ID: nht68-1.12

DATE: 03/16/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht68-1.13

DATE: 05/07/68

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

TO: Utility Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht68-1.14

DATE: 03/15/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Gruppe Autoelektrik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1968, to Mr. George C. Mield, concerning the requirements for motorcycle headlamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

On motorcycles Standard No. 108 permits the use of unsealed head-lamps conforming to SAE Standard J524. You will note that this SAE Standard(Illegible Words)not reference bulb sockets conforming to SAE Standard J567, which is intended to insure functional compatibility between bulb sockets and the bulbs lasted in SAE Standard J573. Therefore, the bulbs used in motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584 need not conform to SAE Standard J573.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Attention George C. Nield Acting Director

Subject: Safety Standard 108

Dear Mr. Nield,

With your letter of July 10, 1987, you informed me that secondary and related SAE standards are indirectly part of the above-mentioned standards.

I have concluded from your statement that employment bulbs according to SAE standard J573 is compulsory from the date of entering into force of standard 108.

A special problem is the design of motor cycle head-lamps to conform with the new safety standard 108 of January 1, 1969.

Indeed, safety standard 108 prescribes for motor cycle headlamps SAE standard J 584 of April 1964. This standard relates to J 575 d of August 1967. Both standards allow in principle unsealed units for motor cycle headlamps.

However, in the next related standard J 573 "lamp bulbs and sealed units" no appropriate bulb can be found suitable for unsealed headlamps.

Therefore I feel that also for motor cycle headlamps only sealed units are permitted from January 1, 1969.

I should be very grateful to have a rapid answer from you since we have no more much lead time for redesigning and re-tooling our motor cycle headlamps.

Sincerely yours, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH Gruppe Xutoslektrik,

ID: nht68-1.15

DATE: 09/12/68

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

TO: California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 19 inquiring as to the certification responsibility of manufacturers or assemblers of dune buggy kits with respect to conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But the issue you raise is far broader and involves the whole area of owner-assembled motor vehicles.

You have stated:

"It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use."

This interpretation is incorrect. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for any person to:

". . .introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . .any motor vehicle. . manufactured (or assembled) on and after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . .unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ."

This means that the final assembler of a dune buggy whoever he is, must insure that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable Standards including No. 108. In the case of dune buggies, this means Standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles since a dune buggy is "constructed. . .with special features for occasional off-road operation." (23 C.F.R. @ 255.3(b)).

It is our understanding that a dune buggy consists of a newly manufactured body mounted on the modified chassis of a passenger car previously in use. An issue is raised by the facts that dune buggies are assembled from both new and used items of motor vehicle equipment and that there is language in the Act which appears to exempt "any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (section 108(b)(1). However, since the modification involving used components goes far beyond customizing a used vehicle and results in the end product having a different classification under the Federal Standards and a different purpose than the original vehicle a dune buggy is a "new" motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.

Continuing your interpretation you further state:

"However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108."

Only assembled vehicles are required to conform to most Federal Standards including No. 108, and there is no legal requirement under the Act that a kit seller furnish lighting equipment meeting the various SAE requirements specified in that Standard. Some Federal Standard however, do establish requirements applicable to equipment items as well as to assembled vehicles. If a kit manufacturer furnishes hydraulic brake hoses (Standard No. 105), new pneumatic tires (Standard No. 109), glazing materials (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel discs, wheel covers, or hub caps (Standard No. 211), then these items must conform to the applicable Standard.

Finally, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the certification required by section 114 of the Act. This certification is required to be furnished only by a manufacturer or distributor, and only to a distributor or dealer upon delivery of a motor vehicle or equipment item to which a Standard or Standards are applicable. No certification is required to be given by a manufacturer to a party not a distributor or dealer. Nor is there any requirement that the assembler per se certify the vehicle. This of course, does not relieve the assembler of his independent obligation to insure that the assembled vehicle meets Federal Standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely

Robert M. O'Mahoney

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

August 19, 1968

Ref: 61.A1117.A518

David Fay Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. Fay:

A question has arisen on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to certain types of constructed dune buggies.

