ID: nht79-2.6

DATE: 08/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statements made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections "I" and "V" of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.

(I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).

In the second part of your first question, you asked whether a convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.

In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you could manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.

(V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growing aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to a convertible, for example) is required to place an additional lable on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in complaince with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective). Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is in compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type (e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard-top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.

I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised in your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

July 3, 1979

Ralph J. Hitchcock Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

This letter is in reference to the meeting concerning F.M.V.S.S. 208 between you and Mr. Bernstein of this office on Monday, July 2, 1979.

I do appreciate the opportunity of having our representative meet with you and thank you for clearing up some vague areas of the regulations concerning convertibles.

We are following your advice and have made a transcription of the discussion which is enclosed for your review. Following your review, we would like the office of General Counsel to review it so that we may get a written confirmation (or clarification of misconceptions) by both the N.H.T.S.A. Engineering and Legal staffs concerning these issues.

D. Black

Manager

U.S. Engineering Office -- ALFA ROMEO, INC.

ENCLS.

CC: ING. LANDSBERG; ING. TOBIA; ING. SURACE; DOTT. BOZZI

OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND HENRY BERNSTEIN OF ALFA ROMEO ON JULY 2, 1979 CONCERNING:

FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION

FMVSS 216 - ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE

AS RELATED TO OPEN BODY OR CONVERTIBLE TYPE VEHICLES

I. INTRODUCTION & QUESTIONS

Introduction:

Alfa Romeo is a very old company dating back to 1909; practically to the beginning of automobile development. Alfa Romeo has always built vehicles which are out of the ordinary in both engineering, style and performance. This is a heritage that we wish to preserve and continue into the future. We have always strived for excellence in our product and always will. We realize the need for safety standards and wish to comply with all applicable standards in effect for present and future model years, however, we are concerned over and a little confused about the requirements of open body vehicles (convertibles) as related to the occupant crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208 and it is this reason for which I come to Washington to meet with you with hopes of clarification of our questions in this area. Questions & Answers: Mr. Bernstein question: (I) Is it true that even convertibles must meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 as follows: a) meet the frontal crash protection require- ments (S5.1) by means that require no action by occupants (passive)? Mr. Hitchcock answer: yes Mr. Bernstein question: b) and either meet the lateral crash require- ments of S5.2 and the rollover requirements of S5.3 passively? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No (see 2) Mr. Bernstein question: c) or at each front designated seating position have a Type I seat belt or a Type II seat belt conforming to FMVSS 209 (seatbelts) and meet the requirements of S5.1 (labelling) in addition to passive? Mr. Hitchcock answer: Yes Mr. Bernstein question: (2) May we as optional compliance with the standard (208) as an alternative to the rollover require- ments of FMVSS 208 show compliance with the requirements of roof crush resistance FMVSS 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: According to Mr. Hitchcock, a recent amendment to FMVSS 208 (Dec. 5, 1977, 42 FR 61466) was the addition lap belts as an alternative to meeting lateral and rollover passively (S4.1.3) and that 216 would no longer be applicable. (This is "relief" for convertibles in his opinion).

In other words, we do have to meet the frontal requirements passively (belts or bags) and also provide lap belts and that neither roof crush or rollover compliance were necessary.

Hitchcock said he believes his interpretation is correct, but suggests that I write a report with these specific points and questions outline , which would be reviewed by the legal staff as well as the engineering staff. As a result , upon receipt of your comments and questions, a copy of this report will be forwarded to Mr.

Hitchcock so it may be reviewed and confirmed in writing by N.H.T.S.A.

We also discussed 216 as an alternative /optional compliance to rollover in 208 and I asked the following: Mr. Bernstein question: (3) May we design and produce a fold down convertible a) top which will meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: OK Mr. Bernstein question: b) May we design and produce a removeable convertible top which will meet 216?

c) What about a removeable hard top which will when installed meet 216? Mr. Hitchcock answer: No need to comply but Mr. Hitchcock gave the following remarks concerning above questions b) and c). This area is not specifically covered in the regulations due to lack of proper definitions of "convertible top", "soft top", "hard top", etc.

