ID: nht69-2.37

DATE: 11/21/69

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

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 4, 1969, to Mr. J. K. Leysath of this Office concerning the flashing of side marker lamps with the turn signal lamps.

The flashing of side marker lamps is permitted under paragraph S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Side marker lamps may be combined with turn signal lamps providing the requirements of paragraph S3.3 of MV33 No. 108 are net.

ID: nht69-2.38

DATE: 09/05/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

COPYEE: SUBJ. FILE OAA; CHRON. FILE OAA; CHRON. FILE MVSPS; SUBJ. FILE 409; CHRON. FILE 409; SCHNEIDER, RM. 512, DONOHOE; FISTE, RM. 302A, DONOHOE; FHWA EX. SEO.(2); FHWA CONTROL #55

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 26, 1969, to the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, concerning the activation of stop lamps and hazard warning signal lamps.

Your letter poses three basic questions as follows:

1. Are spring brakes, which backup a primary air brake system, considered "emergency" brakes within the meaning of paragraph S3.4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 1087

2. Under Standard No. 108, does the Bureau prefer (a) a wiring system whereby the stop lamps override the hazard warning lamps, or (b) a wiring system whereby the hazard warning lamps override the stop lamps?

3. Are both of the above wiring systems permissible?

In answer to the first question, spring brakes, which back-up a primary air brake system, are not considered "emergency" brakes within the meaning of paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108. The basis for this opinion is the same as that contained in Mr. Fay's letter of April 25, 1968, to the Blue Bird Body Company. The Bureau now has under development a proposed standard for brakes which will be applicable to trucks. If under this standard, spring brakes are defined as emergency brakes, then the requirement of paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108 will be applicable.

In answer to the second and third questions, the Bureau has no well-founded research data to prove or disprove the effectiveness of the two different wiring systems for all vehicles covered by Standard No. 108. Use of either of the systems is permitted under Standard No. 108.

However, the regulations of the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR 392.22(a) and 392.23(a)) require flashing of the turn signal lamps as a vehicular traffic hazard warning signal whenever a vehicle is stopped under certain conditions. These regulations therefore do not allow overriding of the warning signal by the stop lamps. It is our belief that a flashing light, rather than a steady-burning light, conveys a more effective warning of a stopped vehicle. Consequently, trucks, buses, and trailers which after sale may be subject to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations should be manufactured so that the stop lamps will not override the hazard warning signal. Consideration is being given to rule making(Illegible Word) which would make this mandatory for all trucks, buses, and trailers.

ID: nht69-2.39

DATE: 09/12/69

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

TO: The Flexible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 21, 1969, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Assistant Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to activation of stop lamps when the emergency brakes are applied.

Paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "Except as provided in S3.4.4.1 through S3.4.4.3 stop lamps shall be actuated upon application of any service or emergency broken." The emergency-parking brakes as described in the 2nd paragraph of your letter are not considered "emergency" brakes within the weaning of paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108. Therefore, actuation of stop lamps need not be provided upon application of such brakes. I should point out, however, that the Bureau now has under development a proposed standard for brakes which will be applicable to trucks. If under this proposed standard, the emergency-parking brakes as used on your vehicles are defined as "emergency" brakes, then the requirement of paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108 will be applicable.

ID: nht69-2.4

DATE: 02/12/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Scientific Brake & Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of November 11, 1968, to Mr. Barkley Sweet, Truck Body and Equipment Association, concerning lighting for trucks equipped with snow plow blades, has been hand-carried by him to this Bureau for consideration and reply.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that all trucks be equipped with headlamps mounted at a height above the road surface not more than 54 inches. To effectively illuminate the road when its snow plow is in use, a truck often runt be equipped with additional headlamps at a height greater than 54 inches, and you are correct in installing these lights for dealers and purchasers.

With respect to the several specific questions listed on page 2 of your letter, I would point out that local and State regulations should be reviewed for possible requirements relating to the additional lamps used on trucks operating as snow-plowing vehicles.

