NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: 1983-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Wayne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Eddie Wayne 4306 Emmet Drive Erie, Pennsylvania 16511

Dear Mr. Wayne:

Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could not be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.

This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impose a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four-wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.22

DATE: 02/07/79

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing of "P-type" tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for "P-type" tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.

NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG traction testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.

ID: nht78-3.42

DATE: 11/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: McClintock Donovan Carson & Roach

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1978, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You specifically asked what a lessor's responsibility is with regard to the certifications on the disclosure statement. The lessor, as transferor of a vehicle, is required to certify, to the best of his knowledge, as to the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer. A lessor should assume that an odometer is accurate unless he has reason to believe otherwise. Any reasonable belief that the odometer is wrong should be reflected on the disclosure statement by checking, in the first set of certifications, either box 2 or 3, as appropriate. In situations where the lessor has no knowledge as to the accuracy of the odometer reading, he should not state that the mileage is in error because to the best of his knowledge it is correct.

With regard to the second set of certifications, the lessor should check box 1 unless he altered or knows that the lessee or some other person altered the odometer. Since your client is concerned about the possibility that the lessee may alter the odometer, he may find it advisable to protect himself by requiring the lessee to indemnify him in the event of liability under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. He may also add a statement on the disclosure form that the vehicle was subject to a lease or was otherwise outside of his control.

ID: nht78-1.24

DATE: 03/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Dorsey Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of February 9, 1978, to Roger Tilton of my staff asking whether Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that you mount on your vehicles (Illegible Word) retreaded tires containing the DOT symbol.

The standard in paragraph S5.1.3 requires that after January 1, 1978, all used tires mounted on vehicles covered by the standard be manufactured in accordance with Standard No. 119 as evidenced by the symbol DOT on the sidewall. Therefore, you would not be permitted to mount used tires on your vehicles that do not contain the DOT symbol.

Retreaded tires are not used tires. Retreaded tires must comply with all applicable Federal requirements pertaining to them. In the case of retreaded nonpassenger car tires, there are no applicable Federal standards. The DOT symbol is only marked on these tires to which a Federal standard applies. Therefore, retreaded nonpassenger car tires do not need to be marked with the DOT symbol and, in fact, should not be marked with that symbol. Retreaded nonpassenger car tires without DOT symbols can be mounted on your vehicles in full compliance with Standard No. 120. If the tires in your possession have the DOT symbol on them, they can still be mounted on your vehicles. The tire retreader would be responsible for the misapplication of the DOT symbol to these tires.

ID: nht76-3.28

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Recreational Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1976, request for information on the requirements for a manufacturer of a light utility trailer which is designed to carry snowmobiles. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be acquired.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.

Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag which must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

At this time the only Federal safety standards applicable to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire and Rim Selection for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The enclosed information sheet also explains how to acquire those regulations.

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, became effective on January 1, 1975, in the case of trailers which the manufacturer has decided to equip with air brakes. Thus trailers which you manufacture on or after January 1, 1975, which utilize air brakes must meet the air brake standard.

After you have reviewed the regulations I have referred to, please contact me if you have any further questions.

ID: nht74-4.45

DATE: 01/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rogue Racing

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Gregory asked me to respond to your January 3, 1974, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposal to modify the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle would affect importation of The Thing.

The proposed modification would reclassify vehicles like The Thing as passenger vehicles, but it would not prohibit their importation. Volkswagen would have to incorporate several additional safety features in The Thing to meet the higher standards for passenger cars.

We have not made a final decision on the proposed redefinition. Volkswagen as the manufacturer of The Thing might be able to give you a better evaluation of The Thing's future than we have at present.

Sincerely,

January 3, 1974

Dr. James B. Gregory

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A recent article in the January issue of Four Wheeler magazine states that NHTSA plans to modify the definition of multi-purpose vehicles to exclude the Volkswagen 181 (The Thing). As a manufacturer and wholesaler of accessories for the Thing, we are very concerned how the change in definition will effect the importation of the Thing and/or the safety specification which must be met before the Thing may be sold in this country. We would appreciate any information which is now available, and any future information concerning specification required for the Thing. Thank you.

Joshua E. Bruner

ID: nht74-5.42

DATE: 03/20/74

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

TO: Western Auto Associate Store

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for information on Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and on a "Petition #2" concerning exemption of "Mopeds" from the motorcycle regulatory category.

Standard 119 applies to tires, not vehicles, and therefore it regulates only the manufacturer of the tire, not a retailer of vehicles like yourself.

The "Petition #2" to which you refer was filed by Mr. Robert Smith of Ohio Bikes, 631 Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, asking for a redefinition of "motorcycle" to exclude Moped-type vehicles, and a change in the lighting standard to exclude Moped-type vehicles from the present motorcycle requirements.

Yours truly,

WESTERN AUTO ASSOCIATE STORE

RICHARD B. DYSON A'SST. CHIEF COUNSEL DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

I thank you for your responsive letter Feb 4, 1974 concerning my inquiry on Status of Solex reports. In your letter you(Illegible Word) to a new standard affecting tires on mopels. Standard #119 effective March 1, 1975. Could you please furnish me with the specific requirements of this standard.

Also(Illegible Words) of a new Petition, referred to as Petition #2 which is currently before the D.O.T. asking that some of these requirements on mopels be(Illegible Word) to the extent that they not be classified with motorcycles but more in the cycle classification. Could you please furnished us with more detailed information regarding this Petition.

THANK YOU.

ID: nht91-4.42

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ken Hanna (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In reference to our last conversation regarding the manufacturing of sealed beam bulbs for antique cars. As per your suggestion, we are gathering data so that we may submit a comprehensive petition with all pertinent information included requesting reinstatement of SAE J579A.

Since it may take up to two years to reinstate SAE J579A and we are anxious to get our sealed beam headlight project underway, we would like to manufacture bulbs in the interim which meet J579C specifications in terms of candlepower and photometrics. However, since these bulbs will lack various identification nomenclature on the face of the lenses which are required by SAE J579C we would like to market these bulbs with clear identification on the packaging identifying them "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use". I discussed this possibility with you in our last conversation and as I recall you felt that NHTSA had no jurisdiction over products which are not intended for highway use and do not fall under the same regulations and specifications required of products which are intended for highway use.

Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not we will be violating any NHTSA restrictions by manufacturing and marketing these bulbs in this manner.

ID: nht68-4.23

DATE: 01/01/68 EST

FROM: Joseph R. O'Gorman -- Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Services

TO: A. Nathan Darby

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George Smyth (A37; Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-75 from Richard B. Dyson (signed by Z. Taylor Vinson) to Byron A. Crampton; Also attached to letter dated 8-27-68 from Eugene B. Laskin to Barry G. Seitz (Std. 203; Std. 204); Also attached to letter dated 3-1-68 from George C. Nield to Earl Allgaier

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1967, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the installation of dual controls on passenger cars.

The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not prohibit the installation of dual controls provided none of the requirements specified by the standards are eliminated or adversely affected by such installation. In other words, if a dealer or manufacturer modifies a conforming vehicle, then he assumes the responsibility for the vehicle's certification. We enclose a complete set of standards now in effect for your information.

In the event that dual steering controls and other controls are provided on driver training vehicles, the applicability of the appropriate standards is confined to the primary controls, For example, under Standard No. 101, the person seated behind the secondary steering control need not be able to reach all controls.

We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing safety standards.

ID: nht71-3.19

DATE: 06/10/71

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

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1971, concerning the marking requirements in the proposed amendment to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (Docket No. 71-1; Notice 1). These requirements are only proposed at present, as is their effective date, and do not represent the agency's final decision on the matter. If the agency determines to amend the standard, and before any compliance with new requirements is required, a "final rule" will be issued that is based on the proposed rule but may differ in some respects from it. The final rule will specify an effective date for these new requirements which, in this instance, will probably be later than the effective date proposed.

You ask whether the effective date of the proposed standard would apply to the manufacture of the glazing, or to the fitting of the material into the vehicle. Standard No. 205 applies to "glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses", and the effective date of any amendment to this standard refers to the date of manufacture of the glazing material, and not to its fitting into the vehicle.

Your second question, whether we will accept your marking without a hyphen between the "DOT" symbol and your code mark, has been answered in our letter to you of May 26, 1971.

I hope this clarifies the situation.