ID: nht73-3.50

DATE: 04/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Young Windows, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1973, requesting clarification of the certification and labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", for persons who cut sections of glazing materials. You state your understanding is that such persons should add to the cut piece the DOT symbol and the manufacturer's code mark used on the larger piece from which the smaller piece was cut. Your understanding of these requirements is not correct. The labeling requirements of Standard No. 205 were most recently amended on November 11, 1972 (37 FR 24035, copy enclosed). These amendments become effective April 1, 1973. They require a person who cuts glazing material to mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. This does not include the DOT symbol and the mark of the manufacturer of the larger sheet, and these items should not be included by persons who only cut the material. That person must also certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1403). One method by which this can be done is to affix a removable label to the glazing material which states that it conforms to the Federal safety standard.

You ask how the "AS12" and "AS13" marking should be affixed. The "AS" designation is part of the labeling required by section 6 of ANS Z26, and it should be applied in the manner that the other labeling items of that section are applied. We understand etching is the method ordinarily used, and it is appropriate.

ENC.

ID: 16803.ztv

Mr. Jeff Politano
834 Florida Avenue
McDonald, OH 44437

Dear Mr. Politano:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1997, with respect to an idea of yours. As you describe it, "the product is a small lighted device to be attached to an automobile's front windshield and rear window." The purpose of this device is to enable two or more automobiles traveling together at night to stay in a group. The device would be sold in the after market.

You have asked if there are laws as to "size, color, flashing or blinking, special design, shape, etc."

As a general rule, the legality of the use of after market lighting devices is governed by State rather than Federal law. Therefore, we recommend that you consult the Ohio authorities for their comments on your idea.

Installation of the lamp would require a modification of the vehicle as originally manufactured. Under our laws, modifications performed by the vehicle owner do not violate Federal regulations. However, modifications performed by other persons, such as dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses, must not create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Although Standard No. 108 prescribes no specific performance requirements for a supplementary lamp such as yours, it does require that your lamp be steady burning, rather than flashing. In addition, your lamp must not impair the effectiveness of original lighting equipment required by Standard No 108. If your lamp emitted red light, we think its steady-burning presence would have the potential to impair the effectiveness of the intermittently operating center highmounted red stop lamp, most of which are located in the rear window area where your lamp might be. As for other lamp colors, States generally restrict blue lights to emergency vehicles.

If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office would be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/30/98

ID: nht74-1.17

DATE: 07/15/74

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

TO: National Campers & Hikers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1974, objecting to the use of extension mirrors on automobiles when a trailer is not in tow.

Although we fully appreciate the possible dangers inherent in the use of extension mirrors, this agency has no authority to regulate the use of such equipment. The authority that Congress has conferred upon the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relates to the safe manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and not directly to its use. Therefore, unless some showing can be made that the design of the mirrors is dangerous, we have no authority to deal with the problem you describe.

Your truly,

ATTACH.

June 27, 1974

Lawrence R., Schneider, Chief Counsel -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

As a frequent camper in Michigan's out-of-doors, I am concerned that there are far too many pedestrians being injured and sometimes killed, by the uncontrolled use of extension mirrors on automobiles used for towing travel trailers.

The offending mirrors are the ones which are clamped on the front fenders or doors of automobiles and are easily detached. They extend out to approximately 8 Ft. and are chest high for all adults and head high for children.

These mirrors are not to be confused with permanent standard equipment on trucks and automobiles.

I believe that legislation should be passed that would outlaw extension mirrors on automobiles when a trailer is not being towed.

Sincerely

Lee & Winnie Jones -- District Directors, National Campers & Hikers Assoc.

ID: nht88-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T.P. BAILEY -- LEGISLATION ENGINEER, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-10-88, TO NHTSA, FROM T. BAILEY - INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN, FMVSS 104 WINDSHIELD WIPING & WASHING SYSTEMS

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 10, 1988, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard NO. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR @571.104). More specifically, you asked two questions about the requirements set forth in section S4.1.2, Wiped area, of Standard No. 104.

You first asked whether section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 applies only to passenger cars. The answer to this question is yes. Section S4.1.2 reads as follows: "When tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield shall . . ." (emphasis added). The underlined language explicitly limits the requirements to passenger car windshields. Hence, the windshields on other vehicle types are not subject to the requirements of S4.1.2.

Your second question involved the dimensions of "Area A" used to determine whether a car complies with the wiped area requirements in section S4.1.2. Section S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 specifies that the dimensions for "Area A" are established as shown in SAE Recommended Practice J903a, may 1966, and specifies that at least 80 percent of "Area A" must be wiped. Following the procedures set forth in the SAE Recommended Practice, you noted that "Area A" on a hypothetical vehicle would extend to the day light opening area on one side of the windshield and extend beyond the daylight opening area on the other side of the windshield. When calculating the percentage of Area A that is wiped, your letter sets forth four different possible dimensions for Area A and asks which is used to determine whether the vehicle wipes at least 80 percent of Area A. Again section S4.1.2 explicitly answers this question. That section specifies that each passenger car windshield shall wipe 80 percent of Area A that "is wit hin the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 1 inch from the daylight opening."

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

ID: nht90-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-19-90 TO U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FROM ANTHONY P. GREENISH; (OCC 4482) TEXT:

Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Department has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Acco rd 1.6 LX, and ask for information "as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards.

BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safet y, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know , many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100 percent of Federal requirements.

If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulati ons which were mandated by congress and became effective January 31, 1990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to mee t the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to 150 percent of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs service must be given to ensure performance of the conversi on work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States.

