ID: 1985-01.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Giorgio Kirchner Federazione Italiana Fuoristrada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Giorgio Kirchner Segreteria Generale Federazione Italiana Fuoristrada 20131 Milano Via Capranica, 4 ITALY

Dear Mr. Kirchner:

This responds to your letter asking for information about U.S. Federal laws covering tires. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter I sent to a Brazilian tire manufacturer last year, explaining all of the requirements which must be satisfied by a foreign manufacturer selling tires in the United States and enclosing copies of the pertinent regulations.

You stated that you were particularly interested in knowing the meanings and the corresponding values of identification symbols required to appear an sidewalls of tires subject to Standard No. 119. You listed as examples of symbols you were interested in load range and "P.R."

The load range is a letter between "A" and "N", with an A being the lowest load range and N being the highest. Load ranges are designed to tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars because such tires may have identical physical dimensions and, therefore, identical size designations, but widely differing load-carrying capabilities. To ensure that these tires are used only in situations where their load-carrying capability is sufficient, section S6.5(j) of Standard No. 119 requires a letter designating the load range to appear on the sidewall of each tire for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. If you are interested in learning the load-carrying capability of the load ranges assigned to a particular tire size, you should contact one of the standardization organizations listed in section S5.1(b) of the enclosed copy of Standard No. 119.

I believe that the symbol "P.R." refers to the ply rating for a tire. The ply rating is an older system which performed the same function now served by the load range. Under the ply rating system, tires were rated from 2 to 24 plies, with the lower numbers indicating a lesser load-carrying capability. Standard No. 119 does not require that a ply rating appear on the sidewall of tires. I have enclosed a copy of a page from the most recent yearbook published by the American standardization organization, the Tire a Rim Association, which shows how to convert a ply rating to the appropriate load range.

If you need further information or have any questions on the enclosed materials, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 407 7th St. S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20580 (Stati Uniti)

Milano, 27.12.84

Re : U.S. Federal Laws covering Tires

Dear Sirs,

We should like to receive information covering the above mentioned U.S. Federal Laws and the one named FMVSS119.

We are particularly interested in knowing the readings (and the corresponding values) of identification symbols carried on tire sidewalls, i.e.:

Load Range, P.R., etc.

We thank you for your assistance.

We remain Yours faithfully Federazione Italiana Fuoristrada Segreteria Generale Giorgio Kirchner

ID: nht76-3.14

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels."

Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU

January 8, 1976

Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation

We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally.

Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle.

Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves.

This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank.

We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation.

I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car.

We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks.

We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request.

Michael J. Murphy President

cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA

ID: 2906yy

Mr. H. Hurley Haywood
Vice President
Brumos Motor Cars, Inc.
10231 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32225

Dear Mr. Haywood:

This responds to your letter of March 20, 1991 with respect to "the sale of a very limited number of specially built cars in the U.S." Components would be manufactured by Porsche. The chassis would be "a carbon fiber 962 racing tub" with a hand built body. The car could be imported either as an assembled vehicle or as a kit and assembled here. You have asked for information regarding "low volume manufacturers exemptions from certain DOT regulations, emissions, passive restraints, bumper height, and all other pertinent information regarding manufacturing and sale of vehicles in the U.S."

You have not enclosed a photo of the car but your remark that the chassis is a "racing tub" raises the possibility that the vehicle may be intended for racing purposes. Single-seat vehicles imported for competition on closed circuit courses and not used on the public roads are generally not "motor vehicles" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no regulations apply to them. If you wish to pursue this possibility further, please send us more information on the vehicle.

Assuming that the car is subject to the Safety Act, its manufacturer is eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on several grounds. Exemptions of up to three years may be provided a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production was 10,000 units or less in the year preceding the filing of its petition. Alternatively, exemptions of up to two years may be provided covering up to 2,500 vehicles per year if the manufacturer-petitioner can demonstrate that the exemption would facilitate the field evaluation of innovative safety features or low-emission vehicles, or if, in the absence of an exemption, the manufacturer would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is at least equivalent to that of a vehicle complying with all the safety standards. However, the exemption authority extends only to the safety standards. The bumper height standard was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which contains no exemption provisions. The emission standards are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not part of the Department of Transportation, and you will have to contact them as to their requirements.

If the intent is to import a fully assembled motor vehicle into the United States, at the time of entry it will have to bear the certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards (the certification label must also list the standards from which exemptions may have been provided).

If the intent is to ship the vehicle in a disassembled state for assembly by the purchaser or manufacturer's agent in the United States, and if the kit contains l00% of the parts necessary for assembly, we regard the foreign supplier as the "manufacturer", responsible for ensuring compliance with all Federal requirements, including provision of certification.

