ID: nht74-5.21

DATE: 04/11/74

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

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for confirmation that the clamps and check valve that attach a vacuum hose assembly to a brake booster are not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

A brake hose end fitting is defined as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." As described by you, the couplers are the clamps and the check valve is an engine component to which the hose has been attached by the clamp couplers. Therefore your interpretation is correct that the clamps and check valve are not subject to Standard No. 106.

Yours Truly,

BMW of North America, Inc.

March 19, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Mr. L. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Re: Marking of Brake Hoses

This is subject to FMVS's No. 106 Brake Hose Markings. In our brake system, BMW uses a vacuum hose assembly which leads from the intake manifold to the brake booster and which includes also a check valve. The components are assembled by BMW, the manufacturer, who, of course, also certifies the finished vehicle.

It is BMW's understanding that the vacuum hose, which is used for this assembly, has to be marked with the manufacturer's code, or with the manufacturer's marking as long as no code is available. The clamps which are used for this assembly as well as the check valve which meets the free flow requirements, don't need to be marked.

If our assumption is incorrect, we kindly ask that you inform us accordingly.

Office of O. Weinreich Director of Engineering Signed by M. Rein Staff Engineer

ID: nht92-6.33

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- United States Senator

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Stephen Newmark to Jerry Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your Memorandum attaching correspondence from your constituent Stephen Newmark of Tarrant County. Mr. Newmark, Vice-President of Lonestar Classics, Inc., states that his company "has requested an exemption" from this agency "for the purposes of manufacturing kit cars," and asks your help "in determining whether our exemption will be granted or whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires further information." He also states that "the timing of NHTSA's response is critical to our moving ahead."

Mr. Newmark FAXED the Administrator on May 5, 1992, about the possibility of obtaining an exemption, and followed up with a telephone call to the Office of Chief Counsel on May 15. As we understand it from that conversation, the business plan intended by Lonestar is to sell and deliver a certain number of unassembled components to purchasers who will complete the assembly of the vehicle by providing the engine, drive train, and suspension. We informed Mr. Newmark orally that, given these facts, Lonestar is not considered to be a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Because of this, Lonestar is not required to ensure the compliance of the completed vehicle with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and, hence, no exemption is required for it to implement its business plan.

We informed Mr. Newmark of your interest in his behalf, and that our response to you would also serve as a reply to his FAX of the 5th to the Administrator. For this reason we are providing him a copy of this letter.

ID: nht68-2.22

DATE: 06/18/68

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

TO: Bureau of Customs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I attach a copy of PL 90-283 which amends the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1955 by authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to temporarily exempt limited production motor vehicles from compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards after he has made certain specified findings. Vehicles of foreign manufacture so exempted and offered for importation will no longer bear "a valid certification as required by section 114" allowing such vehicles unrestricted entry pursuant to 19 C.F.R. @ 12.60(b)(1)(i), of the joint Treasury-Transportation Regulations.

You will see from the attached Interim Procedures which have been adopted by the Federal Highway Administration that, in lieu of section 114 certification, exempted vehicles will bear a permanently affixed label or tag and a temporarily affixed label both stating the fact of temporary exemption and listing the standards for which exemption has been granted. To allow exempted vehicles unrestricted entry I suggest that 19 C.F.R. @ 12.80(b)(1) be amended to add new subparagraph (iii) which would read as follows:

"(iii) (for vehicles only) it bears information as required by regulations issued under section 123 (PL, 90-283) of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (a label or tag permanently affixed to such vehicle stating that it has been exempted from certain safety standards and listing the safety standards from which it has been exempted, together with a label containing the same information affixed to the windshield or a side window of such vehicle)."

We anticipate that the Final Procedures to be adopted later this year will require a vehicle to bear information substantially the same as that required by the Interim Procedures.

I would appreciate it if you would commence whatever action is necessary under Customs regulations to amend the Joint Regulations.

ID: 1985-02.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Gillipsie -- President, Salem Quality Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles E. Gillipsie President Salem Quality Equipment, Inc. 501 East 8th Street Salem, Virginia 24153-6385

This responds to your April 30, 1985 letter asking if your leasing company is allowed to occasionally rent 10- and 15-passenger vans to schools for special school activity trips. As Ms. Hom of my staff informed you in a telephone conversation on April 26, 1985, you are not prohibited by Federal statute or regulation from renting vans to schools on a one-time or very occasional basis.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of new school buses and persons selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards.

When Congress passed the 1974 amendments to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress adopted the following definition of a "school bus": "Schoolbus means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools...." (Emphasis added.)

