ID: nht92-5.43

DATE: June 26, 1992

FROM: Richard Hamlin

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary of Transportation, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard Hamlin (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I am relatively certain, at this time, that you are besieged with transportation issues. However, your assistance or that of one of your colleagues would be a tremendous asset.

I have particular knowledge that the safe maintaining of school buses is governed by specific state laws and regulations; and, I am aware that particular components of a school bus must comply with certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

My question, in lieu of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing particular components of school buses; would federal standards - possibly laws and regulations - not also be the rule rather than the exception as it pertains to maintaining school buses in safe operating condition.

Your reply to my inquiry would be of great assistance.

ID: nht94-1.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1994

FROM: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Marv Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Scott Slaughter (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

Pitts Trailers, Inc. is a trailer manufacturer that specializes in trailers for the logging industry. One particular model we manufacture is called a knuckle boom loader trailer. I have enclosed copies of brochures as well as some advertisements, so th at you might better understand the use of this model. This trailer stays in the woods (off the highway) the majority of its lifetime. The knuckle boom operation must be moved from time to time to different site locations, at which times it will be on hig hways and may cross state lines. The gross vehicle weight of this trailer is 24,000 lbs.

I am writing this letter to request an official interpretation to determine if my trailer (the knuckle boom model only) is subject to the safety standards (FMVSS Standards) with particular attention to include such questions as conspicuity, auto slacks, brakes on all wheels and marker lights. We are particularly interested in your opinion as to whether brakes are required on all wheels. Also, please advise us if our trailers are defined as motor vehicles or are they merely mobile equipment which see v ery limited highway use, solely for the purpose of moving to a new job site.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient information for an official interpretation. If not, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-8.34

DATE: February 2, 1994

FROM: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Marv Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Scott Slaughter (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

Pitts Trailers, Inc. is a trailer manufacturer that specializes in trailers for the logging industry. One particular model we manufacture is called a knuckle boom loader trailer. I have enclosed copies of brochures as well as some advertisements, so that you might better understand the use of this model. This trailer stays in the woods (off the highway) the majority of its lifetime. The knuckle boom operation must be moved from time to time to different site locations, at which times it will be on highways and may cross state lines. The gross vehicle weight of this trailer is 24,000 lbs.

I am writing this letter to request an official interpretation to determine if my trailer (the knuckle boom model only) is subject to the safety standards (FMVSS Standards) with particular attention to include such questions as conspicuity, auto slacks, brakes on all wheels and marker lights. We are particularly interested in your opinion as to whether brakes are required on all wheels. Also, please advise us if our trailers are defined as motor vehicles or are they merely mobile equipment which see very limited highway use, solely for the purpose of moving to a new job site.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient information for an official interpretation. If not, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht68-3.45

DATE: 07/29/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Lotus Cars Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letters dated November 18 and July 3 which ask if Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 requires your company's "Elan Convertible" to have sun visors.

The National Highway Safety Bureau recognizes that the requirement for every passenger car to have two sun visors of energy-absorbing material with mountings that have no rigid material edge radius of less than 0.125 if statically contactable by a 6.5 inch diameter head form, may create a problem for manufacturers of certain types of vehicles. However, the requirement will, on balance, contribute to the safety of the general public.

Compliance with the requirement can and should be made in a manner so as to increase occupant protection.

LOTUS

JULY 3, 1968.

Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator US Department of Transportation,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 201: Sunvisors

We despatched a petition to you on 28th November 1967, requesting that we be permitted to substitute increased header padding for the sunvisors stipulated in F.M.V.S.S. 201 on our model: ELAN CONVERTIBLE.

On 19th January we sent further information to back up our earlier submission. We felt, for reasons given in our letter of 28th November 1967, that the spirit of F.M.V.S.S. 201 would be met, on this particular model, better, by increased padding, than by the addition of sunvisors.

We would be extremely grateful for some indication of your view of our petition.

B.A. Luff General Manager

ID: nht73-4.37

DATE: 07/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: IMPORTATION OF Subaru TRUCK AND VAN

This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, to the Administrator, in which you discuss Subaru's desire to import three non-conforming vehicles for off-road use and ask for confirmation that they are not "motor vehicles" as defined by PL 89-503. Mr. Flinn of Subaru informed Mr. Vinson of my staff by phone on July 16 that the purpose of importation of the three vehicles is to determine the general marketability of these vehicles as a class. Your letter states that the three vehicles will be shown to purchasers of earlier models of Subaru vehicles who are using them in plants. Mr. Flinn further indicated that conforming models might be imported if a market were shown for on-road use. Our reply is based upon your letter and Mr. Vinson's conversation with Mr. Flinn.

The information at hand is insufficient to support an interpretation that the Subaru 360 truck and van are not "motor vehicles." They appear to us clearly manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. However, we have no objection at this time to importation of these three vehicles pursuant to block #7 on the HS-7Form (i.e. 19 CFR @ 12.80 (b)(2)(vii)) by which Subaru declares that it is importing them for purposes of show, test, experiment, etc., and that it will not license them for use on the public roads. The question of disposition of these vehicles at the end of the evaluation period can be dealt with at that time.

