ID: nht88-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan Rt. 1, Box 3 Jackson, NC 27845

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1987, to this agency asking for Information on Federal safety and pollution requirements for kit cars.

We are unable to advise you on emission control regulations, and you should address this inquiry to the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

You have given us, as an example of the type of vehicle you would manufacture for resale, "a '76 year drivetrain on a modified or not original frame/chassis" and asked whether it will have to meet 1976 model or new model standards. You have also asked wh ether you can relocate the engine and transmission, and whether it is would have an effect upon the standards you must meet.

New model Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles built upon the chassis of a vehicle previously in use. However, under certain circumstances the 1976 safety standards could apply. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if a manufacturer re moves a body from a chassis and installs a new one, he must ensure that the resulting vehicle continues to comply with the Federal safety standards with which the vehicle originally complied. A "Manufacturer" is defined in part as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles. This definition would seem to encompass your planned activities. Accordingly, if you removed the 1976 body from its chassis, there is no restriction against your relocation of the engine or transmission, but upon installation o f a new body you are required to ensure that the new vehicle meets 1976 Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

On the other hand, if you purchase the chassis after the body has been removed by another person, there would be no Federal safety standards applicable to it upon installation of the body. However, the vehicle would have to meet State standards necessary for its registration and operation.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-4.11

DATE: May 28, 1993

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

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric Guild GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-28-93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8589)

TEXT: As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your letter of April 28, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked two questions with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and have enclosed a sketch of the lamp.

Your first question is:

"Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch . . . where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in."

Your question indicates that the turn signal lamp array of two lamps that is illustrated in the sketch is intended for installation on passenger cars or other vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference the SAE standard applicable to such vehicles, J588 NOV84. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 permits the use of multiple rear turn signal lamps to meet the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

When multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, paragraph 5.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the functional lighted lens area of each lamp shall be at least 22 sq. cm, provided the combined area is at least 37.5 sq. cm. Your sketch shows that the functional lighted lens area of one lamp is 23 sq. cm, and of the other, 30 sq. cm, with a combined area of 53 sq. cm. Therefore, Standard No. 108 permits you to use the turn signal lamp array shown in your sketch.

Your second question is:

"Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements."

Because the distance between the two adjacent light sources in the array does not exceed 560 mm (the sketch indicates that it is less than 550 mm), paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the combination of the lamps be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections, two in this case.

ID: nht69-2.12

DATE: 01/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your January 8 letter concerning comments by Mr. Jackson Decker of the E. D. Ptnyre Company, which was addressed to the National Highway Safety Bureau on December 20, 1968. I regret that Miss Claybrook of my staff was unable to locate Mr. Decker's letter after the call from your office requesting a copy of my response to Mr. Decker.

Mr. Decker's letter consists of comments to the Federal Highway Administration Dockets on the pending proposed regulations under which information would be supplied by manufacturers to consumers about various safety performance characteristics of motor vehicles. My staff was unaware of this letter because it was addressed to the Docket and was sent by the mail room directly to the legal office which maintains all dockets. The dockets contain much of the source material which serves as the basis for final rule making on proposed standards and regulations.

In addition, letters such as this are seldom answered not only because it is not appropriate to debate the substance of pending rulemaking actions, but also because the purpose of such correspondence is to provide information to the Government in the development of rulemaking. It is not treated as routine correspondence with the agency. In addition, the volume of such comments frequently reaches such vast proportions that it would be virtually impossible to answer them. For example, in response to a recent Federal Highway Administration proposed regulation some 4,000 comments were submitted.

Mr. Decker, incidentally, does not indicate he expected a specific answer to his letter but, rather, in his last paragraph, asks that his views "be given serious consideration before proceeding with the issuance of part 275 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

On December 30, 1968, the Federal Highway Administrator issued a notice extending for 60 days the time for filing comments on a number of the proposed regulations for consumer information. This notice also specified that the proposed regulations would not apply to vehicles produced in two or more stages. I am enclosing a copy of this notice with the appropriate section marked for your information.