Two basic considerations are relevant, therefore, to the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a "school bus" and the applicability of the Act's requirements to school bus sellers. The first is the vehicle's passenger capacity, and second, its intended use. If you buy a new 12- or 15-passenger van to rent to schools on a regular basis, that van would be a "school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus" and is school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus' and is "likely to be significantly used" to carry school children. A dealer or distributor who sells you the new van would have to ensure that the van meets our school bus safety standards. Conversely, the less frequently a bus is used for school service, the less likely it is that its use is "significant." If you use your van to carry students on a very infrequent basis, as the case appears to be, then it would not bc considered a "school bus," and the van would not have to meet the school bus safety standards.

In your letter, you referred to a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) that amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" and discussed leasing arrangements. NHTSA's definition of a school bus covers buses "sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." The notice explained that NHTSA's definition includes buses "introduced in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You asked for clarification of this discussion.

The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and the reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction involved. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the school bus safety standards.

If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 30, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller Office of Chief Counsel Nations Highway Traffic Administrations R5219, 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20596

Dear Mr. Miller:

We rent and lease 15 and 21 passenger vans to colleges, churches and other businesses. We have had several requests from public and private schools to rent these vehicles for special trips or small groups, normally 10 to 15 students. We have always refused because of the Preamble To Amendment To Part 571 ---- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Recently Roanoke City asked for a van to take 11 students on a special camping trip on the Virginia Coast. We refused, so the instructor rented a motor home. One of the patrons was upset and called Deirie Hom, she advised us that we would not be in violation to rent these vehicles for a short term. I can understand the school concern because driving a large school bus from Roanoke to Washington is quite an expense and certainly not comfortable.

As a school bus distributor I certainly do not plan to sell or lease these type vehicles to a public or private school, however, I would like the opinion of your department concerning short term rental for special field trips.

Your consideration and response to this request would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

SALEM QUALITY EQUIPMENT, INC.

Charles E. Gillipsie, President

CEG/tah

ID: nht73-4.46

DATE: 08/07/73

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

TO: Kesler Precision Optics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1973, enclosing an accessory passenger car mirror that you feel is a detriment to motor vehicle safety.

Since the unit incorporates two convex mirrors it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors for original equipment on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. However, the Standard does not cover aftermarket items such as the unit you sent, and its sale is therefore not prohibited under Federal regulations.

Yours truly,

July 12, 1973

National Highway Traffic safety Administration Chief of Counsel

Attention: Mr. D. Vinson

As per our telephone conversation yesterday I am writting to confirm this report on the Blue Fox matter. I also sending package of mirror product so you gentlemen can see how unsafe it is to the driving public. I have myself researched this type of design and I know this could be alot safer being impact resistance and distortion free. The most important this product states it eliminates blind spot left and right. Also the mirror cuts off center viewing area on all standard automobile mirrors when this mirror is attached over other original mirror on the vehicle. This mirror is being distributed throughout the nation in auto(Illegible Word). Like(Illegible Word) here on the west coast and Aid stores there on the east coast. Now the public does not know this type of mirror design until they try one out, but then the person driving with it might be to late of finding out by already having an accident. To your judgement.

Sincerely Yours,

R. Kesler

Please send confirm report of Administration decision to Kesler Precision Optics.

ID: nht76-4.12

DATE: 08/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's June 21, 1976, question whether S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires the installation of an antilock system, or whether the stopping distance and "no lockup" requirements may be met using modulation of the service brake control by the vehicle driver.

Section S5.3.1 requires that vehicles subject to it must be capable of stopping under specified conditions, within the stopping distance set forth in Table II without leaving a 12-foot-wide lane and without "uncontrolled" lockup of certain wheels of the vehicle. There is no requirement for the installation of an antilock system. Also, there is no test condition that specifies a full brake application and modulation of the service brake may be used to reduce or eliminate lockup.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 21, 1976

Thomas Herlihy -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 121 - AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS

It is our understanding that the subject standard does not currently specify maximum allowable stopping distances. We also understand that maximum allowable stopping distances are specified for future vehicles.

Our question is, when and if the stopping distance requirements of Paragraphs S5.3.1 and Table 2 are reinstated for buses, will it be permissible to meet those stopping requirements without an anti-lock system, provided we can meet the requirements stated in S5.3.1 ". . . . without any part of the vehicle leaving the roadway and without lock up of any wheel at speeds above 10 MPH . . . .?" Obviously, the driver would have to modulate the braking force to prevent wheel lock up on a system not equipped with an automatic anti-lock system.

We would appreciate your early reply.

Thank you.

Yours very truly, W. G. Milby -- Staff Engineer

c Ben Newberry

ID: 77-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors Corporation's February 2, 1977; request for confirmation that the impact protection requirements contained in S3.1 of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, apply only to the area of the instrument panel that falls within a defined zone and does not apply to other objects installed near the instrument panel, such as the control handle of a spotlight mounted in the right-side windshield pillar, that also fall within the specified zone.