ID: 2413y

Mr. Anthony T. Greenish
c/o U.N.D.P.
B.P. 2183
Libreville
Gabon

Dear Mr. Greenish:

Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Department has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Accord 1.6 LX, and ask for information "as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards."

BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know, many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100% of Federal requirements.

If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulations which were mandated by Congress and became effective January 31, l990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to meet the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to l50% of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must be given to ensure performance of the conversion work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/25/90

ID: 17563.ztv

The Honorable Jon Christensen
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2702

Dear Mr. Christensen:

Thank you for your recent letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Sam M. Person of Omaha.

Mr. Person first wrote you complaining of the use of parking lamps as daytime running lamps ("DRLs"). He stated that use of parking lamps while a vehicle is in motion violates Nebraska Statute 60.622. Mr. Person then wrote you stating that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the use of turn signal lamps as DRLs, but that "on most vehicles the turn signal lamp and parking lamp are in the same housing and both display an amber lamp." He is unsure how a law enforcement officer can distinguish between the two. He has been informed that Standard No. 108 supersedes state laws.

States are permitted to enact and enforce their own motor vehicle safety standards. However, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)((1), a Federal motor vehicle safety standard will preempt any state standard covering the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard that is not identical to it. We see no conflict with Nebraska Statute 60.622. Although Standard No. 108 requires parking lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, it does not prescribe the conditions under which they are to be operated. In fact, the DRL requirements of Standard No. 108 specifically says that parking lamps may not be wired to operate as DRLs (paragraph S5.5.11(a)).

However, Standard No. 108 does permit turn signal lamps to be wired to operate as DRLs. As law enforcement officials become aware of this fact, they will be less likely to confuse a permissible turn signal DRL with a parking lamp that is not permitted to be used when a vehicle is in motion. We are not aware that use of amber turn signal lamps as DRLs has created confusion or a safety problem.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: 7923

Mr. J. Leslie Dobson
Owner
McKinney Vehicle Services
8400 East Slauson Avenue
Pico Rivera, CA 90660

Dear Mr. Dobson:

This responds to your letter dated October 27, 1992, in which you asked how your company would go about lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) assigned to some "Bobtail" trucks. Your letter explained that your company is a truck rental company that owns about 50 Bobtail trucks with a GVWR of approximately 28,000 pounds each. According to your letter, your company's rental business has decreased dramatically since the State of California's requirement for a commercial driver's license to operate vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 pounds took effect. You would now like to lower the GVWR of your trucks to 26,000 pounds so that the trucks would no longer be subject to the commercial driver's licensing requirements.

In a March 19, 1991, letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, the owner of a truck rental company in San Francisco, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the vehicle's original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. In a July 1, 1992, letter to Mr. Gene Fouts, I explained that modifications to an assigned GVWR should be made only when the manufacturer had made an error regarding the originally assigned GVWR, not for reasons related to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. I have enclosed copies of both these letters for your information. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any way whereby your leasing company could lower the GVWR assigned to your Bobtail trucks.

If you have any further questions about the subject of GVWR, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:11/20/92

ID: nht90-4.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1990

FROM: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Paul J. Rice to Carol Zeitlow (A37; Std. 101; Std. 104; Std. 108; Std. 201

TEXT:

As you may recall, I spoke with you on the phone regarding the following subjects. You had suggested I write you with my questions.

1. In my August 1st letter I asked the question, "When a hazard warning light (four-way flasher) and a rear stop light are together on a vehicle, which should be the over-riding feature?". Your reply of August 27, 1990 stated that the hazard light shoul d always be over-riding. You also stated that you thought the regulations had previously stated either option was acceptable. If this is the case, when did the regulation change and in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling? Possibly, w e have had a misunderstanding since we have noticed that passenger cars are not all designed in this way. Your comments will be appreciated.

Additional questions I asked during an Oct. 9th phone conversation:

2. Question: Is a sun visor was required by FMVSS. Your answer was no.

3. Question: Are there any regulations regarding the type, or quantity of horns required on a vehicle? The answer you gave was no, only a horn was required.

4. Question: According to CFR 49, Section 571.104, there are no regulations regarding the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe, only the frequency of the wipers is egulated? You agreed.

Will you please confirm these answers in writing? Thank you.

ID: nht81-1.2

DATE: 01/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndtn; NHTSA

TO: Bennett Goldworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1980, reporting your conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office and asking for a clarification of your status as a seller of a foreign car that does not meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You purchased the car, a 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit, from Meir Halifa, an Israeli diplomat who imported it from Canada.

A diplomat is allowed to import a non-conforming vehicle into the United States pursuant to a written declaration that it will not be sold for use on American roads. Sale by Mr. Halifa for such use is an apparent violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But your purchase and sale of the vehicle, and any subsequent purchase and sale is not prohibited by the Act. Nor is there any legal obligation under the Act for a person other than the original seller, Mr. Halifa, to conform the vehicle to American specifications.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

Mallamud - Finkelstein Associates, Inc.

December 8, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. Vicent advised me to write to you concerning my problem.

I recently purchased a 1980 Volkswagon Rabbit from Meir Halifa, an Israeli diplomat. He had purchased the car in Canada, and the car had never been converted to meet United States specifications.

I am in the process of selling the car to a dealer, However, before he will accept the car in a trade- he would like a letter stating that I, as well as any subsequent owners will in no way be liable for Mr. Halifa's mistake and therefore not responsible for converting the car to U.S. specifications. From what I understand, Mr. Halifa is in Israel, but I understand it it out of my control as to whether you do prosecute or not. I would appreciate if you send the letter to me at 16 West 16th Street, N.Y. 10011. If you have any questions speak with Mr. Vincent, or contact me at (212) 765-2130.

Thank you for giving this your prompt consideration.

Bennett Goldworth