I regret that we had to ask you to supply a copy of Mr. Decker's letter, but I trust that the above information resolves the issues he raised.

ID: nht89-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: MARK F. HOLMES

TO: STEVE WOOD ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANPORTATION (MOTOR VEHICLES)

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Prior to my phone conversation with one of your associates, Mr. Vincent, enclosed please review a literary introduction letter along with a colorful illustration for two multi-purpose lighting devices called the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarms.

I am presently interested in presenting both items to a manufacturer for an after market device for commercial usage.

Before I can proceed with this presentation, I need to know that these devices and their features would not be in violation of any standards or regulations that have been established by your department.

I feel as though that by knowing first hand that these devices would not be challenged by law and would not be denied a patent or marketing rights because of an infraction based on it's usage and raw materials.

The Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm, are two devices that are designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down in a given area.

A speedy response from your department would be valued and appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: 8694

Mr. Joseph G. Wilson
President
The Monmouth Corporation
Box 143
Highlands, NJ 07732

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thank you for your letter informing us of the Blu-Lite system, which your company developed. You stated that the system "protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision." You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us.

We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as "emergency stop") flanked by two "red stop lights". Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly.

The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/21/93

ID: 77-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, preempts the parking brake requirements specified in New York's school bus brake system regulations.

Safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective April 1, 1977, for school buses and establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems on these vehicles. The standard includes a static test requirement for parking brake systems (grade-holding capability) and a dynamic test requirement for service brake systems (emergency stopping capability). The New York brake system regulations include a static test requirement and also a dynamic test requirement for parking brake systems. You ask whether Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of New York's dynamic test requirement for parking brakes.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivisions of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 includes requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. It is the agency's opinion, therefore, that Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of the nonidentical aspects of New York's school bus parking brake requirements.

However, the second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not preempt governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use if such requirements impose a higher standard of performance. Thus, the State of New York may specify these additional parking brake requirements for public school buses. The second sentence of @ 103(d) does not permit governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all aspects of Standard No. 105-75. A school bus manufacturer, therefore, would have to meet the force requirements specified in Standard No. 105-75 for engagement of the parking brake, even for school buses intended for New York's own use.

ID: nht76-4.23

DATE: 08/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 28, 1976, request for confirmation that a boat-carrying trailer which has a primary cargo-carrying surface less than 40 inches from the ground qualifies as a "Heavy hauler trailer", and that such trailers are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, until September 1, 1977.

"Heavy hauler trailer" is defined in the standard as follows:

"Heavy hauler trailer" means a trailer with one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front-end structure" as that term is used in @ 393.106 of this title.

The boat-carrying trailer which you describe as having a bed height of 18 3/4 inches would qualify for exemption until September 1, 1977.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

TRUCK EQUIPMENT & BODY

DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION

July 28, 1976

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We are writing on behalf of a member company who has received a large order for some boat trailers, per the enclosed photograph.

The trailer is 42 feet in overall length, and eight feet wide. The "primary carrying surface" is 18 3/4 inches high, although the gooseneck portion at the front of the trailer is 48 inches high and 79 inches long. The vehicle will be equipped with 12 1/4 inch by 5 inch air brakes.

We agree with our member that this unit is exempt from FMVSS 121, since it meets the definition of a "heavy-hauler trailer". However the member would appreciate your agreement just to be on the safe side.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

THOMAS S. PIERATT/LW -- Executive Director

Enclosure:

[Graphics omitted]

ID: 3012yy

Mr. Masaharu Morino
Manager, Far East Department
Guy B. Barham Company
500 North Nash Street
El Segundo, California 90245

Dear Mr. Morino:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211). In your letter, you enclosed two samples of "spinner" hubcaps, a product sheet describing several different designs of spinner hubcaps, and a letter from the New York Area Director of the U.S. Customs Service regarding spinner hubcaps. You asked whether these "spinner" hubcaps may legally be imported into this country from Taiwan. The answer is no. Spinner hubcaps may not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States, nor may they legally be imported into the United States.

