ID: nht81-1.11

DATE: 02/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Synnestvedt & Lechner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of December 11, 1980, in which you ask us to reconsider the interpretation we issued on April 22, 1980, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. We stated in our letter to you on that date that the abrasion test for vehicle windshield glazing must be conducted on both the exterior and the interior surfaces of the windshield (i.e., both surfaces must comply with the requirements of the standard).

After further consideration, we reaffirm our earlier interpretation. However, on January 19, 1981, the NHTSA did issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on whether Standard No. 205 should be amended to adopt less stringent requirements for glass-plastic glazing. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SYNNESTVEDT & LECHNER

December 11, 1980

Frank E. Berndt, Esquire -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: NOA-30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

By letter of December 9, 1980 from Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein, we have been advised of the granting of the petition of our client, Saint-Gobain Vitrage, to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

In the context of a rulemaking proceeding in progress, we ask that prompt attention be given to our letter of May 7, 1980, copy enclosed, requesting that you reconsider the interpretative ruling we seek. By the interpretation we urge, some actual on-road experience in the United States could be gathered during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. This would come about through the supply from Saint-Gobain Vitrage to European car manufacturers who are already customers for the Securiflex inner guard windshield, of additional such windshields to be used in cars being shipped to the United States. Audi and Peugeot are obvious candidates to begin such introduction, although there are other European car manufacturers who would probably do the same, perhaps as an optional feature.

We will look for your response.

Very truly yours,

John T. Synnestvedt

Enclosures

cc: Joan Claybrook

ID: nht74-1.43

DATE: 04/28/74

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

TO: Mark Bedrossyan

COPYEE: L. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning your "Straight Ahead" directional signal for motor vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," permits lamps, reflective devices or other motor vehicle equipment in addition to those that are required (headlights, parking lamps, turn signal lamps, etc.) providing that the effectiveness of the required devices is not impaired. It does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps; therefore, it would be permitted, either as original equipment, or as an aftermarket item.

Since the performance aspects of your device are not covered by Standard No. 108, the individual States are free to regulate the sale and use of your device. If your "Straight Ahead" signal flashes, its use would probably be prohibited in most of the States, because of their restrictions on flashing lights for motor vehicles.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Not controlled

ATTACH.

ATLANTIC ELECTRONICS LABORATORIES

March 21, 1979

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

Subject: "Straight Ahead"

Directional Signal for Motor Vehicles

Over two decades ago, the use of electrical (Illegible Word) signals on motor vehicles became mandatory nation-wide, this decision has proved both useful and effective in preventing accidents.

It is believed there is room for an additional device, and to fill this need, we have designed the "Straight-Ahead" electrical directional signal for cars and trucks, which is controlled from the dashboard by a switch. This is intended to be used at intersections and certain other road conditions. (Please see the inclosed pictorial representations).

I have already installed such a device on my own car on an experimental basis.

It is respectfully requested that you evaluate this idea, and permit its use, if deemed appropriate, since we plan to market it in kit form.

New car manufacturers are being contacted to bring this new idea to their attention.

An (Illegible Word) reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mark B. Bedrossyan

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Bernard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert L. Bernard Attorney at Law 12342 Wrenthrope Drive Houston, TX 77031

Dear Mr. Bernard:

This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21, 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR S571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufacture s. It does not.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indel ibly on a Dart of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirement s, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 or 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief of Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: FMVSS-115

I have purchased a AC Mark IV motor vehicle manufactured by Autokraft in England which complies with all D.O.T. and E.P.A. rules and regulations and is imported and sold through Ford Motor Company franchised dealers with Ford warranty.

Enclosed please find a copy from the company brochure.

I have requested the deletion of the chrome script name "Autokraft" from the trunk from the manufacturer.

I request your opinion that the above standard and regulation does not require the chrome script name "Autokraft" on the trunk because there is the name and data plate affixed to the body in the engine compartment.

I have discussed this matter with Joan Tilghman and she requested that I write to you.

Please advise.

Very truly yours,

Robert L. Bernard

RLB/kmr/ed

cc: Joan Tilghman

ID: nht93-1.32

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

COPYEE: UNDER SECRETARY -- KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-2-92 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8088); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 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." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht93-7.35

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Head, Safety Affairs and Operations, NAO Engineering, Safety Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from Milford R. Bennett (Signature by Richard F. Humphrey) to H. M. Smolkin (OCC-9189)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555).

Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles.

Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that "(t)he Secretary may require that written notification of (an) exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate." NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that "(t)he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers" (37 FR 25534).

We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) "and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities." If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it.

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: nht75-2.6

DATE: 09/16/75

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

TO: Kleber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1975, asking whether it is permissible to import into this country a tire designed exclusively for racing purposes.

Tires designed to be used exclusively on racing vehicles, i.e., vehicles other than "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, are not regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and may be imported. The labeling that you propose to use appears to be appropriate to warn users of their intended purpose. Manufacturers of such equipment should take all reasonable steps to ensure that their products are not misused.

YOURS TRULY,

June 3, 1975

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Attention : Marc Schwimmer

First, let me briefly describe KLEBER CORP. KLEBER CORP. is a wholly owned subsidiary of KLEBER-COLOMBES of Paris, France. We are the second largest tire manufacturer in France after MICHELIN. All our tires are of radial concept. Since the beginning of this year, we are developing a distribution network in the U.S.A. Naturally, our passenger tires conform with Federal Standard 109.

In Europe, KLEBER manufactures tires that are designed for small formula cars (i.e.: Formula Ford). These tires are to be used exclusively on racing vehicles and not on regular automobiles. They do not bear the D.O.T. engravings.

We would like to import these tires in the U.S.A. and find that our sole competitor would be a GOODYEAR tire called "G-19". The "G-19" has no D.O.T. markings but on both sidewalls the caption "FOR RACING PURPOSES ONLY - NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE" appears in 1/4 inch letters.

We would like to know if it is legal to import and sell our tires (similar to the G-19) in this country, if, like GOODYEAR, we indicate "FOR RACING PURPOSES ONLY - NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE" on both sidewalls. As additional warning, we plan to print the same text on all invoices and literature related to these type tires.

On this subject, I contacted Mr. Diehl of the D.O.T. who feels that there should be no problem but suggested we check with you.

I am at your entire disposal for any further information you may need and remain,

KLEBER CORP.

Guy A. Catherine

General Sales Manager

ID: nht91-6.45

DATE: November, 1991 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-14-91 from Robert W. Smith to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, 1990.

You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a "flashing/steady burning stop lamp", for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and "an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp" for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. 108 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp.

Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. 108 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent.

You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. 108. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that - a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108.

ID: 9189

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Head
Safety Affairs and Operations
NAO Engineering
Safety Center
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road/S3-N27
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555).

Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles.

Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that "[t]he Secretary may require that written notification of [an] exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate." NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that "[t]he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers" (37 FR 25534).

We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) "and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities." If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:10/22/93

ID: nht72-3.49

DATE: 09/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 1972, on the subject of the conformity of the Volkswagen shoulder belt/knee bar system to the requirement of Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay.

Your first question is whether the system would meet the requirements for a fully passive system under S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3 if it were adjusted automatically and met the frontal and lateral crash protection requirements if S5.1 and S5.2 and if the vehicle conformed to Standard 216. Our reply is that a passive seat belt system of the type you describe would appear to satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3. It would also, however, be required to meet the requirements of S4.5.3. We cannot determine from your description whether the system is capable of fitting the range of occupants specified in S7.1, as required by S4.5.3.3.

Your second question concerns the possibility that the system could be used, with the shoulder belt either active or passive, to meet the second or third option for passenger cars manufactured between August 15, 1973, and August 15, 1975. You point to two variances between the Volkswagen system and the system contemplated by these options. S4.1.2.2 requires the installation of a Type 1 seat belt, whereas the Volkswagen system contains only a shoulder belt and a knee bar. S4.1.2.3 specifies either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly, neither of which is found in the Volkswagen system. It is our opinion that these variances are such that an amendment of the standard would be required to permit the use of the Volkswagen system under either S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3.

With reference to both the passive system discussed in your first question and a petition for rulemaking in connection with your second, we are particularly concerned with the actual crash performance of a single diagonal belt restraint as opposed to the Type 1 or Type 2 belts permitted in Standard No. 208. The injury criteria presently included in Standard No. 208 may not differentiate between restraint systems with good crash force distribution, such as the air cushion, and those such as the single diagonal belt which could poorly distribute loads on real human occupants. Accordingly, we would appreciate your sending us accident data describing experience with the European type single diagonal belt.