Dune buggies are constructed from various vehicle chassis and bodies but most commonly from Volkswagens. The three basic methods of constructing a dune buggy are:

1. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted into a dune buggy by changing the chassis.

2. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted to dune buggies by modifying both the body and chassis.

3. Dune buggy kits are sold which are comprised of various modified vehicle components.

Vehicle owners have been converting their cars into dune buggies and then, after they are through using them, sell them. Kit manufacturers sell kits to a customer, who in turn assembles the vehicle himself. These are the usual methods of making dune buggies other than buying them directly from a dune buggy manufacturer who assembles the entire vehicle from his own plans.

It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use. However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108.

A question has arisen concerning whether or not it is the responsibility of the kit seller to certify that the kit, when assembled, will comply with the Federal standards or if the assembler must certify that the completed vehicle complies with the Federal Standards. There is no question of the necessity to certify the vehicle if it is manufactured or assembled by a dune buggy manufacturer. The California Vehicle Code requires dune buggies to comply with the equipment and lighting requirements of California. Inasmuch as the effect of Federal Standard No. 108 on these types of vehicles has been questioned, we request your opinion or concurrence on our interpretation of the applicability to the standard of these vehicles.

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEALTH --

Commander

Engineering Section,

DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

ID: nht68-1.16

DATE: 07/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John D. Robinson; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch GMBH

COPYEE: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 21, 1968 copy of which was forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation, concerning the application of Federal Safety Standard 108 to lighting unise that are now being manufactured by Robert Bosch Gmbh.

The joint regulations of the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Transportation, copy enclosed, provides in section 12.80(b)(2)(i) for the importation of a non-conforming vehicle or equipment item if they were manufactured on a date when there were no applicable safety standards in force. Therefore, these lighting units manufactured prior to January 1, 1969, and offered for importation into the United States do not have to be in conformity with Federal Safety Standard 108.

Since your inquiry concerns a specific safety standard not yet in effect, we are forwarding your letter to the Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Bureau, Washington, D.C., for their consideration and direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure 50359

ATTACH.

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

Lester D. Johnson -- Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury/ Bureau of Customs

CC: Alan S. (Illegible Word) Secretary of Transportation

May 21, 1968

Subject: Title 19-Customs Duties (T.D. 68-16) - Part 12-Special Classes of Merchandise - Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment - Federal Register Vol. 33, No. 6 of January 10, 1968.

Gentlemen:

With the above mentioned publication, certain conditions are imposed for the importation of motor vehicle equipment into the United States.

In our opinion, one case occuring in practice is not covered by the exception granted under section (b). This is the case when replacement items are delivered for automotive vehicles manufactured before entering into force of a relevant Federal Safety Standard.

We are for instance to deliver lighting units equipped with white parking lamps for passenger cars which are evidently not conforming to Federal Safety Standard 108.

The problem is now, whether it is possible and missible to import such items and other ones into the United States after January 1, 1969. We add that it is well evident that such items are needed after this date, because vehicles are already equipped in such a manner and it would in our opinion be too costly to replace two lighting units conforming to the relevant Federal Safety Standard, if only one replacement unit not conforming to the relevant Federal Safety Standard is needed for a passenger car manufactured before January 1, (Illegible Words)

We should be very glad to have a repid answer from you, since we have already now to care for corresponding replacement units. Leadtime is already now very scarce.

Very truly yours,

A. Hammerstein

ID: nht68-1.17

DATE: 04/30/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH LUCAS LIMITED

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to the Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your interpretation of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The installation requirements contained in the SAE Standards that are referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically excepted by Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation of license plate lamps, Standard No. 108 provides an exception to the "Installation Recommendations" contained in SAE Standard J587b, in that Standard No. 108 requires a location "at rear license plate." This exception permits installation of the lamp at the top, sides or bottom of the license plate, instead of top and sides only as specified by SAE installation recommendations.