The advise given was if we specifically wanted a review and confirmation concerning particular items such as these, that we should make specific Mr. Hitchcock answer: written presumptions about these subjects requesting definitions and concurrence with our views. This is the only way we may get documented proof of N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence or non-concurrence with our views.

II. BACKGROUND

I discussed the importance of Spider sales to our company including past sales performance and future projections for which Mr. Hitchcock understood Alfa Romeo's concern in this area. Our Spider model is currently our largest selling model as indicated by both past and present sales figures and projections for the future as follows*: Future projections: 1980: 3,500 or 46.7% of projected sales total 1981: 4,500 or 41% of projected sales total 1982: 4,500 or 45% of projected sales total 1983: 5,000 or 41% of projected sales total 1984: 13,000 or 81% of projected sales total 1985: 14,500 or 73% of projected sales total 1986: 16,000 or 67% of projected sales total

Future projections: 1980: 3500 of 7,500 1981: 4500 of 11,000 1982 4500 of 10,000 1983: 5300 of 13,000 1984: 13000 of 16,000 1985: 14000 of 20,000 1986: 16,000 of 24,000

So therefore, Mr. Hitchcock, you can see our deep concern for saving this vehicle and promoting it well into the 1980's and beyond into the '90's.

* please refer to sales comparison graph and raw data (attached) for U.S. Spider (Illegible word) history from 1961 to 1978.

III. PROBLEMS INVOLVED/CONVERSION, ETC.

Commercially:

We wish to keep a convertible; it is a "disappering breed"; people still want this type of car. Detroit cannot justify production of convertibles anymore. We wish to be different than others (as we always have been) and provide our customers with a true convertible for which there is a great demand. We don't want to compromise by adding targa roofs, moon roofs, "T" tops, etc. as many maufacturers have already done and will do in the future.

At this point, we discussed briefly some other "convertibles" incorporating the systems mentioned above, and I also showed Mr. Hitchcock some brochures, newspaper and magazine clippings on the subject.

We discussed also passive limitations. Technically:

Air bags are impossible due to cost considerations, size, and a complete lack of European suppliers. U.S. suppliers aren't interested in our small numbers. We could do it if we did not care about cost and had a supplier.

Belts: passive belts (VW/Chevette type) are impossible due to lack of "B" pillar and lack of door frame to anchor belt to.

Roll bar: the producer, Pininfarina, is on contract to ARI at a certain. price. They say the present structure does not allow for adaption of a roll bar. Very difficult if not impossible when taking into consideration the desire to provide a folding soft top assembly.

Targa roof/door frames: roof rails would not be a convertible and buyers would agree.

Mr. Hitchock recommended "Development of Specifications for Passive Belt Systems by Man Factors, Inc." (DOT-HS-800-809) for some other passive ideas. I have already ordered a copy for Alfa Romeo.

IV. LEGALITIES "RULING OUT" CONVERTIBLES, ETC. (reference 1966 Safety Act)

When we discussed the 1966 Safety Act statement concerning "safety standards which are appropriate for the particular type of vehicle for which it was prescribed and that safety standards should not rule out a class of vehicle" (FR 1392 (f)(3), Mr. Hitchcock noted that convertibles are not ruled out as a class of vehicle and that many presume that they are due to a lack of total understanding of the regulations.

V. AFTERMARKET MANUFACTURERS, ETC.

Mr. Bernstein question: What alarms me is the ever growing aftermarket convertible industry. Conversion shops, etc. are turning out and selling convertibles in large quantities to meet the demand. Replicar manufacturers are constantly increasing their sales and new companies are being born overnight due to the fact that most are convertibles which are in such great demand. Also, many "kit cars" are becoming prominent on the market, most of which are also convertibles. Is there no relief to us, a manufacturer who imports far less convertibles than these operations sell here?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: Concerning the aftermarket manufacturers, Mr. Hitchcock explained that they will also be responsible for compliance due to the fact that rendering a safety device or system inoperative is prohibited by law and that "chopping" a roof off a vehicle would probably violate this requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area requirement. Naturally, enforcement is an area in which these operations may be safe for now due to manpower limitations and other priorities.

