ID: nht71-2.24

DATE: 04/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Good Rumor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 2 you petitioned for an amendment of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 which would eliminate the requirement for an outage indicator on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width equipped with variable-load turn signal flashers.

The Administration has determined that vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width should be provided with a turnsignal outage indication. As a general rule, these vehicles are not subject to the inspections and maintenance that larger vehicles are, and a malfunctioning turn-signal unit is less likely to be discovered in the absence of an outage indication to the driver. Your petition for rulemaking is therefore denied.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards, however, do not prohibit the use of variable-load flashers as replacement equipment for fixed-load flashers.

ID: nht94-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gerald J. Gannon -- General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-94 from Gerald Gannon to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether NHTSA intended, in a recent final rule, "to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a 'park' provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device?" You stated that the final rule might be interpreted to produce that result, but argued, based on the preamble, that a more limited result was intended. You suggested that a clarifying amendment would be appropriate. We apologize for the delay in our response.

After reviewing your letter, we have concluded that the issue you raise should be addressed in rulemaking. We anticipate that a notice addressing this issue will be issued shortly.

ID: nht94-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1994

FROM: Antonio Salvetti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/29/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT/JOHN WOMACK TO ANTONIO SALVETTI (A42; PART 567)

TEXT: I am very interested in buying a new vehicle manufactured by Advanced Generation Motors Inc. called the AGM "PLAYA" which is based on a Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift unit.

The conversion consists on taking out all doors of the hatchback, cutting the roof and redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass as far as it was explained to me. The Playa has no doors and comes with a full enclosure in canvas.

My questions are:

1) Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? 2) How do I know that they comply with all the safety requirements? 3) How are they responsible for any vehicles problems? 4) Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet?

Thank you in advanced for the information.

ID: nht71-3.34

DATE: 07/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 with its enclosures from the Staff Judge Advocate, Aberdeen Proving Ground. The Judge Advocate requests an "interpretation of the applicability of the [military] exception to recent motor vehicle brake fluid legislation," stating his specific interest in "the use of MIL-P-46046" brake fluid.

We are unaware of any "legislation" that affects the manufacture and use of MIL-P-46046 brake fluid. The NHTSA issued an amended brake fluid standard on June 24 but this does not affect the exception provided in 49 CFR @ 571.7(c) that "No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Force of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." Thus continued use of MIL-P-46046 brake fluid by military personnel appears permissible as far as this agency is concerned.

ID: nht74-3.31

DATE: 09/06/74

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

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 14, 1974, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974), regarding its applicability to specific hydraulic brake booster hoses used on General Motors products.

As indicated in Notice 11, it is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intention to exempt from the requirements of the standard hydraulic booster lines subject to a different working environment than brake hose, pending development of special performance requirements for such lines. General Motors' interpretation that the hydraulic booster hoses used in the systems described in your August 14 letter are exerpted from the standard requirements is correct. The system described in your Attachment A is considered to incorporate an accumulator integral with the brake booster assembly. Hence all of the hoses run between the power steering pump and the accumulator (either directly or via the power steering gear) and are accordingly exempted per the Notice 11 preamble. The hoses used in the system described in your Attachment B are exempted by virtue of the provision of redundant booster power by the independent electrohydraulic pump.

A future amendment to FMVSS 106 to eliminate ambiguity in respect to the standard's applicability to hydraulic booster hoses is currently under consideration. Any such amendment will be consistent with the present interpretation.

ID: nht70-1.37

DATE: 01/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 20, 1970, with which you enclosed copies of tables that you have developed for insertion into your consumer information booklets for prospective purchasers. These tables contain the required vehicle descriptions that were missing from your booklets, as I noted in my letter of December 11, 1969.

I am glad that you have decided to alter your existing booklets to conform as closely as possible, under the circumstances, to the regulations. With reference to your discussion of the advantages of various formats, I would simply say that at this time the matter is one of conformity to the regulations, and refer you to the advice in an earlier letter that the vehicle descriptions, in terms in which the vehicles are commonly described to the public, are required to be placed in proximity to the tables. The Bureau is willing to consider these and any other comments you might make as suggestions for further rulemaking to improve the required formats.

I assume that in subsequent printing runs of Chrysler booklets you will print each vehicle description in close proximity to the pertinent table, so as to bring the booklets into full conformity. The Bureau and its legal staff are prepared to assist you at any time if you have further questions.

ID: nht74-5.16

DATE: 03/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: C. KACHN; D. PRITCHARD

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1974, which requested interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems."

The wiped area as stated in S4.1.2, is to be evaluated as a percentage of areas A, B, and C "of the windshield." This means that areas A, B, and C are evaluated in "unwrapped view." rather than in the form of a projection of the Windshield's surface.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 21, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Mr. Elwood Driver

Re: Ruling Standard 104

As discussed with Mr. Pritchard on January 18, 1974 Daimler-Benz AG. is seeking a ruling with respect to interpretation of S4.1.2 of paragraph 571.104, windshield wiping and washing systems.

S4.1.2 references in respect of the wiped area to SAE recommended practice J903a from May 1966. Definition of the wiped area on the windshield is outlined in this recommended practice under 2.4 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and constitutes tangential cut-off of the two-dimensional eye range contour.

