ID: nht94-6.32

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laboratories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system meets Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of an oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: nht75-6.35

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Zimmer Homes Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert Aubuchon of this agency has asked us to respond to your recent inquiry whether the Solex motor bicycle is a "motor vehicle" under our regulations, and, if so, how we would categorize it. You are also interested in knowing how our views affect South Carolina's proposed redefinition of bicycle.

Since the Solex is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, it is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, specifically a "motorcycle". As such, it must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "motorcycles", and be so certified by its manufacturer. The only such standard currently in effect is No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, but standards on controls (No. 122) and braking (No. 123) will become effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974 respectively.

While the proposed South Carolina redefinition of "bicycle" appears to encompass the Solex, the State by so doing could neither relieve the manufacturer from the obligation of complying with Federal motorcycle safety standards, nor impose requirements different from Standards Nos. 108, 122, and 123 as to those aspects of performance covered by the Federal standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: nht94-4.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1994

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

TO: The Honorable Andrea Seastrand -- California State Assemblywoman

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/23/94 FROM ANDREA SEASTRAND TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Thank you for your letter forwarding the concerns of Mr. Eric Brandt regarding the use of aircraft tires on the dollies that he uses to move houses and other structures on the highway. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond.

Your office's description of Mr. Brandt's concerns was as follows:

He is upset because the California Highway Patrol has stopped him from his house moving business because he is using aircraft tires on the dollies he uses to move the houses. He thinks that the law is being interpreted incorrectly. He is using low pr ofile tires, and he thinks the law means the high floatation tires. The California Highway Patrol officer told Mr. Brandt to contact the Federal Department of Motor Vehicles and find out. In the meantime, he is out of business. Can we help?

In accordance with your request, we have prepared a response directly to Mr. Brandt (copy enclosed).

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

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

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 to C. Zeitlow from P. J. Rice; (A36; Std. 108); also attached to photocopies of Federal Register (text omitted)

TEXT:

I spoke with Kevin Cavey last week regarding section 108 of the FMVSS. He suggested I write to you for clarification of the following issue:

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?

Per Mr. Cavey, the hazard warning light should always over-ride the rear stop light.

If this is correct, will you please confirm this fact in writing? If this is not correct, will you please direct us to the section of the regulation which would explain the proper installation procedure? Also, if the stop lights were to override the fl ashers, should the front flashers be steady burning or flashing?

We have also noticed that in Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Section SlO8-10, page SS-210, only SAE Standard J588e is referenced, J1395 is not shown. Will this section be updated to reflect the SAE change?

Thank you. I will await your reply.

ID: nht94-4.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: James D. Murphy, Jr.

TO: Recht

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to James D. Murphy, Jr. (A43; Part 571.3(b)); Also attached to 6/11/86 letter from Erika Jones to Terry W. Wager

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

I am designing a vehicle that I hope to certify as a U.S. street-legal motorcycle.

As you can see in the drawing, it actually has 4 wheels, but since the left and right side wheels are elevated off the ground, no more than 2 wheels touch the ground at any one time. There are some rare circumstances where all 4 wheels could touch th e ground at the same time, for an instant, but these require precise undulations in the surface of the road. I would imagine that NHTSA defines "ground" as a flat surface (otherwise, a headlamp might exceed NHTSA's upper height limit when cresting a bum p, or drop below NHTSA's lower height limit when traversing a pothole, etc.).

Therefore, I hope that this vehicle will still comply with NHTSA's definition of a "motorcycle". I await your reply.

Sincerely,

James D. Murphy Jr.

P.S. You can call me at home at (303) 350-9449; any time. Be sure to ask for James Jr.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: 9395

The Honorable David L. Boren
United States Senator
621 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). Mr. Price states that the agency's proposal is discriminatory and would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the NPRM in response to a requirement of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. As discussed in the NPRM, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, the proposed requirements are intended to increase heavy vehicle stability and control during braking, and thus significantly reduce the deaths and injuries caused when these vehicles jackknife or otherwise lose control during braking.

The purpose of publishing an NPRM is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. NHTSA then considers all of the comments before reaching a decision concerning whether to adopt the proposed requirements as a final rule.

Thus, if an interested person, such as Mr. Price, believes that a proposed requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive or otherwise objectionable, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. Mr. Price has in fact submitted extensive comments to NHTSA concerning this proposal. Please be assured that this agency will carefully consider Mr. Price's comments, as well as all other comments, before it reaches a decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since NHTSA will reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule and the content of such a final rule only after considering all the comments to the docket, we cannot provide a specific response at this time to the comments raised by Mr. Price. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA will provide its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Washington Office

ref:121 d:12/23/93

ID: nht94-1.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1994

FROM: Eldon J. McLauchlin -- President, Valley Automotive Specialties, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel of NHTSA

TITLE: Certification Opinion

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 to Eldon J. McLauchlin from John Womack (A42; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I contacted your office on 1/24/94 regarding information on certification pertaining to a product I have developed. I was advised by an associate of yours' to write you a letter explaining the purpose of the product and a brief description of it's uses and how it operates.

The product is an Automated Fire Extinguisher System. The AFES can be used on automobiles, trucks, boats, RV's, and buses. We will also be modifying the existing proto-type so that it can be installed in homes and commercial buildings.

The purpose of this product is to enable the operator/occupant of vehicles or buildings to exit safely in the event of a fire. The automation of the control valve will activate the extinguisher even if the operator/occupant is not able to due to unconsc iousness or other circumstances beyond their control. This product will allow sufficient time for the operator/occupant to escape or be extracted from the vehicle or building.

