ID: 10731

Ms. Tamera Reuvers
Quality Assurance Manager
Viracon/Curvlite
500 Park Drive
Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Ms. Reuvers:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the marking of automotive glazing manufactured by two different companies. According to your letter, your company, Viracon/Curvlite, purchases bent tempered AS-2 glazing from a fabricator. Your company then laminates a piece of "SenryGlas" to the bent tempered product, thereby making it AS-15B glazing.

You asked how Viracon/Curvlite's glass-plastic glazing should be marked under S6.1 of the standard. Specifically, you asked whether there should be marking information about both the first company (the glass fabricator/temperer) and additional marking information about the second company (Viracon/Curvlite, the laminator). You believe only Viracon/Curvlite need mark the product, since the company, as the laminator, would be fully responsible for its compliance.

We agree with your assessment. Viracon/Curvlite, as the manufacturer of the tempered glass-plastic glazing, would mark the product with the AS-15B designation. The glazing would not contain the marking of the supplier of the bent tempered product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:4/10/95

ID: nht95-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tamera Reuvers -- Quality Assurance Manager, Viracon/Curvlite

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM TAMERA REUVERS TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10731)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Reuvers:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the marking of automotive glazing manufactured by two different companies. According to your letter, your company, V iracon/Curvlite, purchases bent tempered AS-2 glazing from a fabricator. Your company then laminates a piece of "SenryGlas" to the bent tempered product, thereby making it AS-15B glazing.

You asked how Viracon/Curvlite's glass-plastic glazing should be marked under S6.1 of the standard. Specifically, you asked whether there should be marking information about both the first company (the glass fabricator/temperer) and additional marking i nformation about the second company (Viracon/Curvlite, the laminator). You believe only Viracon/Curvlite need mark the product, since the company, as the laminator, would be fully responsible for its compliance.

We agree with your assessment. Viracon/Curvlite, as the manufacturer of the tempered glass-plastic glazing, would mark the product with the AS-15B designation. The glazing would not contain the marking of the supplier of the bent tempered product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht75-1.44

DATE: 12/01/75

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

TO: Detroit Testing Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your November 7, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning testing for the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that you have a contract with a hose manufacturer to perform certification testing of the brake hose and brake hose assemblies which he manufactuers, and that four motorcycle companies purchase assemblies from your client which are identical but for their varying lengths.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his hose and assemblies comply; it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires the manufacturer to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying hose and assemblies. He is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying assembly (not to exceed $ 800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which he performs has no effect on his notification and remedy obligations. The civil penalty liability, however, does not apply to a person who establishes that he did not, while exercising due care, have reason to know that his product did not comply. "Due care" is a legal concept evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of the company, the amount of testing performed, and other factors.

ID: nht95-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Renock -- Director of Operations, Central New York Regional Transport Authority

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM M. JUDSON BROWN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10992)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Renock:

Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Tran sit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years.

The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With rega rd to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you.

NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel contai ner integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS N o. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Renock -- Director of Operations, Central New York Regional Transport Authority

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM M. JUDSON BROWN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10992)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Renock:

Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years.

The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you.

NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10992

Mr. John Renock
Director of Operations
Central New York Regional Transport Authority
200 Cortland Avenue
Syracuse, NY 13205

Dear Mr. Renock:

Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years.

The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you.

NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: M. Judson Brown ref:304 d:7/18/95

ID: 1983-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Champ Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 20, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Mike M. Simovich Champ Corporation El Monte, California 91733

Dear Mr. Simovich:

This is in response to your March 23, 1983, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) to construction type forklift trucks. As you state in your letter, these vehicles are principally designed to operate on a construction site, such as by lifting building materials to upper levels in a building project. The trucks would apparently remain at construction sites for two to twelve months, then move to the next job site. Some models of the trucks have special equipment to facilitate being towed between job sites. While all models presumably could be driven between job sites, none are capable of achieving open highway speeds.

Standard 115 applies only to vehicles manufactured "primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." NHTSA has interpreted this language to exclude mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. Based on the information provided in your letter, your fork-lift trucks would therefore not be subject to Standard 115.

You should be aware that this interpretation applies only to Federal requirements; individual States may establish their own numbering requirements for vehicles outside this agency's jurisdiction (e.g., off-road vehicles). Thus, even though Federal requirements do not apply, it may be that State requirements do apply to your fork-lift trucks.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Mr. Roger Fairchild Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 115

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This Company has been notified by the California Department of Motor Vehicles that we must adhere to the above safety standard to register our forklift trucks, unless we receive exemption from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This letter is directed to you at the suggestion of Mr. Nelson Erickson of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

This Company manufactures Champ rough terrain construction type forklift trucks, having originated the concept in 1947.

