ID: nht80-3.26

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR M. HAENCHEN -- ADMINISTRATOR VEHICLE REGULATIONS VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/15/88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/22/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES' FROM M. IWASE RE INSTALLATION OF TAIL AND STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980, asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section states that lamps "shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle ... that is not designed to be removed except for repair." It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license plate lamps could be mounted on the deck lid.

We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to insure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flamps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy.

Sincerely

ID: nht80-2.45

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meon, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 6, 1980

Mr. Martin D. Davis Meon, Inc. 221-18 Merrick Boulevard Springfield Gardens, New York 11413

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of May 8, 1980, asking whether certain listed sizes of Phoenix brand tires, imported by Meon, Inc. fall within the coverage of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S 575.104). You state that Meon, Inc. is the sole United States importer of Phoenix tires, that the total number of Phoenix tires to be imported will not exceed 35,000 per year, and that no more than 15,000 tires of a particular type or size will be imported annually.

The UTQG Standards do not apply to "limited production tires" as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of the UTQG regulation. To qualify as a limited production tire, the annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner cannot exceed 15,000 tires (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(i) and (ii)). The tire's size cannot have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into this country in quantities exceeding 10,000 vehicles during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(iii)). In addition, the total annual domestic production or importation into the United States by the tire's manufacturer of tires otherwise meeting the limited production criteria cannot exceed 35,000 tires (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(iv)).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the first and third criteria would be satisfied with regard to Meon's contemplated importation of Phoenix tires. However, your letter provides no information on the production of vehicles for which the stated tire sizes may be recommended.

In order to ascertain whether the subject tires meet all of the criteria for limited production tires, Meon must determine the motor vehicles for which the stated sizes were designated as recommended tire sizes during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and the domestic production or importation of each of those vehicles for that calendar year.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

MAY 8, 1980

MR. RICHARD J. HIPOLIT OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. HIPOLIT: RE: PHOENIX IMPORTED TIRES FROM WEST GERMANY

PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF TODAY WE REQUEST WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM YOUR OFFICE THAT PHOENIX IMPORTED TIRES ARE EXEMPT FROM UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING.

THE FACTS ARE THESE:

1. WE ARE THE DESIGNATED AGENT OF PHOENIX A.G. OF WEST GERMANY, MANUFACTURERS OF PHOENIX BRAND TIRES. WE ARE ALSO THE SOLE IMPORTERS.

2. WE IMPORT THE FOLLOWING TYPES, SIZES, AND CONSTRUCTIONS:

SIZE TOTAL # # AND TYPES TREAD DESIGN TREAD COMPOUND OF PLIES OF PLIES

185/60HR13 5 1 RAYON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 185/60VR13 5 2 STEEL 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 175/70HR13 5 2 NYLON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED

185/70HR13 6 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60HR13 6 2 RAYON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60HR13 6 2 STEEL 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 195/60HR14 6 2 NYLON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 185/70HR14 6 4 RIB HIGH SPEED

195/70HR14 4 5 RIB HIGH SPEED 195/70VR14 4 2 RAYON 5 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 205/70HR14 4 2 STEEL 5 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/70VR14 4 5 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED

205/60HR15 6 2 RAYON, 2 STEEL 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60VR15 6 2 NYLON 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED

LATER THIS YEAR WILL BE ADDED THE FOLLOWING TIRES:

235/60HR13 235/60VR13 245/60HR14 245/60VR14 195/50HR15 195/50VR15

TOTAL TIRES TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT EXCEED 35,000 PER YEAR. NO SINGLE TYPE OR SIZE WILL EXCEED 15,000 IN QUANTITY FOR A YEAR.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT PHOENIX TIRES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS REGULATION. EACH OF THE 14 TIRE TYPES AND SIZES WE SELL NOW HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS AND WOULD ENTAIL SEPARATE TESTS, THE COSTS OF WHICH WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE, AND THE RESULTS LIMITED. WITH 6 SIZES AND TYPES MORE TO BE ADDED SOON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS REQUIRED WOULD BE 20. THIS WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AND SERVE NO GOOD.

WE WERE REFERRED TO YOU BY DR. F. CECIL BRENNER OF THE OFFICE OF AUTOMOTIVE RATINGS.

AWAITING YOUR CONFIRMATION, WE ARE

VERY TRULY YOURS,

MARTIN D. DAVIS, PRESIDENT MEON, INC.

MDD:AB

ID: nht94-8.19

DATE: February 11, 1994

FROM: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Jerry L. Steffy (A42; Std. 108; Part 555)

TEXT:

Since I faxed you with my question regarding FMVSS 108 and ECE Reg. 20, I received Part 555 of 49 CFR from Luke Loy.

555.5 implies that we could apply for an exemption from FMVSS 108 for this headlamp since there exists "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." This is of course, if NHTSA recognizes the worthiness of the testing under ECE Reg. 20.

This exemption would only be for the first model year as afterwards we will change to a headlamp already FMVSS 108.

Can you please confirm for the if this is a route we can employ in this instance?

Best regards.

2-10-94 fax from J.L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson:

Dear Taylor:

Luke Loy suggested that I contact you with a specific query I have. Recently, in Canada, we were able to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp system use. Is it possible to substitute ECE 20 for FMVSS 108 in the states in some instances? Of course the majority of our suppliers fulfill testing according to FMVSS 108 however, there are individual exceptions. Some cases may require significant investment in order to have individual cases comply, so it is important to know.

Best regards

ID: nht75-6.4

DATE: 03/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1975, requesting our review of certain sections of the "Part 568" document Oshkosh wishes to use for all its vehicles.

We believe you may use a rubber stamp which states, "Standard No. 121 Not Applicable" over the part of the document regarding conformity with Standard No. 121, for vehicles to which the standard does not apply. We would, however, add the words, "to this vehicle."

Your statement in the document regarding Standard No. 116 also conforms to the requirements of Part 568.

Finally, you are correct with respect to the language of @ 568.4(a)(7). The reference to "(7)" in that section should be "(6)."

ID: nht95-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Miyashiro -- Northrop Grumman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/22/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS MIYASHIRO TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 11011)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miyashiro:

This is in response to a memo dated June 22, 1995 that you faxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff on July 12, 1995. Your memo states that Northrup Grumman's System Engineering Department is defining design requirements for an Advance Technology Transit Bus (ATTB), and, as part of that effort, researching whether the Federal Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581 would apply to such vehicles.

As noted in your memo, 49 CFR 581.3 states that the standard "applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles." The standard itself does not define the term "passenger motor vehicle," but does state, in section 581.4, that "all terms defined in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act . . . are used as defined therein." Section 2(1) of that Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101(10)), defines "passenger motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, design ed for carrying twelve persons or less . . ."

In light of this definition, the ATTB would not have to comply with the Bumper Standard unless it is designed to carry twelve persons or less.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-5.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Miyashiro -- Northrop Grumman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/22/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS MIYASHIRO TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 11011)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miyashiro:

This is in response to a memo dated June 22, 1995 that you faxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff on July 12, 1995. Your memo states that Northrup Grumman's System Engineering Department is defining design requirements for an Advance Technology Transit Bus (ATTB), and, as part of that effort, researching whether the Federal Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581 would apply to such vehicles.

As noted in your memo, 49 CFR 581.3 states that the standard "applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles." The standard itself does not define the term "passenger motor vehicle," but does state, in section 581.4, that "all terms defined in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act . . . are used as defined therein." Section 2(1) of that Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101(10)), defines "passenger motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, designed for carrying twelve persons or less . . ."

In light of this definition, the ATTB would not have to comply with the Bumper Standard unless it is designed to carry twelve persons or less.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht68-2.40

DATE: 11/13/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: NSU Motorenwerke Aktiengesellschaft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1968, to Mr. Eugene Laskin, Acting Director, Office of Standards Preparation, concerning reflex reflectors.

The use of two Class B reflectors combined with the fail lamps on the rear of your vehicles will not impair the effectiveness of the two Class A red reflex reflectors required in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. These devices are therefore in accordance with Standard No. 108, including paragraph S3.1.2.

Since this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment, the above comments are for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht95-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1995

FROM: James M. Hanson -- Chairman Engineering Committee, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TO: Phillip R. Recht, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request For Interpretation Of FMVSS-108 Paragraph S5.7

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JAMES M. HANSON (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: The Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI) serves manufactures of OEM and aftermarket motor vehicle safety devices and associated equipment including retroreflective tape.

FMVSS-108 states in Table 1 that a trailer 80 inches or more in width shall have a conspicuity treatment meeting the requirements of paragraph S5.7. Paragraph S5.7 states "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width, and with a GVWR over 10,000 poun ds, manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, . . . . shall be equipped with either retroreflective sheeting that meets . . . ." The word "and" in this paragraph could cause some trailer manufacturers to think that both conditions must be present before tape is required on the trailer. Some trailer manufacturers could interpret this to avoid applying tape in the following conditions:

1. A trailer of 80 inches or more in width weighing less than 10,000 pounds GVWR.

2. A trailer of less than 80 inches in width weighing more than 10,000 pounds GVWR.

TSEI believes that to assure maximum safety for the motoring public retroreflective tape should be applied to trailers that meet the following requirements:

a). A trailer of 80 inches or more in width and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more.

b). A trailer of 80 inches or more in width and a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds.

c). A trailer of less than 80 inches in width and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more.

The TSEI would appreciate the NHTSA's interpretation and comments on this issue.

ID: nht72-5.27

DATE: 09/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: With reference to your phone conversation with Mike Peskoe on September 8, I have enclosed a copy of an NHTSA opinion which concludes that a person adding a snow plow to a completed vehicle is not required to certify the vehicle. In such a case, the existing certification label should be left in place. You should note that the opinion also states that if the mounting of the snow plow causes the vehicle not to conform to any applicable motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle is not brought back into conformity before sale, the person mounting the plow will be violating section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and will be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act.

ID: nht74-4.7

DATE: 06/14/74

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

TO: The Berg Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 21, 1973, letter and subsequent communication with Mr. Sidney Williams of the NHTSA Handling and Stability Division asking if a check valve located at the isolated reservoir (as pictured in your schematic drawing) to protect the trailer service reservoir(s) would comply with S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The check valve may be placed at the isolated tank to protect the trailer service reservoir as specified in S5.2.1.5.

It appears from your schematic that a single failure in the service brake system could cause loss of service brakes on both trailer axles. It should be noted that if this arrangement is used and a significant safety problem result, it would be subject to NHTSA safety defect authority.