VI. ECONOMICS, EXEMPTIONS, AMENDMENTS

Mr. Bernstein question: What about petitions, exemptions, etc.?

Mr. Hitchcock answer: If economics are a problem, we may be able to petition and that we may also petition for an amendment to the standard for convertibles. This amendment would not be for Alfa Romeo vehicles exclusively, but for convertibles in general.

NOTE: Apparently, a current Chrysler petition is in the docket with a petition for amendment concerning a similar situation as related to hard top vehicles with no "B" pillar. Chrysler must comply in 1982 >114" wheelbase.

VII. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW UP ACTION

A written report as outlined in this report for review and written reply by N.H.T.S.A.

Henry E. Bernstein

Attachments 7.3.79 BREAKDOWN OF GRAPH DATA BODY STYLE SPIDER COUPE SEDAN YEAR 1961 349 38 0 1962 572 165 12 1963 608 73 1 1964 799 169 0 1965 832 729 5 1966 658 747 1 1967 804 747 1 1968 426 487 0 1969 1199 671 690 1970 887 352 313 1971 1218 899 435 1972 935 866 546 1973 163 863 732 1974 1703 1565 844 1975 3089 2072 1082 1976 2503 1685 1139 1977 1993 2162 1265 1978 3562 1663 912 TOTAL: 22,300 15,953 7,978 % OF SALES 48.2% 34.5% 17.3%

GRAND TOTAL = 46,321 = 100%

(Graphics omitted) (Illeg.) 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 (Illeg.) TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 75 = 6243 802 76 = 5329 (Illeg.) 110 77 = 5420 (Illeg.) 1663 78 = 6139 3562 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 TOTAL 73 = 1758 74 = 4112 Retails 75 = 6243 Sedan 802 76 = 5327 Automatic 110 77 = 5420 Sprint Veloce 1663 78 = 6137 (Illeg.) 700 981 1265 (Illeg.) GT 635 1254 2119 844 382 158 43 1565 1437 431 1703 3089 2503 1993 3562

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 11986.ZTV

Herr Sandig
Reiter & Schefenacker
Eckenerstrasse 2
73730 Esslingen
Germany

Dear Herr Sandig:

This replies to your FAX of May 28, 1996, asking whether a proposed design for a center highmounted stop lamp is a single lamp, within the meaning of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In this design, a rectangular lens is separated by an opaque oval that covers the center portion of the lens. However, the sum of the effective projected luminous lens areas left uncovered exceeds the minimum 4.5 square inches required by paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)(1) of Standard No. 108.

This design does not comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.1.1.27 (a) requires vehicles to be equipped with "a high-mounted stop lamp." Table IV requires the lamp to be located "on the vertical centerline." The opaque area in your design functionally divides the center lamp into two lamps, neither of which is located on the vertical centerline.

In the past, the agency has advised that the lens of the center stop lamp may be obscured to a certain extent by decals or other trim, provided the minimum luminous lens area requirement was met, and the obscuration did not affect photometric compliance. These interpretations always assumed that the appearance of a single lamp would be maintained, even though the lens area itself did not present an uninterrupted light-emitting surface.

Paragraph S5.1.1.27(b) does allow two separate lamps on vehicles other than passenger cars when there is insufficient space above doors opening from the center, but your lamp is not designed to address this problem.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/14/96

ID: nht76-1.2

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1976, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, for identification of the headlamps and taillamps control.

Your letter presented two symbols specified by the International Standards Organization as alternatives for identification of the master lighting switch. One of these appears in Column 4 of Table 1 of the standard and the other does not appear anywhere in the table. The headlamps and taillamps control (master lighting switch) is required by S4.2.1 to be identified with the word "Lights". The manufacturer may supplement this identification with a symbol, but only with a symbol that appears in Column 3 or Column 4 of Table 1. In issuing the amendment to the standard published July 29, 1975 (40 FR 31770, copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered both ISO symbols and decided not to permit the one that does not appear in the table.