I have enclosed copies of this agency's March 16, 1988 letter to Representative Terry L. Bruce, a May 13, 1987 letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, and a November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. These letters reaffirmed past interpretations stating that spinner hubcaps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hubcaps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added.). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hubcaps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

In your letter, you stated that some spinner hubcaps are currently being manufactured in the U. S. Thank you for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I have also sent a copy of this letter to the Area Director of Customs for the New York Seaport.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Area Director of Customs New York Seaport New York, New York 10048 re: CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:101 835326

/ref: 211 d:6/4/9l

ID: nht74-4.30

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1974, question whether "I" or "II" should appear as a part of the label information on renewable 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch SP fittings.

It is not permissible to include type "I" or "II" in the labeling required on renewable fittings. S7.2 calls for the end fitting identification which appears in your letter, but S7.2 reserves the use of "I" and "II" for use in reusable assemblies, that is, assemblies which include reusable end fittings. The standard classifies renewable end fittings as a type of permanently-attached end fitting.

Yours truly

May 21, 1974

Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: T. W. Herlihy

We manufacture a line of renewable fittings for 1/4, 3/8, 7/16, 1/2 and 5/8" I. D. air brake hose. These couplings have a deformable sleeve and can be assembled in our factory, or in the field, with hand tools. While the sleeve can only be used once, the other components can be reused with a new sleeve (hence, the name renewable).

According to our interpretation of FMVSS 106, these fittings will now fall into the permanently attached coupling classification. However, because they are not two piece end fittings attached by crimping or swaging, they must be permanently labeled.

After carefully studying the DOT specificaion, we have decided on the following marking for each size of fitting (the hose involved is SAE J1402 Type A and Type B). HOSE I. D. COUPLING IDENTIFICATION 1/4 DOT ** A 1/4 3/8 * DOT ** A 3/8 7/16 DOT ** A 7/16 1/2 SP * DOT ** A 1/2 SP 5/8 DOT ** A 5/8

* Shown on reusable assembly Table III.

My question is this - What, if any, designation must appear after the letter "A" on the 3/8 and 1/2 SP. fittings? The above fittings are compatible with both SAE Type A and Type B hose and your Table III does not specify which type is represented by your Type I or Type II and the dimensions of each hose are identical. Is it necessary to use I or II after the A's?

Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION

Eastman Division

M. A. Chermak

Chief Product Engineer

ID: 8505

Mr. Arvind V. Rajan
Vice President, Marketing and Planning
Solectria Corporation
27 Jason Street
Arlington, MA 02174

Dear Mr. Rajan:

We have received your letter of March 30, 1993, asking for confirmation that Solectria Corporation is permitted to import nonconforming motor vehicles for conversion to electric power, provided that the vehicles will be exported immediately following conversion. The vehicle you wish to import is the Suzuki Swift, similar to the Suzuki Swift that has been certified by its manufacturer for sale in the United States, except that the steering column is on the right hand side, and that it has not been certified.

There is no section of the importation provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) that directly permit the importation of nonconforming vehicles for purposes of repair or alteration. Obviously, the failure of such vehicles to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards poses no risk of traffic accidents, or deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents if these vehicles are never driven on the public roads. In these instances, the agency tries to provide an interpretation of the Act that is consistent with both the purpose of the Act and the facts at hand.

Section 108(b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)), in effect, allows importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle "intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle . . . and on the outside of the container, if any which is exported." As the legislative history of this section makes clear, "[t]his legislation does not purport to establish standards for motor vehicles . . . to be used entirely outside the United States." (House Report 1776, page 24). Section 108(b)(3) has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.5(c). We believe that, under the facts as described in your letter, it would be appropriate for Solectria to import nonconforming Suzuki Swifts for conversion to electric power pursuant to paragraph 591.5(c). The vehicles have not been imported for use on the American roads, but solely for export following their conversion. We assume that Solectria will label the converted vehicles and their containers, if applicable, in accordance with the regulatory requirement.

If we may help you in any other way, please let us know.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:4/26/93