ID: nht89-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/89

FROM: GEORGE MILLER -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: NANCY BRUCE -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/1/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- D.O.T OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS TO GEORGE MILLER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIVES; LETTER DATED 10/4/89 FROM DELL RANDLE TO CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; LETTER DATED 9/8/89 FROM ELIZABETH M LUCAS -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TO DELL RANDLE OF SHIKARI CONSULTANT FIRM LTD.

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bruce:

The enclosed correspondence from my constituent, Mr. Dell Randle, concerning the safety approval of his device, the Shi-Lite Holder, is being forwarded for your consideration.

I would appreciate any assistance you may be able to provide in addressing the concerns presented in Mr. Randle's letter. Please direct your response to Jennifer Steneberg of my Richmond office at 3220 Blume Drive, Suite 281, Richmond, CA 94806, (415 ) 222-4212.

Sincerely,

ID: nht70-2.42

DATE: 12/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of November 18 you have requested an extension beyond one year of the time permissible for two DAF55 vehicles to remain in the United States for test purposes.

These vehicles were imported pursuant to 19 C.F.R. @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii) which permits importation of vehicles which do not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards:

. . .for the purposes of . . . test, experiment . . [if] such vehicle will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads: Provided, That vehicles imported solely for purposes of test or experiment may be licensed for use on the public reads for a period not to exceed one year . . . ."

The Bureau cannot grant your request for an extension of the one year period, however, the regulation does not prohibit the continue use of these vehicles on private property after the one year licensed period has expired.

ID: aiam0820

Dear Mr. Hammerstein: Your Broadview, Illinois, Subsidiary recently forwarded to us a copy o 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 whic is specified in SAE J580a as follows:; >>>'2. The mechanism, including the aiming adjustment, must be s designed as to prevent the unit from receding into the lamp body or housing when an inward pressure of 50 lb(sic) is exerted on the outer surface of the lens.'<<<; Our interpretation of the above requirement is that no visible recedin 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. 10 (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.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht94-5.44

DATE: May 9, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bloomfield, John -- Manager, Engine Management, Legislation and Certification, Lotus Cars, Ltd. (ENGLAND)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To a Letter Dated 10/28/93 From Rachel Jelly To John Womack

TEXT: This responds to the letter from Ms. Rachel Jelly, formerly of your company, concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. Ms. Jelly asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two alternative standards. The answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

The reasons for the above response are discussed in the attached letter from NHTSA to Mr. Lance Tunick, of Bugatti. Mr. Tunick's letter to NHTSA raised issues that are of concern to both Bugatti and Lotus. Thus, NHTSA's response to Mr. Tunick should address Lotus' concerns about filing for alternative CAFE standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9325

Mr. John Bloomfield
Manager, Engine Management
Legislation and Certification
Lotus Cars, Ltd.
Hethel, Norwich, Norfolk NR14 8EZ
England

Dear Mr. Bloomfield:

This responds to the letter from Ms. Rachel Jelly, formerly of your company, concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. Ms. Jelly asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two alternative standards. The answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

The reasons for the above response are discussed in the attached letter from NHTSA to Mr. Lance Tunick, of Bugatti. Mr. Tunick's letter to NHTSA raised issues that are of concern to both Bugatti and Lotus. Thus, NHTSA's response to Mr. Tunick should address Lotus' concerns about filing for alternative CAFE standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:525 d:5/9/94

ID: aiam4467

"Dear Mr. Strahan: This is in response to your inquiry earlier thi 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";

ID: aiam2490

Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whethe Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* applies to fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.; No requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to fog lamps and they ar subject to regulation by the individual states. Pursuant to S4.1.3, however, they may be prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.; You also asked that, absent inclusion of these lamps in Standard No 108, your letter be treated as a petition 'for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to include such lighting requirements . . . for optional use on passenger cars.' Your submission does not meet the requirements of our procedural regulations, a copy of which I enclose. Specifically, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.4(c) you should 'set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary.' Among these facts should be reasons why you are petitioning for 'optional' rather than mandatory use on passenger cars, and why other vehicles are not included in your petition (if, in fact true).; Sincerely,Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0755

Dear Mr. Staiger: This is in response to your letter of May 23 to Mr. Schneider regardin incomplete vehicle certification and your responsibility as a truck dealership.; The regulation to which you refer is 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. It applies to incomplete vehicle manufacturers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Truck dealers who perform these manufacturing functions are required to meet these requirements, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. The regulations do not apply to a truck dealer who does not modify completed vehicles received from a manufacturer or distributor.; Other Federal motor vehicle safety regulations and standards ar codified in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1535

Dear Mr. Chermak:#This responds to your May 21, 1974, question whethe 'I' or 'II' should appear as a part of the label information on renewable 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch SP fittings. #It is not permissible to include type 'I' or 'II' in the labeling required in renewable fittings. S7.2 calls for the end fitting identification which appears in your letter, but S7.2 reserves the use of 'I' and 'II' for use in reusable assemblies, that is, assemblies which include reusable end fittings. The standard classifies renewable end fittings as a type of permanently-attached end fitting.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0750

Dear Mr. Nakajima:#In your letter of June 19 you ask whether a propose headlamp symbol would meet the requirements of Standard No. 101.#The NHTSA answered this question in a notice published in the *Federal Register* on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296). In responding to a question by General Motors whether the published headlamp identification symbol was only representative of the required symbol, or definitive in the sense that it must be copied exactly, the NHTSA stated that it intended the symbol to be representative only.#I enclose a copy of the notice for your information.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;