The Champ lift truck is principally designed to operate on the construction site, lifting building materials to second and third story levels and to move building materials about the construction site in place for use by the installing personnel.

The site may be a commercial, residential, oil field, agricultural or plant site - the requirement is still an off-the-highway application. Because this type of application requires extra large flatation tires, Champ has been able to provide towing facilities on some models to move the vehicle from site to site at the completion of projects when applicable.

Since most construction projects average two to twelve months and the next site is usually limited to a very few miles, the time the Champ is being towed on the highway is insignificant. The lift truck is not used to carry a load-on the highway.

To our knowledge, only California and Washington States provide provisions for registering these vehicles to provide identification in case of theft and to assure a simple means to provide taxation in lieu of property taxes. No weight fees are assessed since the vehicles do not carry a load on the highways nor do they perform a "for hire" function.

Since the original correspondence in late 1981, no further instructions or directions have been received and it was therefore assumed the requirement for a seventeen character identification number for forklift trucks was exempt. We have contacted other similar forklift manufacturers who are not even aware of the proposed regulation and therefore were further convinced the requirement did not apply to forklift trucks.

In view of the foregoing, we sincerely believe that the regulation applying to transportation and regular highway going vehicles operating on the highways for hire should not apply to off-the-road forklift trucks performing their designated tasks on construction and farm sites.

We sincerely request that the concerned facility review this matter and offer an exemption for the seventeen character vehicle identification for lift trucks. New 1983 Champ lift trucks are already in operation throughout parts of the country which could result in duplication of identifications.

Champ is most happy to work with the Department of Transportation and welcomes the opportunity to cooperate toward any practical resolution.

The enclosed brochures and photo are submitted for better identification of the product.

Please call or write as soon as possible so that we may resolve the problem without further undue complications.

Very truly yours,

CHAMP CORPORATION

Mike M. Simovich President

Enclosures

ID: 2908yy

Mr. David E. McAllister
Manufacturers Representative
442 Robin Hill Road
Wayne, PA . 19087

Dear Mr. McAllister:

This responds to your letter of March 14, l99l, "as a supplier to the U.S. Postal Service for lights", asking whether it is "legal" for the center high mounted stop lamp to flash.

We understand that the new postal service vehicles are trucks. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the center highmounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. When installed as original equipment on a passenger car, it is required to be steady-burning when the brake pedal is applied. However, since Standard No. 108 does not require center highmounted stop lamps on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, any such lamps would not be required to be steady-burning. Thus, the current requirements of Standard No. 108 would permit a center lamp on a postal truck to flash.

Supplementary lighting equipment, i.e., lighting equipment that is not required by Standard No. 108, is subject to Standard No. 108's general prohibition that such not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer of the vehicle before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If it appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review the determination. With respect to the present case, it is theoretically possible that a flashing center stop lamp could "impair the effectiveness" of the truck's two steady-burning primary stop lamps by sending a confusing signal. However, given the lamp's location on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, and the public recognition of the function of the center lamp on passenger cars, we do not believe it is likely that the public would be confused.

We would like to advise you that the agency has proposed that trucks be equipped with steady-burning center lamps, and that it has announced that a final rule will be issued during the first half of 1991. If the final rule applies to postal trucks, then a flashing center lamp could not be installed on postal trucks manufactured on and after the rule's effective date.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref. l08 d:4/3/9l

ID: nht91-3.9

DATE: April 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David E. McAllister -- Manufacturers Representative

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from David E. McAllister to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5833)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 14, 1991, "as a supplier to the U.S. Postal Service for lights", asking whether it is "legal" for the center high mounted stop lamp to flash.

We understand that the new postal service vehicles are trucks. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the center highmounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. When installed as original equipment on a passenger car, it is required to be steady-burning when the brake pedal is applied. However, since Standard No. 108 does not require center highmounted stop lamps on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, any such lamps would not be required to be steady-burning. Thus, the current requirements of Standard No. 108 would permit a center lamp on a postal truck to flash.

Supplementary lighting equipment, i.e., lighting equipment that is not required by Standard No. 108, is subject to Standard No. 108's general prohibition that such not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer of the vehicle before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If it appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review the determination. With respect to the present case, it is theoretically possible that a flashing center stop lamp could "impair the effectiveness" of the truck's two steady-burning primary stop lamps by sending a confusing signal. However, given the lamp's location on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, and the public recognition of the function of the center lamp on passenger cars, we do not believe it is likely that the public would be confused.

We would like to advise you that the agency has proposed that trucks be equipped with steady-burning center lamps, and that it has announced that a final rule will be issued during the first half of 1991. If the final rule applies to postal trucks, then a flashing center lamp could not be installed on postal trucks manufactured on and after the rule's effective date.

ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill