ID: 0533

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

We have received your letter of November 29, 1994, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591.

Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation "solely for export", provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation.

You foresee a situation in which "a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer". Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c).

Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592.

If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366- 2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:591#592#593 d:12/22/94

ID: 10947-1

Giuseppe Di Vito
Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A.
Sede e Stabilimenti
66050 San Salvo (Chieti)
Zona Industriale

Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil test). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test applies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:8/4/95

ID: nht94-3.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1994

FROM: P. Binder -- ITT Automotive Europe GmbH

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/94 from John Womack to P. Binder (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

Thank you for your reply of June 21, 1994.

To my regret I was forced to realize that I had made a mistake. My fax of April 28, 1994 should be referred to tail lamps.

Lighting System:

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

1. With regard to the tail lamps I interpret FMVSS 108 and SAE J 585e, Sept. 77 as follows:

- This Lighting System is a multiple lamp arrangement, therefore the combination of taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 has to be used to meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections (SAE J 585e; 3.1 and Table 1).

2

- Visibility will be judged with tailgate closed. Only taillamp 2 mounted on the tailgate will meet the requirements for an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12,5 cm' measured at 45 deg inboard. This is in accordance with SAE J 585e; Par. 4.

Is my interpretation o.k.?

2. Some general questions:

- Are there regulations, which lamps has to be mounted on the body and which lamps are allowed on the tailgate?

Is there a regulation to take an approval test in an authorized test laboratory (e.g. ETL)?

- Which US-Authority has to be informed about this test?

- How long is this test valid?

- After which period has this test to be repeated?

Excuse my thoughtlessness. Please reply as soon as possible by fax (Fax-No.: Germany - 7142 - 73 28 95). Thank you very much in advance.

ID: nht95-5.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede e Stabilimenti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/22/95 LETTER FROM GIUSEPPE DI VITO TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10947)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil test). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test applies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede e Stabilimenti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/22/95 LETTER FROM GIUSEPPE DI VITO TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10947)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter t hat you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil t est). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test appl ies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1983-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Dorgan:

This responds to your letter to Secretary Dole, raising concerns expressed to you in a letter signed by Mssrs., Rick Herbel and Douglas Glove, two of your constituents. These gentlemen asked why school districts are not permitted to purchase vans which do not satisfy the comprehensive school bus safety standards, when such vans would "be used only for hauling cheerleaders, supplies and etc." These gentlemen noted that the capacity of these vans would be from 10 to 15 people, and that they would be more economical to use than a full-size school bus. As is more fully explained below, the answer is that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), together with the comprehensive safety standards for school buses (which the Act required this agency to issue) require that all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons which are significantly used to transport school students must be certified as meeting those safety standards. Ordinary passenger vans are not certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be so used.

In 1974, Congress passed the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492; hereinafter referred to as "the Amendments"). The Amendments added to the Act the following definition of a school bus; "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools; ..."(15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). Those Amendments also provided that, not later than 15 months after they were enacted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to promulgate minimum performance standards for specified aspects of safety performance. The Amendments specified further that these standards "shall apply to each school bus and item of school bus equipment which is manufactured in or imported into the United States on or after April 1, 1977." (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(B)).

Prior to this Congressional action, many school districts had used so-called "activity buses" to transport students to and from extra-curricular activities. The activity buses were used because they were said to be more comfortable, more prestigious, and so forth. The floor debates on the Amendments show that Congress was aware of the practice of using these activity buses, yet chose to specify a broad definition of school bus. Congress took this step to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as those used to transport the children to and from school. This decision was based partly on the fact that 150 children were killed in 1971 in school bus accidents (see 120 Cong. Rec. H8120, daily ed., August 12, 1974). The statistics since the Amendments were passed indicate that Congress' goal of greatly reducing these facilities has been accomplished by the school bus safety standards promulgated by this agency. In 1981, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 10 fatalities in school bus accidents.

There are two courses of action open to your constituents if they wish to purchase vans for extracurricular activities. First, they could purchase a smaller 9-passenger van, because these vehicles would not be considered school buses under the Congressional definition, which applies only to vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers. Second, they can purchase 15 passenger vans which have been modified and certified as complying with the school bus safety standards. A number of companies will make the necessary modifications to these vans so that they can be certified as complying with those standards.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituents' Letter

Oct. 24, 1983

Representative Byran Dorgan Washington, DC

Dear Representative Dorgan,

We have a question on Federal Regulations on why School Districts can not purchase a van type vehicle from a local dealer without meeting full bus specifications when the van would be used only for hauling cheerleaders, supplies and etc. The capacity is from 10 to 15 people and this includes the driver. This is more economical for a school to be able to handle a small group of people say 5 or 6 than to have to use a bus which gets poor mileage and cost considerably more to drive. Can the school purchase a van for small groups and hauling supplies and is this permissible in the regulation?

Thank you,

Sincerely, Original signed by Rick L. Herbel, Superintendent and Douglas Grove, Superintendent, Powers Lake High School Powers Lake, ND

December 9, 1983

Hon. Elizabeth Dole Secretary, Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

The attached letter from a constituent raises some legitimate concerns about the regulations that are imposed on school bus vans.