ID: nht69-2.40

DATE: 06/30/69

FROM: C.A. BAKER -- OFFICE OF STANDARDS ON ACCIDENT AVOIDANCE, MOTOR VEH. PERFORMANCE SERV., CONCURRENCE OF OFFICE OF ASST CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TO: Renault, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 18, 1969, to the U.S. Department of Transportation, concerning your request for clarification of the visibility requirements of back up lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The visibility requirements for backup lamps on station wagons or similar type motor vehicles will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps may therefore be mounted on the tailgate.

ID: nht69-2.41

DATE: 04/23/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: IFFISA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We regret the delay in replying to your letter of January 15, 1969, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning regulations applicable to replicas of antique automobiles which you manufacture.

As a general rule, motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in order to be imported into the United States. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) requires that manufacturers permanently affix a tag or label to the motor vehicle certifying that the motor vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) established under authority of Section 103 of the Act. Your vehicles would properly be classified as passenger cars. Thus the FMVSS applicable to this classification would apply. The above standards are currently applicable only to motor vehicles over 1,000 pounds curb weight. Curb weight includes a full bad of engine fuel, oil, and coolant as defined in 49 CFR 371.3. In accordance with a proposed rule making published in 32 FR, page 14282, October 14, 1967, the Administrator is considering adding new standards applicable to motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight, and revising certain of the initial standards to extend their applicability to these motor vehicles. Comments have been received from industry and a discussion paper on the subject prepared. This discussion paper will be mailed to industry in the near furture, together with a notice of a meeting to be held on the subject. Your name is being added to the mailing list for this information.

19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment, was jointly issued and published by the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Treasury in implementation of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act. This regulation makes provision for importation of certain motor vehicles not conforming to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, subject to specific conditions.

An amendment to the Act has granted authority to the Secretary of Transportation, based upon certain specified findings, to exempt temporarily, a limited production motor vehicle from any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. A limited production motor vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle produced by a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production, as determined by the Secretary, does not exceed 500 annually. It is to be noted, however, that exemptions are granted to the person actually producing the motor vehicle, not to the importer or distributor of such motor vehicle. Regulations for petitioning for an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 355.5.

In the United States, motor vehicles are licensed for operation by each of the states and the District of Columbia. A letter addressed to the State Department of Motor Vehicles in the capitol city of the states in which you intend marketing your product, should reach an individual who can provide you with information regarding state licensing requirements.

While you did not inquire about Federal regulations concerning control of anti-pollution emission devices, this is another area of possible effect in your situation. These regulations are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Associate Commissioner for Standards and Compliance, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration, BCT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22203, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.

Publications of the Socity of Automotive Engineers (SAE), including copies of SAE Standards, may be obtained by writing to: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 1001.

For your information and guidance, enclosed are copies of the Act, as amended; the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, (49 CFR 351, 353, 355 and 371); 19 CFR 12.80, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment; Declaration Form HS-7, Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the proposed rule making, Docket 5-1.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 86-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Greg Burns -- Quality Manager, Sierracin/TransTech

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Greg Burns Quality Manager Sierracin/TransTech 12780 San Fernando Road Sylmar, CA 91342

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1986, to Edward Jettner of this agency. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You asked about the effect of the certification requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, on a product you are planning to manufacture. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You described your product as an aftermarket personal security speciality glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured by adding a special plastic to the interior surface of a piece of new glazing. You explained that you are having testing conducted on your product and believe that it will pass all of the requirements set for glass-plastic glazing (item AS-14) in Standard No. 205. Your specific question concerns how the glazing is to be marked in accordance with S6 of the standard.

You explained that a new item of glazing is sent to you by an original equipment glazing manufacturer, who has certified the glazing as complying with the standard and placed the necessary markings, required by S6 of the standard, on the glazing. You asked whether you should obliterate the OEM markings through sandblasting or other means and then apply your own identification or whether you should retain the OEM marking and add additional information to indicate that the glazing has been modified.

