ID: nht95-3.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/13/95 LETTER FROM GEORGE WALTON TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11044)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walton:

This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields.

The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle ." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application.

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

ID: nht68-3.13

DATE: 02/09/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Electrographic Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 18, 1967, to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, you describe the procedure initiated by you for identifying and marking light hit containers. You ask for our acknowledgement of the procedure. It is not clear from your letter, but we gather that you manufacture truck bodies and ship light kits in a separate box, either to accompany or separate from the truck bodies.

The so-called "lighting Standard," Standard 103 of the initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, to entitled "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment." The standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers and buses, that are 80 or more inches wide overall, except pole trailers and converter dollies. It is the manufacturer of the completed vehicle who must certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 103. Unless the manufacturer of the lighting equipment and the completed vehicle are the same, the manufacturer of lighting equipment is not required to certify that such equipment conforms to Standard No. 103. It would seem logical to expect that the manufacturer of the completed vehicle would require from the manufacturer of the lighting equipment some indication that the lighting equipment is in conformity, but that is a matter to be settled between the two persons involved. Thus, while we have no objection to the procedure described in your letter, we do wish to emphasize that it does not relieve the vehicle manufacturer of insuring compliance and certifying to such compliance where appropriate.

Thank you for your interest. If further information is needed, please feel free to contact this office.

ID: 77-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to our letter to you dated September 17, 1976, denying your requested rulemaking on Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. It has been brought to our attention that you interpret our letter to require that tire dealers actually complete the tire information forms themselves.

Section 158 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1418) requires that

"[every] manufacturer of motor vehicles and tires shall cause the establishment and maintenance of records of the name and address of the first purchaser of each motor vehicle and tire produced by such manufacturer. . . . The Secretary may, by rule, specify the records to be established and maintained, and reasonable procedures to be followed by manufacturers in establishing and maintaining such records, including procedures to be followed by distributors and dealers to assist manufacturers to secure the information . . . ."

This section of the Act, therefore, places the responsibility for ensuring the establishment of these records upon the manufacturer who may be assisted by the dealer. Part 574 requires dealers to submit first purchaser information to manufacturers. The information that must be supplied to each manufacturer need not be entered on the required form by the dealer. The dealer may present the registration form to the purchaser and allow him to fill in the required information before he takes possession of the tire. Thus, the purchaser would complete the form prior to leaving the store, thereby obviating the need for additional store personnel to complete the forms. It is the dealer's responsibility, however, to ensure that the forms are filled out in their entirety.

ID: nht72-2.12

DATE: 08/30/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Albert Hammerstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your Broadview, Illinois, Subsidiary recently forwarded to us a copy of your December 17, 1971, letter concerning aiming adjustment tests as specified in SAE Standard J580a. A search of our files does not reveal that your letter was previously received by this Office.

Specifically, your concern is the interpretation of a requirement which is specified in SAE J580a as follows:

"2. The mechanism, including the aiming adjustment, must be so designed as to prevent the unit from receding into the lamp body or housing when an inward pressure of 50 lb is exerted on the outer surface of the lens."

Our interpretation of the above requirement is that no visible receding of the sealed beam unit is permitted when the inward pressure is applied on the outer lens surface. Testing for compliance to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, which references SAE J580a, is conducted on the basis of this interpretation.

In the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on FMVSS No. 108 (Docket 69-19), we are considering the feasibility of specifying more objective type requirements on this aspect of aiming adjustment tests for headlamps. You will no doubt be interested in commenting on the proposed requirements after issuance of the NPRM.

ID: nht88-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DANA STRAHAN -- CITY OF ORANGE WATER DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: REQUEST FROM STRAHAN TO HITCHCOCK, DATED APRIL 8, 1988

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry earlier this year to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of our Rulemaking Division, in which you asked for information about Federal regulations that apply to the labeling of a vehicle that has been modified to increase its gross veh icle weight rating (GVWR) above that on the original label. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our certification regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-c ertification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

For the purposes of this response, I have assumed that you were concerned about modifying vehicles that are already owned by the City of Orange Water Department. If this is incorrect, and you plan to modify new vehicles before their first sale or your d epartment is in the business of modifying other persons' vehicles, please let me know because different requirements would apply.

Neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Therefore, as a local government agency, the city of Orange, using in-house resources, can perform whatever modi fications it desires to its own vehicles. Similarly, our certification regulation does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle. As a word of caution, however, we suggest that any modific ation made to a vehicle that changes the GVWR assigned by the vehicle's original manufacturer should only be done after the modifier

has made a thorough engineering analysis of the entire vehicle. We would suggest that you contact the original vehicle manufacturer for help in making such an analysis.