ID: 1985-01.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROGER HAGIE -- MANAGER, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/84 FROM ROGER HAGIE TO NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108; OCC 1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1984, asking for an.. interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to motorcycle headlighting systems.

Referencing our letter of July 24, 1984, to Koito in which we confirmed that a motorcycle could be equipped with two headlamps, side by side, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584, you have asked "Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?"

SAE J584 states in pertinent part that "The beam or beams from a single lamp shall meet the candle power specifications listed in" Table 1. This table established a maximum of 75,000 candela "anywhere" for a single lamp. This means that the limit applies to each lamp individually under the Koito interpretation.

You have further stated that Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, each capable of independent aim installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. You have asked if such a design is acceptable for a motor-cycle, and whether both reflectors would have to be independently aimable or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" (see "At-Focus Tests"). However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-4.26

DATE: 10/12/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Harley-Davidson Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how long you should retain certain records relating to the sale of motorcycles and motorcycle parts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has some record retention requirements that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Dealers are required to aid manufacturers in the maintenance of their records. For example, you must supply manufacturers with information relating to the purchasers of motor vehicles that you sell so that the manufacturer can maintain a list of purchasers.

Dealers are not required by the NHTSA to maintain records on vehicles or equipment they sell. Accordingly, with respect to the records indicated in your letter, you may use your own business judgment as to when to dispose of them.

SINCERELY,

Bob Maxant's

ILLINOIS HARLEY-DAVIDSON SALES, INC.

Dear Mr Tilton,

We are a dealer selling Harley Davidson Motorcycles and Parts. We are in process of cleaning out our old files but not sure how long things have to be held.

Do you have any list giving time to hold items like cycle sales to customers, cash receipts for sales of parts over counter, paid accounts receivable for parts bought by other dealers and cities.

Any help you can be would be appreciated.

Mary Ann McClure Secretary

PS I already have to Record Retention Gick 1979

ID: nht68-1.49

DATE: 02/12/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Warren G. Magnuson; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to January 2 enclosing correspondence from your constituent, William Dixon of Beattle.

Mr. Dixon opposes the regulations, then proposed and now adopted, issued jointly by the Department of Transportation and the Department of the Treasury which govern the importation of motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

These regulations implement section 108(b)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states that a motor vehicle manufactured after December 31, 1967, which does not conform to applicable standards:

". . . shall be refused admission into the United States under joint regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary, except that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by such regulations provide for authorizing the importation of such motor vehicle . . . upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure that any such motor vehicle . . . will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this title, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States."

As to Mr. Dixon's reference to limited production" automobiles, S. 2029, passed by the Senate in November and pending in the House, is a bill which, if enacted, would provide a procedure by which manufacturers (foreign as well as domestic) of 500 or less motor vehicles per year could apply for relief from compliance with such standards as cause it substantial economic hardship.

ID: 11521ZTV

Mr. Jerry Clay
Secretary-Treasurer
Best Fender Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 1258
Hwy 49, East
Mt. Pleasant, Texas 75455

Dear Mr. Clay:

We have received your letter of January 22, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company has developed a fender for trailers which incorporates front and rear clearance lamps, and you would like our opinion whether, when the fender is installed on a trailer, the trailer will then comply with the clearance lamp location requirements of Standard No. 108.

You state, and the drawings which you enclose indicate, that "the clearance light is located midway up the wheel well radius of the fender, both front and rear, and as close to the outside lip radius of the fender as physically possible."

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top thereof as practicable." For the trailers shown in the drawings, where the outer edge of the fender is the widest part of the vehicle, your chosen location places the lamp in a location that indicates the overall width of the trailer. In that location, the lamp may also be "as near the top thereof as practicable." Indication of overall width is the primary requirement that must be met, as shown in the drawings. A location of the lamp on the trailer body where it might be closer to the top but would not indicate overall width as the fender lamps do would not be a conforming location under Table II.

We call your attention to the requirement that the trailer manufacturer must also certify that the clearance lamp as

installed on the fender meets the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J592e July 1972. These are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office with whom you have previously spoken (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: nht91-7.22

DATE: November 27, 1991

FROM: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re L03/04

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masashi Maekawa (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Enclosed please find our written inquiring concerning the interpretation of photometric output requirements for Tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

ATTACHMENT

Dear Mr. P.J. Rice,

This letter is a question for the interpretation of photometer output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

We would like to know your opinion toward regarding photometer requirements.

We know the lamp like the following drawing is treated as two separate lamps: one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid.

Each lamp complies with the effective projected luminous areas requirements, but doesn't comply with the photometric requirement as shown below:

Effective projected Photometric requirement luminous requirement

Lamp A Comply does not comply Lamp B Comply does not comply

In this case, is it possible to apply the combination of lamps (Lamps A & B), as prescribed in S 5.1.1.6 of FMVSS No.108 to the photometric requirement of the stop lamp?

If yes, 1. Is it also possible to apply this provision to Tail lamp? 2. Which photometric requirements, 1 lighted section or 2 lighted sections, will apply?

Drawing of Tail/Stop Lamps A and B in relation to the quarter panel side and trunk lid side.

(Drawing omitted)