The impact protection requirements of the standard apply only to the instrument panel itself in S3.1. This section references a Society of Automotive Engineers recommended Practice J921 which specifies that the instrument panel assembly be removed from the vehicle for testing. Thus, the presence of objects in the specified impact zone within the vehicle must be disregarded for purposes of judging compliance of the vehicle with the requirement itself.

SINCER

ID: 77-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Chief Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We seek your help in the clarification and interpretation of federal certification regulations, with specific emphasis on the assignment of responsibilities to the final manufacturer of trailerized and truck mounted tanks. A number of serious problems are encountered in the fulfillment of the responsibility for certification. For example, after a customer picks up his tank and leaves our premises it is impossible to know exactly what changes in tires and chassis or what product and what quantity of product he may haul in the tank.

Tanks may haul such products as ice cream mix, whey, frozen orange juice, wine, additives and various other products that have considerable variation in density. Recently, a number of our tanks were used for hauling water in place of bulk milk or cream, due to the drought conditions existing in Wisconsin. Therefore, it is our firm conviction that the manufacturer should show on the certification both the gross vehicle and axle weight rating in pounds for the completed vehicle. It would then become the responsibility of the operator of the vehicle to see that the volume of product hauled in relation to density is within the vehicle load carrying limitations. It is certainly within control of the operator to limit the loading of his vehicle, to select replacement tires required to handle the load and to replace the chassis for his tank that meets the load carrying requirements of his vehicle.

So that each vehicle is operated safely and within federal safety regulations, we urge your interpretation of the certification regulations whereby the final manufacturer would certify the ratings of the completed vehicle in the amount of weight specified, as a better and more workable certification procedure.

ID: nht95-3.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK/WEINSTEIN TO ROBERT J. PONTICELLI (STD. 108; REDBOOK 2; A43)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

I am writing to you to request an opinion on the use of Electro-Luminescent Strip Lighting on motor vehicles. The E-Luminescence is an ornamental light which produces less than .05 candela/sq. Inch. The product is sold as an illuminated pin-striping . I have enclosed a brochure which illustrates the intended uses.

The intensity of the lamp does not exceed the brightness of any U.S. DOT required lighting. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter from the University of Connecticut, School of Engineering concerning the light output.

Please provide me with an opinion on the installation on this product by regulated parties such as new car dealers and non-regulated entities such as aftermarket specialty shops and vehicle owners.

Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter, any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (800) 336-6500 Ext. 528

(Brochure omitted.)

ENCLOSURE: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering

April 4, 1995

Robert Ponticelli American International 1040 Avenda Acaso Camarillo, CA 93012-8712

Re: State of California Acceptance of E-LUME Strip Lighting on Vehicles

Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This is in response to your request regarding the verification of light output from the E-LUME Strip Lamp. We have measured the output of various E-LUME lamps using standard photometers. The lamp output does not exceed the 0.05 Candella/sq. in. (whi ch is about 22 ft. Lambert) when operated using an invertor producuing 250 volt at 800 Hz. Please let me know if you need additional information.

Sincerely,

Faquir Jain Professor Director, Microelectronics/Optoelectronics Laboratory

ID: nht95-5.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK/WEINSTEIN TO ROBERT J. PONTICELLI (STD. 108; REDBOOK 2; A43)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

I am writing to you to request an opinion on the use of Electro-Luminescent Strip Lighting on motor vehicles. The E-Luminescence is an ornamental light which produces less than .05 candela/sq. Inch. The product is sold as an illuminated pin-striping. I have enclosed a brochure which illustrates the intended uses.

The intensity of the lamp does not exceed the brightness of any U.S. DOT required lighting. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter from the University of Connecticut, School of Engineering concerning the light output.

Please provide me with an opinion on the installation on this product by regulated parties such as new car dealers and non-regulated entities such as aftermarket specialty shops and vehicle owners.

Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter, any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (800) 336-6500 Ext. 528

(Brochure omitted.)

ENCLOSURE: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering

April 4, 1995

Robert Ponticelli American International 1040 Avenda Acaso Camarillo, CA 93012-8712

Re: State of California Acceptance of E-LUME Strip Lighting on Vehicles

Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This is in response to your request regarding the verification of light output from the E-LUME Strip Lamp. We have measured the output of various E-LUME lamps using standard photometers. The lamp output does not exceed the 0.05 Candella/sq. in. (which is about 22 ft. Lambert) when operated using an invertor producuing 250 volt at 800 Hz. Please let me know if you need additional information.

Sincerely,

Faquir Jain Professor Director, Microelectronics/Optoelectronics Laboratory