IMPORT REG.) TEXT:

I would like to inquire as to the rules and regulations pertaining to the importing of a kit car. I have been in contact with the manufacturer in England and have been told that they will supply certification that the windshield supplied with the kit wi ll be in accordance with the most recent DOT specification, I believe that it complies with SA1. The other problem area with kit cars appears to be the lights. I plan on using only parts which will be purchased in the U.S. The drive train: engine, clu tch and gearbox, as well as all other parts from a 1987 Ford Mustang which are required to meet EPA regulations will be installed on the car during assembly.

The body chassis unit, possibly two boxes of used and reconditioned suspension parts (Ford Cortina MK III or IV) and interior seats and trim in other boxes. I would like to know if it is acceptable to have all window glass and doors fitted to the body u nit before shipping to best assure its arrival in one piece. The doors which are used with this car are standard production Ford and are usually fitted at the factory on all kits sold.

I believe the question that I require answered is: Will fitting the windows and doors to the body unit be considered an acceptable assembly to import a car kit? As the interior, suspension, dash, wiring and steering and wheels will not be installed.

Thank you for any assistance and information that you might be able to give me.

ID: nht74-5.6

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Douglas F. Welebir, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 28, 1973, File No. 1041, requesting information on the Federal installation requirements for safety belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (formerly titled "Seat belt installation"), required safety belts in all designated seating positions of all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Similar requirements were instituted for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured after July 1, 1971. The Toyota Land Cruiser is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If it were manufactured before July 1, 1971, no installation requirement would have applied. It should be noted that seat belts were not factory-installed in some Land Cruisers, and we know of one Arizona dealer who failed to install seatbelts in a Land Cruiser built after that date.

In answer to your second question, the Land Cruiser did not have any exemption under 15 U.S.C. @ 1410 or any other section of the Act.

ENC.

December 28, 1973

Director National Highway Safety Bureau

I represent a young man injured in an automobile accident primarily because of the lack of seat belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the vehicle safety standards enacted pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 relating to the installation of seat belts in new automobiles.

I would also appreciate knowing whether or not Toyota Motor Company of the United States has been exempt from compliance with this Act under 15 USC 1410 or any other section.

I thank you for your assistance and helpfulness in this important matter.

DOUGLAS F. WELEBIR

ID: nht94-5.49

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: David L. Ori -- Manager Vehicle Control Division, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation

TO: Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David Ori (A42; STD. 205; Part 567

TEXT: I would like to thank you for the assistance you gave to one of my staff members, Kris Singer, when she recently telephoned you regarding Federal glazing standards relating to limousines. Since the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is addressing this issue at the present time, I would appreciate your assistance in confirming the information which Mrs. Singer received.

You explained that limousines which seat less than ten persons are categorized as passenger cars for the purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 (FMVSS 205). As such, these vehicles may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product which does not meet FMVSS 205. This prohibition also applies to vehicle modifications completed during the second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process. Further, the company which alters the original vehicle is required to certify that the finished product is still in compliance with FMVSS 205.

Limousines which seat ten or more persons are categorized as buses and, therefore, would not be restricted regarding the use of sun screening products on windows located behind the driver's area of the vehicle. These vehicles would also require certification from the second stage manufacturer of continued compliance with FMVSS 205.

I would appreciate receiving your confirmation of the above information, at your earliest convenience, at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Room 104, T & S Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120. If there is any additional information which you feel may be pertinent to Pennsylvania's efforts to address this issue, please include it with your response, or contact me at (717) 787-3184.

ID: nht68-1.47

DATE: 01/12/68

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

TO: Headquarters 26th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing (USAFE)

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1967, to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, requesting information on the enforcement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 with reference to vehicles imported by servicemen.

Specifically you have asked:

"a. If (1) A foreign made vehicle, or (2) An American made vehicle, which was purchased prior to 1 January 1968, is imported into the Continental United States subsequent to 1 January 1968, must the vehicle conform to the standards presently established?"

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards affect only vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Vehicles manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, need not conform.

"b. Is there any exception for vehicles purchased after 1 January 1968 and imported after that date from the safety standards?"

I enclose a copy of the regulations promulgated jointly by the Department of Transportation and the Department of the Treasury which appeared in the Federal Register on January 10 which govern importation of vehicles. Section 12.80 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(7) set out exemptions which are applicable, generally, to American citizens including servicemen (for whom no special exemption is provided).