YOURS TRULY,

British Leyland Motors Inc.

March 29, 1976

Office of General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: FMVSS 101

To commonize on switches used for master lighting controls worldwide, one of the Leyland Cars divisions would like to use the ISO light bulb symbol for master lighting switch.

We do not find this alternative provided in any recent proposals issued by NHTSA and we ask:

a) if you have considered this alternative symbol

b) if you have decided not to allow its use

c) would you consider its use.

Dianne Black Liaison Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MEHDI ROWGHANI -- DALLAS EUROPEAN PARTS DISTRIBUTORS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-9-90 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM MEHDI ROWGHANI ATTACHED; (OCC 4337) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether "importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transpo rtation."

Your question appears premised upon the fact that many EUropean passenger cars achieve compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 side Door strength by being equipped with doors incorporating reinforcement bars. However, this standard applies only to new vehicles, and does not extend to replacement parts for such vehicles. Thus, if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced, and that door incorporated a reinforcing bar, there is no requirement that the replac ement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214. In short, the importation and sale of a replacement door that does not incorporate a reinforcing bar does not violate any of the statutes, standards, or other regulations administered by this agency.

If the replacement door is intended for use on a passenger car line that is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard that this agency administers, however, you should be aware that it must nevertheless be marked with the registered trademark of the manufacturer of the door, or unique identifier if there is no registered trademark, and the letter "R". I enclose a copy of the standard for your information, as this requirement is a relatively new one, and may not be clearly understoo d. This marking must be on the door before the door is imported into the United States.

Enclosure (Part 541)

ID: 2402y

Mr. Mehdi Rowghani
Dallas European Parts Distributors
1505 Wallace Drive
Carrollton, TX 75006

Dear Mr. Rowghani:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether "importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation."

Your question appears premised upon the fact that many European passenger cars achieve compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Door Strength by being equipped with doors incorporating reinforcement bars. However, this standard applies only to new vehicles, and does not extend to replacement parts for such vehicles. Thus, if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced, and that door incorporated a reinforcing bar, there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214. In short, the importation and sale of a replacement door that does not incorporate a reinforcing bar does not violate any of the statutes, standards, or other regulations administered by this agency.

If the replacement door is intended for use on a passenger car line that is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard that this agency administers, however, you should be aware that it must nevertheless be marked with the registered trademark of the manufacturer of the door, or unique identifier if there is no registered trademark, and the letter "R". I enclose a copy of the standard for your information, as this requirement is a relatively new one, and may not be clearly understood. This marking must be on the door before the door is imported into the United States.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure (Part 541) ref:2l4#54l d:4/9/90

ID: 20837.ztv

Mr. Tadzio Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Regulation & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Headlamp Optical Axis Marking

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1999, asking whether the marking intended to designate the optical axis on a new headlamp complies with S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This section requires the optical axis of visually/optically aimable headlamps to be designated by a mark.

The headlamp assembly will be used on cars intended both for Japan/Europe and the United States and has a common lens, though the light sources will differ. The headlamp intended for Japan/Europe will contain two light sources, each with its own reflector, whereas the U.S. version will be equipped with a single HB5 bulb and a single reflector. The optical axes will be marked on the lens, the U.S. version with a single circle, and the other version with two small diamonds. You relate that the lens is a clear one so that the light sources can be seen easily from outside the lens, and do not believe that multiple markings will create confusion.

The lens is properly marked as required by S7.8.1(b). The two non-required optical axis markings are permissible so long as they do not cause confusion with respect to the required marking. You indicate that the HB5 light source can be clearly seen behind the transparent lens. Therefore, we agree with you that there should be no confusion about the location of the optical axis of the U.S. version headlamp when it is necessary to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/27/00

ID: 21499.ztv

Mr. Walter Lewis
Senior Compliance Engineer
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive
Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Lewis:

We are responding to your letter of April 6, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S5.5.7(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to Porsche's "Coming Home Light."

Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires that the taillamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state. Porsche's "Coming Home Light" illuminates the environment around the car "by energizing the headlamps for a short period of time after the key is removed from the ignition." You believe that there is no safety benefit from illuminating these other lamps during the period that the "Coming Home Light" is in use, and ask for an interpretation that it is not subject to S5.5.7(b).

We agree with your conclusion. Devices of this nature have been installed on motor vehicles for over 20 years. The "Coming Home Light" feature is not in use when the vehicle is being operated on roadways, and is activated only when the vehicle is at rest and the ignition key removed. The purpose of Standard No. 108, as stated in S2, is "to reduce traffic accidents. . . by providing adequate illumination of the roadway and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood . . . ." The use of headlamps for a purpose other than those prescribed in S2 does not require compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108. Thus, S5.5.7(b) does not apply in this instance, and the lamps listed therein need not be activated when the headlamps are activated in the "Coming Home Light" mode.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/19/00

ID: nht80-2.22

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McCreary Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 24, 1980 IN REPLY REFER TO: NOA-30

Mr. Robert A. Eddy Manager, Quality Assurance McCreary Tire & Rubber Company Indiana, Pennsylvania 15701

Dear Mr. Eddy:

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1980, asking whether ASTM E501 and E524 tires must be graded in accordance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You state that these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for traction testing and are not manufactured for general highway use. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's understanding that these tires are used only on a test trailer designed for use in skid testing.

The UTQG regulation applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars (49 CFR 575.104(c)(1)). Thus, ASTM E501 and E524, which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer, would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 7, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel ATTENTION: Mr. Richard J. Hipolit National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 02590 Dear Sir:

We are requesting an interpretation of Part 575.104 - Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards - with reference to the ASTM E501 and E524 tires.

Since these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for skid resistance testing and are not manufactured for general highway use, it is our understanding that they are not covered by the requirements of Part 575.104.

Would you please confirm this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Eddy Manager, Quality Assurance

RAE/pel

ID: nht79-1.12

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Essex Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning Essex Group Wire Assembly Division 6233 Concord Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48211

Dear Mr. Borovik:

This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979, asking whether "trailer warning lamps should flash or be steady-burning" when the towing vehicle's hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require trailers to be equipped with hazard warning signal lamps, and you may design your trailer tow electrical package without reference to it. Lack of Federal regulation in this area, however, means that each State may set its own requirements, and you should ascertain whether such exist before finalizing your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ESSEX GROUP WIRE ASSEMBLY DIVISION 6233 Concord Ave. Detroit, Michigan 48211

August 7, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen:

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraphs 4.1.1.32, 4.5.4 and 4.6.

We are developing a trailer tow electrical package for passenger cars and light trucks. Critical to the design is the logic for the signalling functions of optically (and electrically) combined lamps on trailers. Specifically, when the hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied, should the trailer warning lamps flash or be steady-burning? FMVSS 108 does not provide explicit direction.

We request a position from the DOT whether the lamps should flash or be steady burning in the above situation.

Very truly yours,

Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning

DIB/lg

ID: nht92-1.19

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SHAFI J. KEISLER -- PRESIDENT, ONE MORE RUN, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-24-92 FROM SHAFI J. KEISLER TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8069)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 24, 1992, with respect to the manufacture of a replacement taillamp lens for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger. You ask for "all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens", and inform us that you "will use only "current DOT and SAE safety approved material to build this item."

As Taylor Vinson explained to you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment was amended effective January 1, 1972, to apply to replacement lighting equipment for motor vehicles manufactured on and after that date (the standard had previously applied only to original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after January 1, 1969). This means that replacement taillamps designed specifically for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger have never been covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 does require that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, with certain exceptions. Although this could be construed as requiring compliance of plastics used in any replacement taillamp lens, we do not interpret this as mandating compliance of plastic materials for a lens in a replacement lamp that is itself not subject to Standard No. 108. However, S5.1.2 is the Federal requirement that you would be obliged to meet were you manufacturing new or replacement taillamp lenses for contemporary motor vehicles. I enclose a copy of S5.1.2 and J576c for your information.

We appreciate your desire to meet current safety requirements.

(ATTACHMENTS OMITTED)