You are undoubtedly aware that SAE recommended practice J903a has been superseded by SAE J903b, last revised in July 1968. In this practice the wiped area is evaluated in an unwrapped view in which the wiped pattern and the areas A, B and C have been incorporated.

571.104 as well as J903a do not state whether the areas A, B and C should be evaluated in relation to the A area in projected form or in unwrapped view as exercised in J903b.

An early ruling in clarification of the above mentioned problem area is highly appreciated.

G. M. Hespelar Manager Safety Engineering

ID: 86-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson Director, Product Engineering E-Z-GO Textron P.O. Box 388 Augusta, GA 30913-2699

Dear Mr. Eavenson:

This responds to your letter asking whether a vehicle your company might import from Japan would be subject to Federal safety requirements. You stated that the vehicle will have a top speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour, be powered by a 20 horsepower engine, would have no body panels other than a protective cab enclosure, and is not designed or intended for use on public roads. Based on this information, these vehicles would not appear to be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as explained below.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. Section 102(3) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards. You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on the public roads, but would be used only at factories, golf courses, and for some off-road applications. Based on these statements, these vehicles do not appear to be motor vehicles, because they are not manufactured for use on the public roads.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 20, 1986

Chief Counsel National Hwy. Transportation Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir (Madam)

E-Z-GO Textron would like your opinion on a potential new product addition, which would be imported from Fuji Heavy Industries of Shinjuku, Japan.

This vehicle is considered for non-highway use at factories, golf courses and some off-road application. The vehicle incorporated a 20 horsepower engine with a four wheel drive powertrain. Gearing, governors and tires will limit the vehicle's top speed to 25 to 30 miles per hour to render it more suitable for grounds maintenance and industrial applications.

United States Customs have indicated that the proposed vehicle would fall under their Tariff Regulation 692.40, Non-highway Self-Propelled Vehicles. The vehicle as imported, would not include body panels with the exception of a protective cab enclosure. The engine is a special built, twin cylinder, industrial type that is being used on a three wheel vehicle manufactured at our Augusta, Georgia factory.

Since this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on public thoroughfares, we would like your opinion on this matter in order to avoid any potential problems.

Your helpfulness and prompt reply in this matter will greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jimmy N. Eavenson Director Product Engineering

ID: 1985-01.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products, Inc. 27967 Beale Court Valencia, CA 91355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter regarding the importation of motorcycle helmets by your company from Italy.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, applies to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. You stated in your letter that there is a DOT "approval sticker" on the helmet and that your company's name is clearly displayed on the helmet. Standard No. 218 requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with the manufacturer's name or identification, model designation, size, month and year of manufacture, and the symbol DOT. The DOT symbol does not indicate approval of any helmet by the Department of Transportation. Instead, the DOT symbol represents the manufacturer's certification that the helmet meets all the requirements of Standard No. 218. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.

As an importer, your company is also considered a manufacturer under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is administered by this agency. Therefore, either your company's name or the Italian manufacturer's name should be af fixed to each helmet. Your company and the Italian manufacturer are both responsible for any defect in the helmet or failure to comply with the standard's requirements.

You asked about other regulations of which you should be aware. Copies of these are enclosed:

49 CFR Part 551--Procedural Rules (Subpart D--Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers). 49 CFR Part 566--Manufacturer Identification.

If you need additional information, please contact this office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

December 11, 1984

N.H.T.S.A. Office Chief Council 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20690 Attn: Mr. Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt

Please let me introduce our company to you. We are, Answer Products, 27967 Beale Ct., Valencia, Ca., 91355.

We currently are importing helmets from Italy. The helmet does have a D.O.T. approval sticker on it, but the manufacturers name is not displayed on the helmet. Our name is clearly displayed on the helmet.

We do have a product liability insurance policy, from the manufacture for, $5,000,000 and our own policy for $2,000,000.

I need to know if there is any other special regulations that we need to be aware of, and also if the manufacture name should be displayed on each helmet?

My secretary spoke to a agent in your office this morning and he mentioned a standard 218, which I am not familiar with. Is there any way you could send me a copy of this?

I would appreciate any information you could forward to me concerning this. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Eddie Cole V.P. Answer products, Inc. EC:sc

ID: nht75-4.45

DATE: 07/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Michelle Bolton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 12, 1975, concerning requirements for automobile air conditioning units, which was forwarded to this office by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We have established no requirements, general or specific, for automobile air conditioning units. As a result, we have no material to provide you.

If you have further questions, feel free to write again.

Yours Truly,

BOLTON & BOLTON

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

June 12, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency

Re: Requirements for Automobile Air Conditioning Units

Our firm is currently involved in a case regarding what we believe to be consumer fraud in reference to an automobile air conditioning unit. In order to assist in the prosecution of this matter we are in need of the following information. Your attention in furnishing us with the requested material will be of invaluable assistance.

Foremost, do you establish requirements for automobile air conditioning units? In particular have you formulated requirements for that air conditioning unit utilized in the 1974 Fiat X 1/9? Have the air conditioning units used in such automobiles passed the necessary requirements? Where would we be able to locate those requirements which have been passed? Our interest is in both the specific and general requirements for automobile air conditioning units. Further, would the results of tests made upon that air conditioning unit utilized in the 1974 Fiat X 1/9 be available; and if so where could these be found?

Your prompt attention in answering these questions and providing us with any material which you have available will be greatly appreciated.

Thanking you in advance, we are

Michelle Bolton