Currently we have no information as to which foreign made vehicles will conform to the standards. I agree that information concerning which cars would be helpful to overseas military personnel and I am hopeful that eventually we may be able to implement your suggestion.

For your information, we plan, in the near future, to inaugurate an information program for United States military and civilian personnel overseas. Among those who will be contacted in this regard are the legal assistance officers of each of the Staff Judge Advocates of the Military Services.

ID: nht68-3.48

DATE: 08/05/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Luis M. Neco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 25, 1968, concerning the motor vehicle safety requirement for head restraints and your proposed specification for the installation of transparent partitions separating the front and rear compartments of taxicabs.

A head restraint will be required on all passenger cars manufactured after December 31, 1968. Our findings based on passenger vehicle collision research clearly indicate the use of head restraints to be one of the most effective safety measures that can be provided for the driver and front seat passenger. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a news release on this subject and a report entitled "Backrest and Head Support Design for Rear-End Collision Protection" published by the SAE, January 10, 1968.

I appreciate the problem of driver assault. However, we do not believe the deletion of a proven safety device is an appropriate way to resolve the problem. A positive approach, and one that is practical, would be to develop a suitable partition, and we know of no reason why this can not be accomplished practically, with head restraints and shoulder belts installed. The partition design should provide the current level of safety for(Illegible Word) occupants. I refer here to the use of laminated safety glass with energy absorbing characteristics of today's windshields in a frame that would retain the glass during a collison and that is not hazardous to head impact.

Giving consideration to all the factors involved, we are convinced that head restraints offer significant benefits in reduced "whiplash" injuries, and are certain that you can resolve the partition problem to accomplish both your objective of protecting the driver from others, and of reducing his chances of injury in a crash.

ID: nht73-4.46

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kesler Precision Optics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1973, enclosing an accessory passenger car mirror that you feel is a detriment to motor vehicle safety.

Since the unit incorporates two convex mirrors it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors for original equipment on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. However, the Standard does not cover aftermarket items such as the unit you sent, and its sale is therefore not prohibited under Federal regulations.

Yours truly,

July 12, 1973

National Highway Traffic safety Administration Chief of Counsel

Attention: Mr. D. Vinson

As per our telephone conversation yesterday I am writting to confirm this report on the Blue Fox matter. I also sending package of mirror product so you gentlemen can see how unsafe it is to the driving public. I have myself researched this type of design and I know this could be alot safer being impact resistance and distortion free. The most important this product states it eliminates blind spot left and right. Also the mirror cuts off center viewing area on all standard automobile mirrors when this mirror is attached over other original mirror on the vehicle. This mirror is being distributed throughout the nation in auto(Illegible Word). Like(Illegible Word) here on the west coast and Aid stores there on the east coast. Now the public does not know this type of mirror design until they try one out, but then the person driving with it might be to late of finding out by already having an accident. To your judgement.

Sincerely Yours,

R. Kesler

Please send confirm report of Administration decision to Kesler Precision Optics.

ID: 7244

Mr. Al Twyford
Suite 1200
140 Mayhew Way
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Dear Mr. Twyford:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:5/14/92

ID: nht90-4.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1990

FROM: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Paul J. Rice to Carol Zeitlow (A37; Std. 101; Std. 104; Std. 108; Std. 201

TEXT:

As you may recall, I spoke with you on the phone regarding the following subjects. You had suggested I write you with my questions.

1. In my August 1st letter I asked the question, "When a hazard warning light (four-way flasher) and a rear stop light are together on a vehicle, which should be the over-riding feature?". Your reply of August 27, 1990 stated that the hazard light shoul d always be over-riding. You also stated that you thought the regulations had previously stated either option was acceptable. If this is the case, when did the regulation change and in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling? Possibly, w e have had a misunderstanding since we have noticed that passenger cars are not all designed in this way. Your comments will be appreciated.

Additional questions I asked during an Oct. 9th phone conversation:

2. Question: Is a sun visor was required by FMVSS. Your answer was no.

3. Question: Are there any regulations regarding the type, or quantity of horns required on a vehicle? The answer you gave was no, only a horn was required.

4. Question: According to CFR 49, Section 571.104, there are no regulations regarding the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe, only the frequency of the wipers is egulated? You agreed.

Will you please confirm these answers in writing? Thank you.