S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing manufacturers to mark glazing materials in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z-26. S6.1 further defines a prime glazing manufacturer as one "who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." In general, an item of glazing has only one prime glazing manufacturer, since usually one manufacturer performs the fabrication, lamination, or tempering of the glazing material. However, in the case of your product, we would consider both the original manufacturer of the glazing and your company, which laminates a plastic material to the glazing, to be prime glazing manufacturers. Both companies are performing a fundamental manufacturing operation, such as fabricating, laminating, or tempering, necessary to produce a completed item of glazing material, as compared to a situation where a company is performing a minor finishing operation, such as polishing, to an item of glazing that is fabricated, laminated or tempered by another company.

As you pointed out in your letter, having two identifying marks on one item of glazing could lead to potential confusion as to which mark is correct. One of the purposes of the certification requirement is to assist in identifying the responsible manufacturer for the purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, in the case of your product, the agency believes that it is important that both prime glazing manufacturers be identified on the glazing since, for example, there could be a noncompliance in the original glazing sent to you or there could be a noncompliance in the glazing as modified by your company. To avoid potential confusion about what item number applies to your finished product, we agree that adding wording to your marking indicating that the original glazing has been modified from one AS item to another will help avoid confusion.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Edward Jettner TQC-86-037 Safety Glazing Standards 7 March 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20950

Dear Mr. Jettner;

As you may be aware of, we at Sierracin/TransTech are preparing to market an aftermarket personal security specialty glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured utilizing a OEM assembly (windshield, sidelight, etc.) with the subsequent application of a special plastic to the interior surface.

We are nearing the completion of FMVSS No. 205 testing through Industrial Testing Laboratories (Berkeley, CA), and feel confident that our design will pass all tests for the AS-14 item designation of that standard. (Although we will be using the current 1983 revision to Z-26.1 instead of the obsolete 1977 revision which includes supplement .la from 1980.)

During initial conversations with Mr. Armond Cardarelli (Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) in preparation for AAMVA approvals processing, the subject of assembly identification came up. As you know, OEM assemblies, when furnished in low quantities such as we would normally use, incorporate the OEM item designation (AS-1, AS-2, etc.). Mr. Cardarelli's justifiable concern was that our subsequent reidentification after our manufacturing process would cause confusion because of the conflicting item designations (AS-14 vs. AS-1/2/etc.), and he suggested that I contact you in writing to determine the proper direction in which to proceed.

As I see it, we have two options:

1) Obliterate the OEM item designation through sand-blast or other means. Thereafter we would apply our own identification.

- or -

2) Retain the OEM type designation, and add additional identification to indicate "modification" as per the following example:

(Please insert graphics)

I would appreciate your letting me know which of these two alternatives you feel would be most appropriate. If possible, we would prefer the acceptance of option two (2). If you have an alternate method that you feel would be more suitable, please contact me at the above address.

If you have any questions about this matter, please don't hesitate to call. I appreciate your participation in this, and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely yours,

Greg Burns Quality Manager

ID: 86-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/86

FROM: RICHARD E BOND -- HOLIDAY RAMBLER CORPORATION

TO: ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/24/86 TO RICHARD E BOND, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, PART 565

TEXT: Gentlemen:

I have a simple question which does not seem to be addressed by the regulations. It is based on the following facts:

Corporation manufactures vehicle X for several years. Corporation then separates the portion of its company which manufactures these vehicles into a separate, wholly-owned subsidiary corporation. Subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X.