I enclose an information sheet with respect to the regulations that we administer, and will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. If you prefer to telephone, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/3/9l

ID: nht79-4.1

DATE: 05/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 23, 1979, in which you requested the agency's opinion whether a four-wheel drive hatchback sedan could be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

As was stated by Eileen Leahy of my staff in telephone conversations regarding your request, the agency cannot give an opinion regarding this vehicle's classification for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards without knowing whether the vehicle has any special features for off-road use other than four-wheel drive. An MPV is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3(b) as "a motor vehicle with motor power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Since the vehicle you describe is not constructed on a truck chassis, it must have "special features for occasional offroad operation" in order to qualify as an MPV. The agency interprets this language as requiring that the vehicle contain more than a single feature designed for off-road use. This interpretation is based on the use of the word "features" in the plural rather than the singular in the definition, and on the fact that a vehicle's total design determines its likely use. Four-wheel drive would be useful in snow on public streets, roads and highways, so this feature cannot be determinative of the vehicle's classification if there are no features for off-road use.

Also, the agency is reluctant to exempt a vehicle from compliance with any of its safety standards purely on the grounds that it is equipped with four-wheel drive. There is little likelihood that a vehicle that is identical to a passenger car in every other respect will be used differently than other passenger cars. Under these circumstances, the agency sees no reason for treating such vehicles any differently from other passenger cars with respect to the applicability of safety standards.

Therefore, unless you can provide us with additional information (including, but not limited to, pictures or drawings of the vehicle) concerning other special features of this vehicle that would make it suitable for off-road operation, the agency cannot concur with the opinion expressed in your letter that this vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Also, I would refer you to 49 CFR @ 523.5(b)(2) for a description of some of the characteristics that would be considered as "special features for off-road operation" although that section relates primarily to fuel economy.

If you will provide us with additional information, we will be happy to offer a final opinion.

SINCERELY, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.

April 23, 1979

Our Ref. No. 056-79C

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

As part of a new car line for 1980, Subaru of America is going to import four-wheel drive hatch back sedans.

This new four-wheel drive sedan was designed for occasional off-road operation. In consideration of the vehicle's various uses we feel it should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Please provide your opinion as to whether or not this vehicle can be classified as an M.P.V.

Should you have any questions, please contact this office.

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

ID: nht80-1.10

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requested an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacement sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.

Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean that NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group November 16, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Gentlemen:

We are considering marking our P-series tires with the alpha-numeric size they replace shown below in parenthesis. An example would be as follows:

P205/75 R15 (replaces FR78-15)

Similarly, we are considering marking our 230-15 tire as follows:

230-15 (replaces 225-15)

The 230-15 can be used on all cars that are fitted with 225-15.

Please advise us if such markings would be in violation of FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. Standard.

Your quick response would be appreciated since we are planning to start these programs shortly.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht79-1.9

DATE: 10/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Orient Glass, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. Ohmura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071

Dear Mr. Ohmura:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether a bus bar extension on rear-window passenger car glazing would comply with Safety Standard No. 205. I assume from your letter that the bus bar is a defrosting template that is embedded in the glazing material.

Safety Standard No. 205, through the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference, requires glazing materials requisite for driving visibility in passenger cars to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent (Test No. 2 in ANS Z26). This requirement would be applicable to rear-window glazing for passenger cars, since these windows are necessary for driving visibility. Rear-window glazing that contains a bus bar extension and electrical template wires would still have to comply with the 70-percent luminous transmittance requirement, when tested in accordance with Test No. 2. The .67-inch bus bar extension would not preclude compliance with this requirement, although it obviously has no luminous transmittance, if the remaining parts of the glazing meet the 70-percent requirement. However, if the electrical wires of the template are so numerous or located so near each other that a tested section of the glazing would not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent, the rear window would not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 22, 1979.

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Washington, D. C. 20590 (Att: Mt. Frank Berndt)

Dear Mr. Berndt,

We have been referred to you by Mr. Heath, of The California Highway Patrol for approval of bus bar extension on rear window auto glass.

As shown in the enclosed attachments this particular bus bar extends 0.67 inch from the edge of the AS-2 approved Tempered Auto Glass. We need written confirmation that this bus bar design complies with your standard, FMVSS 205.

Please let us know if there are any other requirements for approval.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Thank you.

ORIENT GLASS, INC.

J. Ohmura

JO/mw

August 15, 1979

File No.: 62.A661.A4381

Mr. J. Omura Orient Glass, Inc. 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2430 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Omura:

This is to confirm your telephone conversation of August 2 with Mr. Max Mizoguchi of this office regarding the location of the electrical bus bar in glazing materials.

Original equipment safety glazing meeting the requirements established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is acceptable for sale in California. If you feel that your design may not comply with FMVSS 205, you may wish to contact their legal department to seek clarification. Questions should be directed to:

U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Office of Standards Enforcement Attention Mr. Frank Berndt Washington, D.C. 20590

Please supply us with a copy of all correspondence on this subject.

We trust this information will be helpful to you.

Very truly yours,

W. W. HEATH, Chief Engineer Acting Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: nht89-2.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1989

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA, Department of Transportation

TITLE: Re Vehicle Signalling System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Louis F. Wilson (A37; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA (OCC 5747); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA

TEXT:

As you know, an automobile is a necessity for most Americans. The automobiles on the road today comes equipped with indicator lights installed for safety, yet the number of accidents still seem quite numerous. We feel that our product, Instant Traffic Lights, will most likely make the road safer for all motorists.

How can we make that claim? If our product is installed on all auto- mobiles on the road, it will let the motorist behind know the intentions of the driver ahead. Whether the driver ahead is applying his accelerator or brake pedals or just coasting, th e motorist behind would know the exact intentions of the driver ahead. Benefits of knowing the intentions of the driver ahead are quite numerous. Some of the benefits are: it will probably reduce tail gating, sudden stops, skidding, and rear end collis ions.

Since every second counts on the road, we feel that our product will increase the safety factor for all motorists and perhaps for pedestrians as well. Like we said before, our product will let the motorist behind know the exact intentions of the driver ahead, perhaps a half a second or more sooner than the conventional lighting system on the automobiles on the road today. At 60 MPH, an automobile travels 88 feet per second. That half a second or more, which would be gained by having our product instal led, will give the motorist behind an excess of 44 feet more than the conventional lighting system to stop or to avoid the hazard.

On top of all that, our product would probably save wear and tear in the brakes and tires and most importantly, will save fuel in the long run, if, all motorists have our product installed onto their cars. All these claims that we are making have not be en tested on the road as of yet, but anyone with common sense can see that our claims are quite valid.

Our product would be used mainly for safety purposes only, but it also serves as an economical one as well.

So far, we have sent letters to all fifty states and to the Secretary of Transportation inquiring, "whether our product is legal in their state as of now." Sixteen states have answered our letter, of which, six states said, "yes", six states said, "no", and four states said that they will follow the Federal requirements.

What we would like to know is: 1) Would our product meet the standard of your office? 2) Would our product be "legal" in the United States and her territories? 3) Is it possible to replace (or provide an option to) the existing high-mounted stop light required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 (Per Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard #108)? Please review the attached copy of our U.S. patent application and make necessary recommendations and/or comments. We would apprec iated if you would take a little bit of your time to reply these questions and send them back to us as soon as possible. Thank You.

ID: nht93-9.25

DATE: December 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- ITT Automotive Europe

TITLE: FAX 07142/73-2895

ATTACHMT: Attached to Fax dated 12/10/93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9418)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars:

"Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108."

Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it.

We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

"Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?"

There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 "Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems."

"Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?"

No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification.

However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard

provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps.

"Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S."

AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps.

ID: 9418

Herr Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
ITT Automotive Europe
Bietigheim-Bissingen
Dept. VER/LB

FAX 07142/73-2895

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

This responds to your FAX of December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars:

"Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108."

Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it.

We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

"Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?"

There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 "Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems."

"Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?"

No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification.

However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps.

"Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S."

AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:12/23/93

ID: nht72-6.4

DATE: 03/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, to the Administrator, in which you questioned the applicability of Federal seatbelt standards to the trucks operated by your company.

Your argument consists of two parts. In the first place you state that the trucks are not involved in interstate(Illegible Word), as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and that the standard therefore does not apply. Secondly, with respect to the crew compartments in these trucks, you state that Standard 208 would not apply in any event, since the seats. In these compartments are auxiliary seating accommodations," and are therefore not required to have belts.

We are not altogether certain whether you are primarily concerned with the installation of seatbelts in your existing fleet of trucks, or with the installation of belts in new trucks which you are planning to acquire. Our authority under section 103 of the Act extends only to the regulation of new vehicles. We cannot require vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of a standard to conform to that standard. To the extent that you are concerned with the company's existing fleet, therefore, you should address your question to the Dureau of Motor Carrier Safety, which has recently adopted regulations requiring installation of seatbelts in vehicles in the interstate commerce. (49CFR@393.93)

With respect to new vehicles, the "interstate commrce" referred to in the Act does not, as you inferred, refer to the purpose for which the vehicles are to be used. If it did, it would not cover the vast majority of vehicles in the country, which are passenger cars not used for the purposes of commerce, interstate or otherwise. It is perfectly clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended to cover passenger cars. In our opinion, Congress was referring to interstate commerce in the broad Constitutional sense, which includes all transportation on the public roads of this country. In that sense, any vehicle introduced onto a public road is part of the stream of interstate commerce. It also includes the chain of manufacturing and distribution of the vehicles, which invariably involves transactions spreading over many states. Thus, the Act and the standards issued thereunder apply to your vehicles even though they may not be used in commerce that has been directly regulated by agencies such as the Interstate Commerce Commission. They will therefore be required by Standard 208 to have seatbelts at all designated seating positions.

Despite the apparent differences between the design of crew compartment seating and that of other seating accommodations, we cannot consider the crew compartment seats to be "auxiliary seating accommodations." It appears from your letter that the trucks are expressly designed to carry passengers as well as equipment, and that the primary, if not the only, function of the crew compartment is to carry passengers. Without the crew aboard, presumably, the usefulness of the truck would be impaired. Since the seats are essential to the use of the vehicle and since the passenger carrying function of the compartment is not secondary to some other use, it follows that the seats are not auxiliary and that they should be considered "designated seating positions" as defined in 49CFR@571.3. In new vehicles, therefore, the crew compartment must be equipped with seatbelts.