With two exceptions, the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108 must use bulbs conforming to SAE Standard J573b and bulb sockets conforming to either SAE Standard J56b or SAE Standard J822. The two exceptions are (1) motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584, and (2) disposable (throw-away) type lamp assemblied (other than sealed-beam headlamps) that do not use sockets. Sealed-beam headlamps must conform to SAE Standard J567a and J580a which, in turn, require sealed units conforming to SAE Standards J567b or J822. The disposable type lamps ((2) above) are excepted from the requirements of SAE Standard J567b since thy are equipped with non-replaceable bulbs and electrical connectors rather than sockets. It is to be noted that Standard No. 108 is not applicable to motorcycles until January 1, 1969.

Sincerely,

The Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

For the attention of Deputy Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Sir,

We wish to refer to U.S. Federal Standard 108 and two problems which we foresee in meeting the requirements.

1. Illumination of Licence Plates

We have been considering the implications of a recent report that the Federal Safety by Authorities are treating the 'Installation Recommendation' in S.A.E. J587b (Licence Plate Lamps) as an enforceable part of the Standard.

Since this paragraph is not part of the Test Specification, it is not wholly within our power to ensure compliance with it, since we cannot always be sure that a vehicle manufactures will locate a given number plate scheme in the attitude which we recommend. There is nothing to stop Adminvorrthing the whole scheme while continuing to comply with the photometric specification.

Thus, we are greatly concerned that a passage which is specifically stated to be a recommendation should be enforced. There has, up to the present, been no information to this effect. We have always understood that it is not the intention of the Society of Automotive Engineers that their recommendations should be enforced and that only when such a recommendation has been given a thorough trial may it then be made into a standard.

The Tail-lamp J585 and Turn-signal lamp J588 standards contain installation requirements. We should like to know if these are also being regarded as a part of the Standard and are being enforced.

2. Lamp Bulbs

There have also been indications that only those bulbs listed in S.A.E. Standard J573b will be acceptable under the new Federal Standard. The various S.A.E. standards for different functions of lamps all refer to Section C of S.A.E. standard J575 which in turn refers to standard J575b, but also states that where special bulbs are specified they should be submitted in with the devices and the same or similar bulbs should be used in the tests. The implication of this is that lamps not having bulbs fitted to them which comply with the S.A.E. standard could be submitted with samples of their own bulbs, and the lamps would be acceptable in this form.

The use of cartridge bulbs presents rather a special case since many of the signalling lamp standards (notably the back-up lamp standard J 595b) also call up the bulb-socket standard J 567, and the Federal Standard itself calls up the Recommended Practice J822, so that there is no provision for a suitable socket for the cartridge bulbs. This will therefore be the subject of a separate petition.

However, Motor-cycle headlamps are rather different. In this case no bulb socket standard is called up. We have always sent over motor-cycle headlamps fitted with bulbs with British pre-focus caps. The majority of British motor-cycles transmit too much vibration to the headlamps for sealed-beam units to be practical. If it is the intention to require that only bulbs listed in the S.A.E. standard shall be fitted to all motor vehicles, then a situation will arise where there will not be suitable headlamps available for British motor-cycles.

We submit the above points for consideration and would be pleased to know whether our interpretation of the Standard and whether the difficulties we anticipate are, in fact, real, and to know what line is ought to take in order to comply with the Standard.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH LUCAS (ELECTRICAL) LIMITED --

M.D. Prickett, Chief Engineer - Special Duties

ID: nht68-1.18

DATE: 07/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Blaw-Knox Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your May 6, 1968, letter to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning lighting and certification requirements on your concrete mixers.

Providing the combination rear clearance and side narear lamps meet the requirements for both as specified in SAE Standard J992b, April 1964 the lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing C-8450-911 dated April 3, 1968, and Service Bulletin 533 dated April 10, 1968, appear to be in fonformance with the requirements of Standard No. 103. With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 103.

Bules regarding classic-cabs and certification requirements which have been published in the Federal Register are enclosed for your reference. Please note that in order to comply with the certification requirements, we need the following additional information from you:

1. The locating on the vehicle at which the certification label or tag will be placed.

2. An actual sample certification label or tag.

3. The means by which the certification label or tag will be attached, e.g., wole, rivet, serev, or achoaive.

This information should is sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Dureon, Washington, D.C. 23591 to the attention of Mr. Joseph R. O'Corman, Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service.

ID: nht68-1.19

DATE: 08/12/68

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

TO: Robert Bosch GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Bureau of Customs has forwarded to us for further reply a copy of your letter to them of May 21 asking whether lighting units for passenger cars, which do not conform to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 108, may be admitted to the United States after January 1, 1969.

Amended Federal standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, specifies lighting requirements for various categories of motor vehicle including passenger cars manufactured on or after that date. It does not specify requirements for individual items, or lighting equipment. This means that these individual items, no matter what the date of manufacture, may be imported into the United States after January 1, 1969, because they will have been manufactured on a date when there were no standards in effect applicable to them.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

JUN 25 1968

AIRMAIL

A. Hammerstein Robert Bosch Gmbh

Dear Mr. Hamorstein:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 21, 1968 a copy of which was forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation, concerning the application of Federal Safety Standard 108 to lighting uniss that are now being manufactured by Robert Bosch Gmbh.

The joint regulations of the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Transportation, copy enclosed, provide in section 12.80(b)(2)(i) for the importation of a non-conforming vehicle or equipment item if they were manufactured on a date when there were no applicable safety standards in force. Therefore, these lighting units manufactured prior to January 1, 1969, and offered for importation into the United States do not have to be in conformity with Federal Safety Standard 108.

Since your inquiry concerns a specific safety standard not yet in effect, we are forwarding your letter to the Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Bureau, Washington, D.C., for their consideration and direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

John D. Roeison

Assistant Director

(Entry and Liquidation)

Division of Appraisement and Collections

Enclosure 50359

cc: Department of Transportation

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

CC: Alan S. Boyd

Secretary of Transportation

Lester D. Johnson Commissioner of Customs Department of the Treasury Bureau of Customs

Subject: Title 19-Customs Duties (T.D. 68-16) - Part 12-Special Classes of Merchandise - Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment - Federal Register Vol. 33, No. 6 of January 10, 1968

Gentlemen:

With the above mentioned publication, certain conditions are imposed for the importation of motor vehicle equipment into the United States.

In our opinion, one case occurring in practice is not covered by the exception granted under section (b). This is the case when replacement items are delivered for automotive vehicle manufactured before entering into force of a relevant Federal Safety Standard.

We are for instance to deliver lighting units equipped with white parking lamps for passenger cars, which are evidently not conforming to Federal Safety Standard 108.

The problem is now, whether it is possible and admissible to import such items and other ones into the United States after January 1, 1969. We add that it is well evident that such items are needed after this date, because vehicles are already equipped in such a manner and it would in our opinion to be too costly to replace two lighting units conforming to the rel;evant Federal Safety Standard, if only one replacement unit not conforming to the relevant Federal Safety standard is needed for a passenger car manufactured before January 1, 1969.

We should be very glad to have a rapid answer from you, since we have already now to care for corresponding replacement units. Leadtime is already now very scare.

Very truly yours,

A. Hammerstein

ID: nht68-1.2

DATE: 01/01/68 EST.

FROM: R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Department of Transport

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in confirmation of our telephone conversation of August 26, 1968, and in reply to your letter of July 22, 1968, in which you inquire as to the meaning of "manufacturer" in the Tire Standard, No. 109, particularly in light of the practice of concealing the identity of the real maker of the tires.

The term "manufacturer" employed in the labeling requirements section of that standard, by the rule set forth in 23 C.F.R. @@255.3, is used in the meaning defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C.@@1391:

"Manufacturer means any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale."

The clear implication of this definition is that we are to be concerned with the company that is the actual maker of the tires in question, not retail outlets, suppliers who are not manufacturers, or other parties who may misleadingly appear to be the manufacturer.

We are not aware of any situation where the ownership or control of the tire manufacturing operation is so fragmented as to leave the relevant identity of the manufacturer unclear, within the meaning of the above. If such a case is brought to our attention, we will deal with it on its own facts.

We are happy to be of assistance.

ID: nht68-1.20

DATE: 06/10/68

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telegram of May 23, 1968, which sought the views of the Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, NHSB, on four questions of interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114. Our response to these questions is as follows:

1. We agree that paragraph S4.1(b) of the standard requires that removal of the key from the locking system must prevent steering or self-mobility of the car only under normal conditions. A steering or mobility lock which can be circumvented abnormally, as by disassembly of the locking mechanism or the application of excessive force, would not thereby violate the standard.

2. Paragraph S4.2, which provides that the "prime means" for deactivating the car's engine shall not activate either the steering or self-mobility lock, permits the use of the key to activate the lock and to deactivate the engine. The quoted words refer to the action necessary to perform either task, not to the mechanism which accomplishes it.

3. We agree that the warning device required by paragraph S4.4 is unnecessary when the locking system is in either the "on" or "start" positions. We are presently preparing an amendment to the standard which will clarify paragraph S4.4 by providing that the warning need not be activated when the key locking system is in either of those positions.

4. Your final question seeks an interpretation of the words "key left in the locking position." Since those words do not appear in paragraph S4.4, or elsewhere in the standard, we see no reason to provide an interpretation of them.

Sincerely,

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM

MAY 23, 1968

G C NIELD, ACTING DIR MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY PERFORMANCE SERVICE NATIONAL WHY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL WHY ADMIN DONOHOE BLDG 400 SIXTH ST SW WASHDC

OUR REVIEW OF STANDARD 114, THEFT PROTECTION, INDICATES THAT CONFIRMATION OF SEVERAL INTERPRETATIONS LISTED BELOW IS NECESSARY TO APPLY THE STANDARD WITH CERTAINTY. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIRMATION OF THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATIONS

1. S4.1(B) CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS AND SECTION

S4.1 (33 F.R. 6472) THAT REMOVAL OF THE KEY IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT ONLY "NORMAL" ACTIVATION OF THE CARE ENGINE, OUR INTERPRETATION OF SECTION S4.1(B) IS THAT A KEY LOCKING SYSTEM WHICH PREVENTS STEERING UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS AND/OR PREVENTS NORMAL FORWARD SELF-MOBILITY WHEN THE KEY IS REMOVED, CONSITUTES CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

2. S4.2 WE INTERPRET SECTION S4.2 TO ALLOW USE OF THE KEY TO ACTIVATE THE THEFT DETERRENT DEVICE PROVIDED THERE IS AN INTERMEDIATE POSITION OR MEANS TO DEACTIVATE THE ENGINE WITHOUT ACTIVATING THE DETERRENT,

3. S4.4 SINCE THE RUNNING ENGINE FURNISHES A CONTINUOUS WARNING WE INTERPRET SECTION S4.4 TO MEAN THAT THE WARNING DEVICE NEED NOT BE OPERATBLE WHEN THE DRIVERS DOOR IS OPEN AND THE KEY IS IN THE IGNITION-ON POSITION.

4. S4.4 WE INTERPRET "KEY LEFT IN LOCKING POSITION" TO MEAN THAT THE KEY IS INSERTED FULLY IN THE LOCKING SYSTEM TO THE POSITION PERMITTING OPERATION OF THE LOCKING DEVICE.

R O SORNSON FEDERAL SAFETY COORDINATOR CHRYSLER CORP.