You also indicated that you were concerned about potential liability that could arise if no additional label were affixed to show the modified vehicle's new GVWR. As explained above, a person modifying his or her own vehicle after its first purchase wou ld not be subject to any potential liability under Federal law. If you are asking for information about potential liability under the laws of the State of California, this agency does not comment on such potential liability. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of California or a local attorney for an opinion about potential liability under California law.

I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

ID: 11044-1

George E. Walton
International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc.
7618 Winterberry Place
Bethesda, MD 20817

Dear Mr. Walton:

This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields.

The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:8/4/95

ID: 1984-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Nigel Stansfield -- Product and Training Manager, JCB Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager JCB Inc. Box 209 White Marsh, Maryland 21162

Dear Mr. Stansfield: This responds to your letter of October 4, 1984, asking whether Standard No. 205, Glazing Material, applies to your JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines. As explained below, your loaders and machines are not considered motor vehicles and thus Standard No. 205 would not apply to them.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways. Construction vehicles which are manufactured for use at off-road job sites but which will use the public roads on a frequent basis for moving between job sites are subject to these requirements. However, the agency has previously concluded that construction vehicles which use the public roads in frequently and which would stay at a particular job site for an extended period of time are not subject to our requirements.

You state in your letter that the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off-highway use, but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph. Based on your description and the specification brochures you enclosed, the agency has decided that the backhoe loader and rough terrain loadall machines you manufacture are not motor vehicles for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA RE: Specifications of the tyre of glass required for installation in the cab windshield of JCB rubber tired backhoe loaders and rough terrain loadall machines.

Dear Sirs:

Federal safety standard 205 and ANSI Code Z 26.1 1977, 26.1a 1980 indicate the glass used must be a laminated type meeting AS 1 specifications.

These regulations and standards relate primarily to vehicles designed specifically for on highway use.

JCB Inc. wish to be advised if laminated glass meeting AS II specifications is acceptable in our case where the vehicles involved are designed primarily for off highway use but will use the highway for travel from site to site at speeds not exceeding 25 mph.

A set of specification brochures are enclosed for your information.

Yours sincerely,

JCB INC.

Nigel Stansfield Product and Training Manager

enclosures: Specifications brochures omitted.

ID: 3323o

Mr. Dana Strahan
City of Orange
Water Department
P. O. Box 449
Orange, CA 92666-1591

Dear Mr. Strahan:

This is in response to your inquiry earlier this year to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of our Rulemaking Division, in which you asked for information about Federal regulations that apply to the labeling of a vehicle that has been modified to increase its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above that on the original label. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our certification regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

For the purposes of this response, I have assumed that you were concerned about modifying vehicles that are already owned by the City of Orange Water Department. If this is incorrect, and you plan to modify new vehicles before their first sale or your department is in the business of modifying other persons' vehicles, please let me know because different requirements would apply.

Neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Therefore, as a local government agency, the city of Orange, using in-house resources, can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles. Similarly, our certification regulation does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle. As a word of caution, however, we suggest that any modification made to a vehicle that changes the GVWR assigned by the vehicle's original manufacturer should only be done after the modifier has made a thorough engineering analysis of the entire vehicle. We would suggest that you contact the original vehicle manufacturer for help in making such an analysis.

You also indicated that you were concerned about potential liability that could arise if no additional label were affixed to show the modified vehicle's new GVWR. As explained above, a person modifying his or her own vehicle after its first purchase would not be subject to any potential liability under Federal law. If you are asking for information about potential liability under the laws of the State of California, this agency does not comment on such potential liability. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of California or a local attorney for an opinion about potential liability under California law.

I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#567 d:l2/20/88

ID: nht92-9.25

DATE: February 4, 1992

FROM: Douglas Kubehl -- Technician, Safety Engineering Associates, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Douglas Kubehl (A39; Std. 209)

TEXT:

As an engineer, I have been asked to obtain a legal translation of FMVSS Part 571.209, which I have enclosed for your reference. Specifically, my interest lies in the wording of parts 209-S4.4 and 209-S5.3.

In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: "The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds". My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds.

Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied.

We have previously addressed this question to John Lee of NHTSA's enforcement division. Mr Lee indicated that as per enforcement testing, part 209-S4.4b(4) requires a 5000 pound loop load. When asked for a written confirmation/interpretation, Mr. Lee referred us to your office.

We look forward to your response regarding appropriate interpretation. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ID: nht90-2.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1990

FROM: James W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation on Conformance of Aftermarket Parts

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani (A35; Std. 214; Part 541); Also attached to letter dated 3-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to James W. Lawrence (A37; Std. 214; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I recently became aware of an Administration interpretation (copy attached) to a parts distribution that states in part as follows:

"...there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214."

In contrast, the Act section 108a(2)(A) prohibits rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in compliance to a Safety Standard. I interpret this provision of the Act to require the installation of parts meeting the same performance r equirements as OEM parts. A clarification would be most appreciated.