ID: nht69-2.32

DATE: 12/09/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 10, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration concerning flashing side marker lamps.

Paragraph S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 within the flashing of side marker lamps simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on the side to which a turn is contemplated. There is no requirement in Standard No. 109 that these lamps must meet(Illegible Words) "Side Turn Signal Lamps," when used in this manner.

ID: nht70-1.13

DATE: 04/30/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frances Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Clements, McClellan and Hawley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1970, to the Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, that has been referred to this office.

The type of information requested under items 1 and 2 of your letter can be extracted, within the limitations of the tests conducted, from the enclosed test result summaries. However, it should be recognized that the scope of the Bureau's testing program is such that valid statistical inferences relating to industry-wide rates or tire defects or failures are not possible with the limited data available.

Prior to the adoption of the labeling requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, tires could be identified by manufacturer. This was an industry practice, involving the use of serial number systems and was not required by Government regulation nor was the coding used readily available to the general public.

We trust this and the enclosed publications will answer your questions. We will be pleased to answer any additional questions.

Thank you for your interest in the programs of the National Highway Safety Bureau.

ID: nht71-3.30

DATE: 07/13/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Grove Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1971, regarding the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574).

You have asked if Grove Manufacturing Company is a "Motor Vehicle Manufacturer" within the meaning of section 574.10 of the regulation. As you indicated in your letter, you are the final-stage manufacturer of a truck mounted hydraulic crane, and as such, you are considered the vehicle manufacturer under section 568.3 of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (49 CFR 568). As the vehicle manufacturer, you are required to maintain records of the name and address of the first purchaser of your vehicles, for purposes other than resale, along with a record of the tires on the vehicle at the time it is shipped.

Enclosed for convenience are copies of both regulations.

For your information, I would direct you to section 568.7 which allows an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to assume all the responsibilities of a manufacturer; this would include the record keeping responsibilities of Part 574.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: 1984y

Dear:

With respect to the interpretation furnished you on July 21, l989, you have requested the following clarification in your letter of the 28th: that the provisions of paragraph S7.4 of Standard No. l08 that relate to filament usage do not apply to the headlamp system previously described. You have also confirmed that this system is designed to conform to all other requirements of Standard No. l08 "including photometric, special wiring, mechanical aim, environmental and marking requirements.

Paragraph S7.4 describes a variety of headlighting systems which come under the heading of "integral beam systems." The beams in these systems will be produced by "beam contributors" (S7.4(a)(3)), headlamps containing "two light sources" (S7.4(b)), or headlamps containing "a single filament" (S7.4(c)). The arc tubes in the system you describe would appear to be "beam contributors" within the meaning of S7.4, and the filament language of paragraph S7.4 would not apply to this particular type of integral beam headlighting system.

We will honor your continuing request that your name and those of your firm and client be deleted from the copy made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/l7/89

ID: nht68-4.19

DATE: 09/19/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard A. Heffron; NHTSA

TO: Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10 to the Federal Highway Administrator with reference to implementation of 19 C.F.R. S12.80, in the Virgin Islands.

You have informed us that your analysis of S12.80(b)(1) which begins "Any vehicle or equipment item offered for importation into the customs territory of the United States. . . ." leads you to believe that these regulations are not applicable to the Virgin Islands, which are not within the customs territory of the United States.

These regulations were issued jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Transportation pursuant to section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102 (8) of this Act specifically includes the Virgin Islands in the definition of "State" so that the Act applies to the Islands. Since the Act applies, regulations issued under the Act also apply by their own force.

It is our understanding that these regulations have been implemented in AmericanSamoa and Guam, also outside the customs territory of the United State by Executive Order of the respective governors. We believe that Governor Palewonsky should do the same, substituting the word "Virgin Islands" for "customs territory", and an Island enforcement agency in lieu of the Bureau of Customs, and making such other minor changes as appear called for by local conditions. The alternative, of course, is for the Secretary of Transportation to issue a separate set of regulations applicable only to the Virgin Islands.

We would appreciate knowing what action will be taken by Governor Paiswonsky, and which Island agency will be responsible for enforcing the regulations.

ID: nht91-6.33

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David L. Kulp -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-9-91 from David L. Kulp to Orron E. Kee (OCC 6441)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Orron Kee of this agency that asked whether, to comply with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) reporting requirements, Ford must report off-highway data as listed, in 49 CFR S537.7(c)(5) for light trucks that otherwise come within the definition of light trucks at 49 CFR S523.5(a). As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

Under S523.5, a light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed to perform at least one of a number of functions listed in S523.5(a) or is designed for off-highway operation as described in S523.5(b). Since the characteristics described in (a) and (b) are not mutually exclusive, some vehicles are considered light trucks under both (a) and (b).