The AFES will operate on a 12 volt system, most commonly found on all types of motor vehicles, boats, etc. The AFES will also operate on a 110 volt system, common in all homes and buildings. Activation will be accomplished through smoke and heat sensor s, a valve and manifold assembly with strategically placed directional nozzles. The number of directional nozzles required will depend on the size of the vehicle or building that has the AFES installed. Once the AFES is installed it will stay maintaina ble and can be recharged.

In closing, if it is your opinion that this lifesaving system needs to be certified by the appropriate agency(s) or if you need further information in order to determine your opinion, please contact me. I would greatly appreciate it if you could make av ailable to me the information I will need to accomplish the certification if you decide it is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration.

ID: nht68-2.24

DATE: 05/28/68

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

TO: Lester L. Wolff; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 3 to the Treasury Department which was forwarded to the National Highway Safety Bureau for reply. Your letter enclosed correspondence from Your constituent Sidney Fischer of Oyster Bay.

Mr. Fischer asked the following two questions:

"(1) Whether a car (new or used) must have the manufacturer's or distributor's safety sticker on it in order to be brought into the United States."

I enclose a copy of 19 C.F.R. @ 12.80 which governs importation of motor vehicles subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Generally, any passenger car manufactured after December 31, 1967, whether new or used at time of importation must bear the manufacturer's permanently affixed certification of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is to be admitted into the United States. Exceptions are provided under certain instances for vehicles which were not manufactured in conformity prior to entry (@ 12.80(b)(ii) or will be brought into conformity after entry (@ 12.80(b)(iii) and @ 12.80(c)).

"(2) If such sticker is not on the car and is required for entry by customs, could he get an abstract of the safety requirements that the Customs Inspector would use in order to determine the admissibility of the vehicle?"

The manufacturer's permanently affixed certification is not required for entry under @ 12.80(b)(ii) or (b)(iii). But there is no "abstract of safety requirements" used by Customs to determine admissibility of the vehicle. Vehicles conformed prior to entry will be admitted upon production of a statement in the form required by @ 12.80(b)(ii).

Vehicles to be conformed after entry will be admitted upon an undertaking by the importer to bring the vehicle into conformance and the giving of a @ 12.80(c) bond to secure this promise.

Because of the difficulties of conforming a vehicle after its manufacture, if Mr. Fischer intends to buy a passenger car manufactured after December 31, 1967 he may save himself much worry by assuring himself prior to purchase that a vehicle bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance.

ID: nht76-1.23

DATE: 12/06/76

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

TO: The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1976, letter advising the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the tire standards of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association (JATMA) are being translated into English. You request that consideration be given to referencing JATMA standards in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that regulate motor vehicle tire manufacture. I regret that we have not responded to your letter sooner.

Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, presently reference the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). Because the JATMA standards appear to be updated more often than the JIS standards, and because the JATMA standards will be issued in English, the agency intends to substitute a reference to JATMA standards in its regulations for the existing reference to JIS standards.

Thank you for providing us with the English translation of the motorcycle tire standards. We request that you provide us copies of all English translations of the standards for all vehicle types as often as they are updated.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

THE JAPAN AUTOMOBILE TIRE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

J. B. Gregory -- National

J. B. Gregory -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir,

Re: The JATMA Standard.

The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association has established the JATMA Standard as an association standard for tires in Japan.

To circulate it widely to the world we are now preparing its English version. Recently the JATMA Standard for motorcycle tires in English has been completed and we are sending you copies of it under the separate cover.

As to the JATMA Standards for other tires (for Truck & Bus, Light Truck and Passenger cars) translation into English is now under way taking this opportunity we would want you to consider to add the JATMA Standard to S 5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 119 and S 4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 109.

Yours faithfully, Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director

ID: nht94-8.44

DATE: January 25, 1994

FROM: Eldon J. McLauchlin -- President, Valley Automotive Specialties, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel of NHTSA

TITLE: Certification Opinion

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 to Eldon J. McLauchlin from John Womack (A42; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I contacted your office on 1/24/94 regarding information on certification pertaining to a product I have developed. I was advised by an associate of yours' to write you a letter explaining the purpose of the product and a brief description of it's uses and how it operates.

The product is an Automated Fire Extinguisher System. The AFES can be used on automobiles, trucks, boats, RV's, and buses. We will also be modifying the existing proto-type so that it can be installed in homes and commercial buildings.

The purpose of this product is to enable the operator/occupant of vehicles or buildings to exit safely in the event of a fire. The automation of the control valve will activate the extinguisher even if the operator/occupant is not able to due to unconsciousness or other circumstances beyond their control. This product will allow sufficient time for the operator/occupant to escape or be extracted from the vehicle or building.

The AFES will operate on a 12 volt system, most commonly found on all types of motor vehicles, boats, etc. The AFES will also operate on a 110 volt system, common in all homes and buildings. Activation will be accomplished through smoke and heat sensors, a valve and manifold assembly with strategically placed directional nozzles. The number of directional nozzles required will depend on the size of the vehicle or building that has the AFES installed. Once the AFES is installed it will stay maintainable and can be recharged.

In closing, if it is your opinion that this lifesaving system needs to be certified by the appropriate agency(s) or if you need further information in order to determine your opinion, please contact me. I would greatly appreciate it if you could make available to me the information I will need to accomplish the certification if you decide it is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration.