NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam4895

Dear Mr. Hanna: This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations. You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on 'antique cars.' Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are 'for display purposes only and not approved for highway use.' Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for 'display purposes only.' The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2351

Dear Mr. Downey: #This is in response to your telephone conversation o June 3 and June 21, 1976, with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to components of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars. #The performance of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars is the subject of Standard No. 105-75. The only standards that apply directly to components of a hydraulic drake system are Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, and standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*. Standard No. 106-74 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. These terms are defined in the standard as follows: #>>>'Brake hose means a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. #'Brake hose end fitting' means a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose. #'Brake hose assembly' means a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle. #'Vacuum tubing connector' means a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing.<<< #Please note that vacuum tubing connectors are not presently subject to any safety standards. #Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specifies that #>>>Every manufacturer or distributer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributer or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributer the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a container in which such item is delivered... .<<< #With respect to an item of motor vehicle equipment for which there exists no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this section as not requiring any certification. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4896

Dear Mr. Hanna: This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations. You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on 'antique cars.' Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are 'for display purposes only and not approved for highway use.' Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for 'display purposes only.' The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0494

Dear Dr. Lundholm: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, i reference to our occupant crash protection program.; I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.; In regard to your question number one, we require that the interloc system be sequentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.; With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standards which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to undertake such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.; In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of an plans by insurance companies to require seat/shoulder belt usage in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident.; You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt design often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination--Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.; I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in ou motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam4356

Dear Mr. De Nijs: This responds to your letter to this office, in which you asked whethe you could import into the United States foreign truck tire casings that do not have either a DOT symbol or a tire identification number on the sidewall. You stated in your letter that you would either retread these tires yourself or sell them to other retreaders to be retreaded. Subject to certain conditions, you may import these casings.; The general provision dealing with the importation of items of moto vehicle equipment such as tires are set forth in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)). That section makes it unlawful for any person to import into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date that an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the equipment (tire) is in conformity with the standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.119) took effect on March 1, 1975. Standard No. 119 requires that truck tires and other tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars pass certain performance tests and be labeled with certain safety information, including the tire identification number. The tire manufacturer is required to certify that each of its truck tires complies with Standard No. 119 by permanently molding the symbol DOT into or onto the sidewall that were manufactured on or after March 1, 1975 would not be in compliance with Standard NO. 119 and could not legally be imported into the United States.; However, the agency reached a somewhat different conclusion wit respect to the permissibility of importing truck tire casings in a June 18, 1981 letter from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Roy Littlefield (copy enclosed). In that letter, the agency concluded that truck tire casings that have less than 2/32 inch of tread and which are imported *solely* to be retreaded are *not* 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. This conclusion means that truck tire casings that meet these conditions may be imported into the United States. Please note that you cannot legally import any non-complying casings that will not be retreaded before they are used on the public roads.; If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free t contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-5.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/23/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO ORRON KEE (OCC 10925)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked how the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/23/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO ORRON KEE (OCC 10925)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked ho w the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish infor mation about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht89-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: MARK F. HOLMES

TO: STEVE WOOD -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARK F. HOLMES; REDBOOK A34-VSA 108[A][2][A]; STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3980

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Prior to our phone conversation, enclosed please review a bit of information concerning two new multi-purpose products, THE STROBALARM, and THE SPOTLIGHT ALARM that may be of interest to your Company.

For a number of years, I have studied all the car alarm systems that are sold on the market today. During my studies, I have learned that all of these alarms are basically the same with just a bit of variation. There similarity begins with the sounding of a ordinary siren that cannot be seen or detected in a crowded parking lot, or on a dark street covered or uncovered by light. These sirens do very little to ward off a thief, and they offer no real protection for the vehicle, it's valuables, and it' s owner.

The Strobalarm, with it's bright strobe light and 12-volt filament, can be incorporated into any existing alarm system. This unique concept will easily ward off a potential thief by exposing him to the people in his immediate surrounding. The Strobalar m attracts attention like bees to honey. It allows the endangered vehicle to be seen by many in any given area during the course of an evening. It is just as effective in the rain, snow, and fog, as it is on sunny days!

*An example of just how powerful and noticeable a strobe light is can be seen by viewing an airplane in flight during the night. The unique feature of the Strobalarm is that it uses very little energy to produce it's flash.*

The Strobalarm has been reconstructed and redesigned a number of times with the automobile and it's owner in mind. The incorporation of a CAR LOCATOR with its remote control key case is evidence of that. The car locator will allow an owner to locate hi s or her vehicle from a far away distance of 400 feet. The 12-volt filament can be turned on and remain on with the same key case. This will allow the owner to see who may be standing around the vehicle.

The Carfinder, which is the latest device for finding cars, only allows the head lights to blink off and on. But in a crowded parking lot, and if you happen to have a small vehicle surrounded by larger vehicles these blinking lights will not be seen. T he blinking head lights may also be mistaken for something else such as, an alarm going off, someone parked with their headlights on, or the simple switching of headlights to high beams. The Carfinder does not work with vehicles that have hidden headlig hts, such as Corvettes, Porches 928, 944, and Texas AMs.

The DISTRESS EMERGENCY FLARE SIGNAL, would serve useful during emergencies, such as highway break-downs. With the use of pink color lens the Distress flare Signal will eliminate the danger of having to use those pink colored torches that are seen on hig hways at night. Most insurance companies offer premiums on cars equipped with passive alarm, the Strobalarm is such an alarm.

The Spotlight Alarm, which is designed for smaller vehicles with a little less headroom, is equipped with Halogen Beam Lights that blink off and on with the assistance of the key case control. The Spotlight, like the Strobalarm, can be used only as a ca r locator and/or it can be connected to any alarm system.

The STROBALARM and the SPOTLIGHT ALARM are ideas of today and with newer cars having more windshield, side and rear window, these ideas would certainly be items of interest in the future.

Mr. Wood, if you find the alarm or just the Car Locator with or without the built-in Distress to be of interest, feel free to notify me. I would be more than willing to come to your office at my own expense to present the technical drawing for the simpl e to use, easy to install and cost efficient alarm device. A device that is easy to build and does not exceed the cost of systems already on the market.

A preliminary patent search has already been concluded and a disclosure document has been filed with the U.S. Patent Office for Patentability of these concepts.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-4.48

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Butler Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your September 22, 1975, letter concerning safety standards applicable to your 1975 Ford Custom Wagon. Your letter was referred to this agency by Senator Magnuson.

I am enclosing a brochure entitled Standards which briefly lists the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the vehicles to which they apply.

Most of the standards were initially applied to passenger cars because they accounted for the vast majority of traffic deaths and injuries. Your Custom Wagon is classified for the purposes of our standards as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV). Each particular type of vehicle, such as a car, small or large truck, van, bus, or motorcycle, has its own design characteristics and configuration, with widely different causes of crash injury and fatality. Since the original Federal standards were established in 1967, effective January 1, 1968, we have been in the process of extending the applicability of our current standards and of preparing new standards where appropriate to other vehicle types, including MPV's. For example, effective January 1, 1976, all trucks and MPV's with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to be equipped with combination lap and shoulder belts with inertial retractors, just as has been required of passenger cars since September 1973. With the constantly improving accident investigation information on how and why particular injuries occur in particular types of vehicles, we expect to be able to determine which safety items are necessary and will do the most good on all vehicles. We will then issue appropriate standards as rapidly as possible.

I appreciate your concern over the safety of our motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Enclosure: "Standards"

United States Senate -- COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

November 3, 1975

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I am enclosing for your information a letter that I received from Mr. Charles F. Butler who complains that his 1975 Ford Custom Wagon does not need to comply with many of the federal motor vehicle standards. He has asked that I look into this problem.

As you may know, the Commerce Committee has a long-standing record of concern about the exclusions for multi-purpose vehicles from the motor vehicle safety standards. I request that you provide Mr. Butler with the justification for these exclusions and send me a copy of your response to him.

Sincerely yours,

WARREN G. MAGNUSON -- Chairman

Enclosure

September 22, 1975

Honorable Warren Magnuson, Chairman -- Senate Commerce Committee, United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Recently, I had occasion to purchase a 1975 Ford Custom Wagon for personal use. It is a van type of vehicle with windows all around and seating for eight passengers. As you may know, this type of vehicle is growing in popularity for family transportation.

Since the vehicle is for personal use, it is registered as a passenger vehicle by the State of Maryland and my insurance rates reflect that status.

Unfortunately, under federal regulations it is classified as a Multi-purpose Vehicle (MVP) and, therefore, exempt from some of the safety requirements that must be on passenger cars. The most notable is the lack of any head restraint for front seat passengers. I consider this a most dangerous situation because the bucket seats they supply are below shoulder level thereby inviting severe injury if the vehicle is struck from the rear. I am still searching for headrests to correct the problem. The only other alternative will be new seats at a cost of $ 140.00 each.

Ford advertises and sells these vehicles for passenger use, not commercial. There seems to be a gap in the federal safety regulations that requires closing immediately. While other deficiencies also exist (no energy-absorbing steering column etc) the head restraint is the most serious. Any vehicle that can be registered as a passenger vehicle should be required to have these basic safety devices. While it would do me no good, I would urge that your Committee, through its oversight function, look into these problems.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles F. Butler -- President, BUTLER ASSOCIATES, INC.

ID: 10925

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
Post Office Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101, which until recently required manufacturers to disclose information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles. In particular, you asked how the requirement would apply to vehicles certified to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a June 26, 1995, final rule in which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rescinded section 575.101 (60 FR 32918). As a result of this decision, a vehicle manufacturer is no longer required to furnish information about the stopping performance of passenger cars and motorcycles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:575#105#135 d:7/26/95