Section 537.7(c) (5) provides that for each model type of an automobile which is classified as an automobile capable of off-highway operation under Part 523, i.e., S523.5(b), certain data relevant to that classification must be included in a manufacturer's fuel economy reports. Your letter raises the issue of whether this information must be reported for vehicles which are considered light trucks under S523.5(a) but which would also be considered light trucks under S523.5(b). It is our opinion that S537.7(c)(5)'s requirement to report data relevant to the classification of a vehicle as capable of off-highway operation applies only for vehicles which are considered light trucks solely on that basis and not to vehicles that are otherwise considered light trucks under S523.5(a).

ID: nht68-1.36

DATE: 02/07/68

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

TO: Contemporary Classics Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Customs Bureau has forwarded to the Department of Transportation your recent letter commenting on the joint regulations proposed on November 30 and governing the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. These regulations have now been issued in final form with changes made pursuant to comments received.

These regulations permit the entry of a racing car designed for use on a competition circuit. They do not prohibit the entry of antique, vintage, classic, and all other motor vehicles provided they were manufactured prior to January 1, 1968. The regulations follow the Act in denying entry to a motor vehicle designed primarily for use on the public roads which does not conform to, or cannot be brought into conformity with, applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I enclose for your information a copy of the Act and call your attention to section 108(b)(3) and (b)(4), under which the regulations were issued. I also enclose a copy of the regulations which became effective on January 10.

S. 2029, passed by the Senate in November and pending in the House, is a bill which, if enacted, will provide a procedure under which manufacturers of 500 or less motor vehicles per year may apply for relief from compliance upon a showing that conformance would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship, and that no undue hazard to the public would result. The Department supports the objectives of this legislation.

ID: nht88-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88 EST

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

TO: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, HOMOLOGATION SECT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-31-88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM M. ARISAKA-STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 31, 1988, asking about the acceptability of installing an additional red reflex reflector on the rear of a passenger car. The reflector would be centered between the two red reflex reflectors required by the standar d. In your opinion, the additional reflector will not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

As you have properly noted, supplementary motor vehicle equipment including reflectors is permissible under paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard requires. The determination of whether supplementary equipment, in fact, impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle upon which the supplementary equipment is to be installed, and who certifies compliance with all applicabl e Federal motor vehicle safety standards including paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration neither approves nor disapproves of specific vehicles designs, and unless there are reasons to believe that the s upplementary equipment will, in fact, impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment this agency accepts the manufacturer's determination.

The drawing you attached shows the location of the two required rear reflex reflectors, and the supplementary one, but does not depict the location or types of other required rear lighting equipment, i.e. stop lamps, center highmounted stop lamp, taillam ps, turn signal lamps, license plate lamp, and backup lamps. However, in your opinion the reflector will not impair the effectiveness of these lamps and the required reflectors, and the agency has no reason to believe that the third reflector will, in fa ct, impair the effectiveness of them.

I hope this answers your question, and that the guidelines given in this letter will encourage you to reach satisfactory determinations without the necessity of submitting them to this agency for comment. We appreciate your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: 2800o

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of May 31, 1988, asking about the acceptability of installing an additional red reflex reflector on the rear of a passenger car. The reflector would be centered between the two red reflex reflectors required by the standard. In your opinion, the additional reflector will not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08.

As you have properly noted, supplementary motor vehicle equipment including reflectors is permissible under paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. l08 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard requires. The determination of whether supplementary equipment, in fact, impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle upon which the supplementary equipment is to be installed, and who certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. l08. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration neither approves nor disapproves of specific vehicle designs, and unless there are reasons to believe that the supplementary equipment will, in fact, impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment this agency accepts the manufacturer's determination.

The drawing you attached shows the location of the two required rear reflex reflectors, and the supplementary one, but does not depict the location or types of other required rear lighting equipment, i.e. stop lamps, center highmounted stop lamp, taillamps, turn signal lamps, license plate lamp, and backup lamps. However, in your opinion the reflector will not impair the effectiveness of these lamps and the required reflectors, and the agency has no reason to believe that the third reflector will, in fact, impair the effectiveness of them.

I hope this answers your question, and that the guidelines given in this letter will encourage you to reach satisfactory determinations without the necessity of submitting them to this agency for comment. We appreciate your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

rev:l08 d:8/l0/88

ID: nht71-3.27

DATE: 07/08/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nathan Sagan

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your request made to the Regional Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 57) to tires on Cushman Golf Carts.

As we indicated in our letter of June 23, golf carts are not considered to be motor vehicles within the meaning of the regulation or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Therefore, the regulation is not applicable to tires sold with or for golf carts.