I would appreciate a review of this situation, and a reply to the letter that I have attached.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Byron L. Dorgan, Member of Congress

ID: nht93-1.18

DATE: January 25, 1993

FROM: Jeff Gerner -- Product Engineering Manager, Banner Welder, Inc., Environmental Recycling Equipment Division

TO: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Jeff Gerner (A41; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: After speaking to George Entwistle from OVSC of NHTSA, George recommended that I write your office to request a legal interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 571.121 for BANNER's line of Mobile Machinery.

BANNER manufactures two (2) lines of mobile machinery, the Farwick American Mobile Trommel Screener and the Jenz American Mobile Shredder. The machines are designed to be used at compost sites (similar to a landfill environment) for processing yard waste. Some of these machines may be towed to the site and never moved from the site again. Others may be used to operate multiple sites, and will require daily or weekly transportation on Federal, State and local highways. In general, however, the machines are primarily off-road vehicles.

Upon reviewing 121, I have learned that mechanical emergency braking is a requirement of this standard. Utilizing a braking system of this type will prove to be extremely inconvenient for normal daily operation, which will require frequent moving of the machine. Typically these machines are moved at the compost site with front-end loaders. With a brake system of this type, this will not be possible. Instead a truck with an air brake system will be required at all times in order to move the machine.

Please review the enclosed literature and technical specifications and provide a response that states whether this machinery may be exempt from this standard.

In addition, please provide any references to standards that are applicable.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

Attached to brochures (Farwick Mobile Trommel Screens and Jenz American Mobile Shredder).

(Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht68-4.4

DATE: 08/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John A. McLaine; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 9, 1968, containing literature on "Super-Lite" which will be an optional lighting device on the 1969 Dodge Polara and Monaco Models.

According to the literature, "Super-Lite" is an auxillary or supplemental light to be used in conjunction with the low beams of the regular headlamps.

For many years, all lighting devices used on motor vehicles registered in New Jersey have been required to be approved by the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. Lighting devices are added to our approved list after a sample has been submitted along with a report from an independent testing laboratory showing that the device meets the standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers. We will also add a motor vehicle lighting device to our approved list after we receive an Approval Certificate from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators showing that the device meets the SAE Standards.

Electric Supplementary Lamps, such as the "Super-Lite" are covered by SAE Standard No. J582. Perhaps you have submitted a sample light and the necessary test report to the AAMVA, but as yet, we have not received a copy of the Approval Certificate.

In case you desire to have us approve the "Super-Lite" on the basis of New Jersey alone. Please send us a sample and test report, as mentioned above.

Unless the "Super-Lite" is on our approved list at the time motor vehicles equipped with the lighting device are going through our inspection stations, the vehicles will have to be rejected.

New Jersey R S. 39:3-51 concerns the mounting and aiming of auxiliary driving lights. A copy of this section is enclosed for your information.

ID: 18857.ztv

Edward L. Anderson, PE
Supervisor, Automotive Engineering
Central Automotive Division
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Port Authority Technical Center
241 Erie Street
Jersey City, NY 07310-1397

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is in reply to your fax of September 29, 1998, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. You have questioned the compliance of certain dump trucks with the rear lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Our delay in answering your letter is due, in part, to our reassessment of the issue you raised, and our wish to provide you with the results of that reassessment.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires, as you note, that clearance lamps on the rear shall be mounted "as near the top as practicable." The Port Authority has bought dump trucks with "both identification and clearance lights mounted below the dump body at chassis level" rather than "at the high rear corners as depicted on the dump truck shown on the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)] website." You ask if there is an "exception that we are missing or should we be insisting that manufacturers install their clearance lights as shown."

The only exception is stated in S5.3.1.4 of Standard No. 108, which provides that rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle if the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. This does not appear applicable to the situation you cite where both identification and clearance lamps are located at chassis level.

The website illustration indicates the preferred location for identification and clearance lamps. However, the determination of the circumstances under which an uppermost location may be "practicable" has been the subject of our review. I enclose a copy of a Federal Register notice published on April 5, 1999, that discusses this issue in full. Heretofore, we have accepted a manufacturer's determination of "practicability" unless it was clearly erroneous. Under our published interpretation, we will no longer defer to a manufacturer's subjective determination of practicability. Instead, as applied to dump trucks, if under all the circumstances, it would be practicable to locate clearance and identification lamps closer to the top of a vehicle than they have been, preferably at the top of the dump truck, the manufacturer must do so.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.4/16/99

ID: 2909yy

Mr. Rueben K. Brown
Product Engineer
Crane Carrier Company
P.O. Box 582891
1925 North Sheridan
Tulsa, OK 74158

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1991 requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the spike stop requirement in Standard No. 105 to school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs. While school buses are required by S5.1 to be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.6, the spike stop requirement in S5.1.6 is only applicable to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. Therefore, school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs are not required to be capable of meeting the spike stop requirement.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref: 105 d:3/29/9l