ID: nht75-3.38

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. P. Murtha - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 5, 1975, request for the criteria necessary for construction of testing equipment used to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121, are established as requirements that vehicles must be capable of meeting if tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, the standards are not developed as demonstration procedures that detail methods a manufacturer would use to establish that its products comply. The development of actual test protocols to determine that products conform to the requirements is the responsibility of the regulated industry and the associated industries that service them.

Thus the Thiele Corporation, as a manufacturer of air-braked vehicles, may choose whatever test method gives it an adequate basis for certification that its products comply (15 U.S.C. @ 1397 (a)). Test equipment has been developed by several commercial sources, and Thiele can choose proper systems by consulting with the manufacturers of the brake components it uses. As for specifications for a test track, actual road tests are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard No. 121 where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers ascertain that their products conform.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

House of Representatives

November 5, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Mr. William Wells of Thiele, Inc., a private truck building company, has requested that I inquire about the requirements for testing equipment under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 that went into effect in March of 1975.

Mr. Wells is interested in testing his own vehicles rather than bringing them to a professional testing track. Will you please inform me, in writing, what the criteria are for a company to build its own testing equipment in order to conform with the safety standards.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN P. MURTHA -- Member of Congress

ID: 7282

The Honorable Dave Durenberger
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-2301

Dear Senator Durenberger:

Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992, concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product.

The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information.

There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366-2683.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosures

ref:209 d:5/28/92

ID: nht92-6.27

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Dave Durenberger -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/28/92 from Dave Durenberger to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992, concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product.

The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information.

There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366-2683.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON -- PRESIDENT, PRO-FLITE OF VERO, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 5/6/88 letter from William J. Stephenson to Erika Jones ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROD WILLAREDT; REDBOOK A33 [B] [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/17/89 FROM ROD WILLAREDT TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; LET TER DATED 04/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WAYNE APPLE; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/19/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CHARLES WILSON -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stephenson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 6, 1988, with respect to a new safety device designed to reduce turning accidents on large vehicles, known as "Pro-Lite".

As shown in photographs you enclosed, and as described in your letter, Pro-Lite is a device of red plastic, with arrow-shaped ends to the right and left, "internally lit with a series of clearance lights designed to flash in sequence with either turn sig nal", and connected to each turn signal by a single lead. It is unclear whether the whole device is illuminated when the turn signal is activated with a pulse indicating the direction of turn, but that appears to be the most logical method of operation. The device bears in its center the words "Wide Turn Stay Back", from the photographs it appears that the words remain dark when the red background is illuminated but that is not clear from your letter either, though it also appears the most logical meth od of operation. Although the device may be mounted at any height on the rear you believe the best location is on the rear center, for maximum visibility. You have asked for my thoughts and suggestions.

I enclose a copy of a recent letter of this Office concerning a similar device, one intended to indicate wide right turns. The views I have expressed would apply to your device as well, and I hope they are of assistance to you. If you intend to write t he American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the new address of that organization is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht93-3.36

DATE: May 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: L. Schmidt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-92 from L. Schmidt to NHTSA (OCC 8091)

TEXT: Your letter requesting information about regulations that might affect substitution of a diesel engine for a "worn out" gasoline engine has been referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in answering.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

We do not have any requirements that would apply to the conversion of a vehicle from gasoline to diesel if the conversion is made by you on your own vehicle. The Safety Act and our regulations generally do not apply to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer for purposes other than resale. Although the Safety Act prohibits certain entities from tampering with or removing federally required safety systems, the prohibition does not apply to modifications by a vehicle owner to his or her own vehicle.

If the diesel engine were substituted for the gasoline engine by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not have to certify the vehicle as described above. Instead, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires any of these parties making the substitution to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative any device or system of design installed in compliance with any applicable safety standard, such as Standard 301, "Fuel System Integrity" (49 CFR S571.301, copy enclosed). The purpose of Standard 301 is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes.

The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

You also asked if any law forbade diesel conversions in zones within your state in which emissions tests are required. We suggest you contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You should also contact the state of Wisconsin for emissions testing regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact David Elias of my staff at this

address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment: 49 CFR S571.301, Fuel System Integrity. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht90-4.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William D. Rogers -- President, SportsCar America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to report entitled NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Reports Accepted During September 90 for Test Program 90

TEXT:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a pro totype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section 1 of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those mo difications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CPR Part 567, th e Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CPR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale i n the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it woul d like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar fi gure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on

the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is av ailable to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

ID: nht75-3.3

DATE: 10/22/75

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

TO: Nissan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1975, to Mr. Berndt requesting an interpretation of the visibility requirements specified in paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you ask whether a front turn signal lamp which is partially obscured by the radiator grille as shown on a drawing that you enclosed would meet the specified visibility requirements, if . . .

"1. The lamp met the photometric requirements under the state of being equipped on the vehicle.

2. We could easily observe through all the photometric test angles that the lamp was activated."

If condition 1 above is met, the lamp would appear to comply with the visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.

