ID: aiam5359

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;

ID: aiam2016

Dear Mr. Hart: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 5, 1975 requesting an interpretation of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; Section 202 does not directly require any motor vehicle to be equippe with appropriate tires. It instructs this agency to establish, by regulation, motor vehicle safety standards which will in turn require vehicles to be so equipped. Standard No. 110, *Tire selection and rims--passenger cars*, implements this instruction with respect to passenger cars. A three-quarter-ton pick-up truck, however, would be subject instead to proposed Standard No. 120, *Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars* (copy enclosed). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects to act on that proposal in the near future.; Standards issued pursuant to section 202 do not apply to vehicles afte they have been purchased for the purpose of being rented of leased to the general public, they are applicable only to vehicles up to the point of first purchase.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting 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: 1983-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Talbott Engineers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 11, 1983, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. The specific question you asked was:

Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars?

The requirements of section S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars. Standard No. 104's section S2, Application, provides that the standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The requirements of certain sections of the standard, however, only apply to some of those vehicle types. Section S4.1.2, Wiped Area, provides:

When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield. . . . [Emphasis added]

The above language limits the applicability of that specific requirement to passenger cars, and the section does not have any other requirements applicable to other vehicle types.

We would note that your letter used the term "multi-purpose passenger car" rather than multipurpose passenger vehicle, the term used in the standard. We assume that your use of the former term was a typographical error, and we note it only to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

We have enclosed a copy of the most recent revision of Standard No. 104, as you requested.

ENC.

TALBOTT ENGINEERS INC.

January 11, 1983

Legal Counsel NHTSA U.S. Dept. of Transportation FMVSS 104

Dear Sirs:

I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 104, S4.1.2, Wiped Area.

Specifically, my question is

"Does S4.1.2 require that multi-purpose passenger cars, trucks, and buses meet the effective wiped area requirements, or does S4.1.2 only apply to passenger cars."

In addition, could you please send the latest revision of FMVSS 104.

I am working in behalf of a concerned client with a large commercial fleet. Expediting your response will be appreciated.

Terry D. Day, P.E.

ID: 77-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whether 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 are 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,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 21, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108

FMVSS 108 specifies performance requirements for certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment for use on passenger cars. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests interpretation as to whether or not this standard applies to the performance and installation of fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

This request for interpretation specifically concerns those fog lamps currently used in Europe and subject to EEC regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.

These requirements include a minimum candela output of 150 cd to a maximum of 300 cd measured at any test point within +/- 10 degrees right and left of the lamp axis and +/- 5 degrees up and down on the vertical axis.

The effective projected luminous area for these types of lamps is 140 sq. cm (21.7 sq. in.) maximum. These lamps are wired so as to be switched on with the headlamps and front fog lamps. The color emitted from the lamp when lighted is red within the appropriate SAE-CIE coordinates. The lamp is installed on/or at the rear of the vehicle, left of the centerline, no closer than 100 mm from the stop lamp.

Should this type of lighting device be subject to the current requirement of FMVSS 108, an interpretation is requested as to which aspect of performance this lamp should be designed.

Should this type of lighting device not be subject to the above standard, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby petitions for rulemaking to amend Standard 108 to include such lighting requirements as previously described for optional use on passenger cars.

Samples of these types of lighting devices can be made available for review and testing. Should additional data be necessary to further evaluate this type of lighting system as currently regulated by EEC, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: aiam4862

"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";

ID: nht78-2.40

DATE: 10/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood For J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Research Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Oct 17, 1978

Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202 New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Yoneyama:

This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, asking whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, must comply with Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standars, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii).

UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Aappendix A of Standard No. 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space-saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.

On October 23, 1978 NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors Corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 22, 1978 Ref. No. KY/107

Mr. Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This letter is with reference to rule S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (Docket No. 25; Notice 24), as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, 90. 137, July 17, 1978.

We would like to know whether the rule on the "Application" and the "Effective date of the requirements for original equipment tires" can be read as follows:

1. Application

Paragraph (c) on the "Application" states that, "This section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars... ."

On the basis of this statement, we understand that the rule is not applied to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, even if the tires are listed on the Table of Standards No. 109.

For instance, a 6.00-16 tire is listed on the Table 1-A of Appendix A in the Standard No. 109, as a tire that is used for passenger cars. However, when the 6.00-16 tires are originally equipped on multipurpose passenger cars, we understand that it is not necessary for the tires to comply with the rule.

Is this correct, or not?

2. Effective Date

For the information requirements to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle, the paragraph (d) (1) (iii) states that, "The information ..... it must contain a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades for the tires... ."

We understand that the information requirements to the first purchaser of a new moter vehicle will become effective on September 1, 1979 for bias ply tires and on March 1, 1980 for bias belted tires on the basis of the molding requirements.

Is this correct, or not?

We would appreciate it if you would inform us as to your opinion and judgement on the above interpretations, as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours truly,

KEN YONEYAMA Chief Engineer

KY/sff

ID: aiam4515

Dear Ms. Black: Thank you for your letter of April l4, l988, providin further information about the Jaguar headlamp levelling system discussed in your letters of June and October l987 to which I responded on February 1, 1988. We support your efforts to call the driver's attention to the fact that the system does not automatically return to the 'zero' position from either of the two adjustment positions when those loading conditions no longer exist. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: 8753

The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
4452 Hendricks Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32207

Your Reference: 95-0167-J

Dear Congresswoman Fowler:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information.

In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their "super golf cars" were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was "yes".

We were informed that the "super golf cars" are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a "motor vehicle." A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles; and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph).

The "super golf cars" do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susceptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the "super golf car" is in retirement communities.

As motor vehicles, the "super golf cars" must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of requirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer.

Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across- the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel, Director Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:4/19/95

ID: nht95-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel, Director -- Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Tillie K. Fowler -- Member, U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: Your Reference: 95-0167-J

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/10/95 LETTER FROM TILLIE K. FOWLER TO RICARDO MARTINEZ; ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO FORBES HOWARD

TEXT: Dear Congresswoman Fowler:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information.

In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their "super golf cars" were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was "yes".

We were informed that the "super golf cars" are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a "motor vehicle." A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles; and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph).

The "super golf cars" do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susc eptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the "super golf car" is in retirement communities.

As motor vehicles, the "super golf cars" must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of re quirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer.

Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily grant ed as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standard s have not been granted.

Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992.