Question: Is the Society of Automotive Engineers authorized to transfer the WMI code that was being used by Corporation for vehicle X to subsidiary corporation for vehicle X?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

ID: 86-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frederick Goldfeder, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick Goldfeder, Esq. Legal Proceedings Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, New York 12232

Dear Mr. Goldfeder:

This responds to your January 28, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the definition of "truck" set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3 of our regulations. You asked whether manufacturers may certify "passenger vans," which have seating capacities of more than 10 persons, as trucks.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), the classification of a motor vehicle is determined by its manufacturer. Part 567 requires manufacturers to certify that their motor vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and classify their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations. The agency may, of course, question a manufacturer's classification of its vehicle if it appears that the vehicle has not been properly certified under our regulations. This would generally arise in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings.

We define a "truck" in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle ... designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Based on the information in your letter, it does not appear that the vans meet that definition, given their passenger capacities. Our regulatory definition of a truck would be only appropriate for vehicles designed primarily for transporting property or equipment, which does not appear to be the case for the vans you described.

The situation you described appears to raise question of compliance with Federal law by the persons certifying the vehicles. We are interested in learning more about the sale of the vans, and would appreciate your contacting NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with any information you may have, at the address given above.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 28, 1986

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would Appreciate An interpretation of the term "truck" (49 CFR S371.3).

Specifically, we have in mind vehicles commonly known as a "passenger van" having s seating capacity of more than ten persons.

These vehicles are commonly sold, by a dealer, with the manufacturers' certification being that of a "truck". In this connection, we note that the definition of "bus" in said section is:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than ten persons."

The vehicles sold as a "passenger van" do not meet all of the specifications of a "bus" as set forth in Part 571.

May a manufacturer properly certify such "passenger van" as a truck, under Federal Statutes and Regulations?

This question is arising with great frequency in connection with our safety certification of vehicles operating intrastate New York. Accordingly, your interpretation of your regulations would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

FREDERICK GOLDFEDER Associate Attorney Legal Proceedings Bureau

ID: 86-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black -- Director, U.S. Engineering Office, Alfa Romeo Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NH 07632

Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller about the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that Alfa Romeo intends to install automatic safety belts in its two seat convertible model and asked how the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such an automatic crash protection system. In essence, all of your questions concern whether an automatic belt system can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt system under 1.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The answer is yes, an automatic safety belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S1.1.2.1(c)(2).

As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be "used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat assembly otherwise required by that option." Thus, an automatic safety belt can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system under S4.1.2.1(c)(2). Therefore, an Alfa Romeo convertible equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #040

March 24, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Clarification: FMVSS 208

Dear Mr. Miller: Alfa Romeo has committed to tooling to fit automatic belts in the 2 seat convertible marketed as "SPIDER". This will allow Alfa Romeo to exceed the first year phase-in requirement of 10 percent.

Our management has some concern that this decision may have placed the Corporation in a position of risk, due to the present ambiguities within FMVSS 208.

Following is our analysis of 208 as presently effective:

- S4.1.2(a) Permits passive systems meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1.

- S4.1.2(c)(2) Permits active belts combined with a passive system meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1. With this option, there is no requirement to meet lateral or rollover protection requirements.

Looking at these requirements, it appears that an automatic belt system would have to meet the lateral and rollover requirements of S4.7.2(c)(1). However, further into the text at S4.5.2, it appears that automatic belts may be used to meet the requirement of S4.1.2(c)(2). We would like your confirmation that this "linking" is correctly interpreted. If so, then it would seem that there is not lateral or rollover requirement.

- S4.1.2.3.2. Cites type 1 or 2 belts for convertibles, which again according to S4.5.3 may be substituted by automatic belts; thereby linking with S4.1.2(a) and (c)(2).

It appears that a convertible having automatic belts would not be required to comply with either S5.2 or S5.3. For this we solicit N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence. Should the rollover requirement of S5.3 be required, we know of no means by which any conventional convertible can meet the criteria of S6.1.

In looking at "intent" we tend to think that N.H.T.S.A. had already recognized the convertible/rollover incongruity when S4.1.2.3.2 was written, which seems to concur with P.L.89-563 Sect. 103(f)(3).

May we have N.H.T.S.A.'s early response?

Sincerely, ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as