For condition 2 above, SAE Standard J588d, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, specifies in part that signals from lamps mounted on the left and right sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 degrees to the left and right respectively. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding that portion of the lens that may serve as a reflex reflector, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. If your design meets the specified requirement, the lamp would also be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.

As you were informed in a meeting with Messrs. Leysath and Vinson of this agency on September 8, 1975, it is not necessary that the entire lamp as partially obscured comply with Standard No. 108. If either the upper or lower portion of the lamp meets the photometric and visibility requirements, that is sufficient for conformance. If certification is based upon the lower portion alone, however, the center of the lower portion must be mounted not less than 15 inches above the pavement.

Yours truly,

September 8, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: This is to ask your interpretation regarding the visibility requirement stated in S 4.3.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

In the case of the turn signal lamp, installation requirements of SAE J5882 referred to FMVSS 108, states:

When one turn signal is used on each side of the front and rear, visibility of the front signal to front and the rear signal to the rear shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp.

Even if a part of the turn signal lamp is covered with the radiator grill as shown in the attached drawing, may we understand under the following conditions that the turn signal lamp meets the visibility requirement?

1. The lamp met the photometric requirement under the state of being equipped on the vehicle.

2. We could easily observe through all the photometric test angles that the lamp was activated.

Your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. -- Tokio Iinuma, Staff, Safety

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort Crew, Inc. -- William E. Hedenberg, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William E. Hedenberg President Comfort Crew, Inc. 716 South Milwaukee Avenue Wheeling, Illinois 60090

This responds to your October 5, 1984 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting further information on the certification requirements applicable to the air suspension systems you manufacture. You previously requested information on the certification requirements by letter to this agency dated August 13, 1984. In our response, we informed you that there are no standards that presently apply to air suspension systems. We further stated, however, that persons installing the suspension system on new vehicles prior to their first sale for purposes other than resale would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the safety standards affected by the alteration.

In your telephone call, you asked what standards, in our opinion, would be affected by the installation of the suspension system. In addition, you asked what kind of information should be maintained by you and provided to the persons installing your air suspension system to enable such persons to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards affected by the alteration.

It is impossible for the agency to identify all the standards that might be affected by your system since the alterations made to install your system presumably vary from vehicle to vehicle. For example, based on the location and configurations of the vehicle's fuel system, the installation of your system could have an effect on Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. So that you may be aware of all the vehicle systems that are currently covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards, we have enclosed a sheet explaining how to obtain additional information on the standards.

You could confer with the manufacturers of the vehicles on which you recommend installation of your air suspension system to learn which, if any, safety standards they feel might be affected by the system's installation in those specific vehicles. With this information, you could conduct further testing or undertake engineering analyses of your suspension system as mounted on the vehicle to determine whether installation of your device will affect a vehicle's compliance. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as altered will continue to comply with the safety standards, this information could aid the installer of the equipment in certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 10804RWKM

January 26, 1996

Mr. Bill Bristol Treadway America, Inc. 1633 East Vine Street, Suite 123 Kissimmee, FL 34744

Dear Mr. Bristol:

This responds to your request for a letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stating that tires with the letters "DOT" molded onto or into the sidewalls comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In the United States, Federal law requires tire manufacturers to certify that tires sold or imported into the United States comply with all applicable FMVSSs. There is no provision in the law for prior certification or approval by NHTSA, the United States agency responsible for the law's implementation. NHTSA enforces compliance with the safety standards by randomly inspecting tires and certification documentation, and by testing selected tires to ensure the validity of the tire companies' self-certification programs.

In response to your request, NHTSA states that all motor vehicle tires of any type or size manufactured by any of the following manufacturers and bearing the symbol "DOT" are recognized by the United States as having been certified by the manufacturers as being in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs:

Dunlop Tire Corporation (including Remington and Centennial) Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Michelin (including PBM, Top A Private, Liberator, Defender, and Sears) General Tire (including Neral, GPX, HS Blem, and Semperit) Hercules (including Merit) Siam (including Mustang, Aswin, Extra Mileage, and Bus Special) Electra (including Esprit, Ironman, Turbo HP9000H, and Apache) Stomil (including Winchester) Vikrant

Any questions or requests for additional information regarding this matter may be directed to Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:571 d:1/26/96

ID: nht71-1.41

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: L. E. Needham

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT: Your letter of November 4, 1971, concerning the compliance of two dual rear door locking system with Standard 206, has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Both systems consist of

". . . a primary locking system which when engaged renders the outside rear door handle and the inside rear door handle inoperative and a special locking device accessible from the door shut face, which when engaged renders the inside door handle inoperative but does not affect the outside door handle."

The systems differ is that engagement of the special locking device in the first system prevents the engagement of the primary locking systems, while engagement of the special device in the second system does not have this effect.

As stated in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the standard. S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be engageable or disengageable regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.

Under these criteria, the first dual system would not comply with the standard since engagement of the special locking mechanism would interfere with the operation of the primary locking mechanism.

The second dual system would comply if engagement of the special locking mechanism would prevent neither the engagement nor the disengagement of the primary locking mechanism.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.