ID: nht74-5.42

DATE: 03/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Western Auto Associate Store

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for information on Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and on a "Petition #2" concerning exemption of "Mopeds" from the motorcycle regulatory category.

Standard 119 applies to tires, not vehicles, and therefore it regulates only the manufacturer of the tire, not a retailer of vehicles like yourself.

The "Petition #2" to which you refer was filed by Mr. Robert Smith of Ohio Bikes, 631 Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, asking for a redefinition of "motorcycle" to exclude Moped-type vehicles, and a change in the lighting standard to exclude Moped-type vehicles from the present motorcycle requirements.

Yours truly,

WESTERN AUTO ASSOCIATE STORE

RICHARD B. DYSON A'SST. CHIEF COUNSEL DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

I thank you for your responsive letter Feb 4, 1974 concerning my inquiry on Status of Solex reports. In your letter you(Illegible Word) to a new standard affecting tires on mopels. Standard #119 effective March 1, 1975. Could you please furnish me with the specific requirements of this standard.

Also(Illegible Words) of a new Petition, referred to as Petition #2 which is currently before the D.O.T. asking that some of these requirements on mopels be(Illegible Word) to the extent that they not be classified with motorcycles but more in the cycle classification. Could you please furnished us with more detailed information regarding this Petition.

THANK YOU.

ID: nht91-4.42

DATE: July 8, 1991

FROM: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ken Hanna (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In reference to our last conversation regarding the manufacturing of sealed beam bulbs for antique cars. As per your suggestion, we are gathering data so that we may submit a comprehensive petition with all pertinent information included requesting reinstatement of SAE J579A.

Since it may take up to two years to reinstate SAE J579A and we are anxious to get our sealed beam headlight project underway, we would like to manufacture bulbs in the interim which meet J579C specifications in terms of candlepower and photometrics. However, since these bulbs will lack various identification nomenclature on the face of the lenses which are required by SAE J579C we would like to market these bulbs with clear identification on the packaging identifying them "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use". I discussed this possibility with you in our last conversation and as I recall you felt that NHTSA had no jurisdiction over products which are not intended for highway use and do not fall under the same regulations and specifications required of products which are intended for highway use.

Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not we will be violating any NHTSA restrictions by manufacturing and marketing these bulbs in this manner.

ID: nht68-4.23

DATE: 01/01/68 EST

FROM: Joseph R. O'Gorman -- Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Services

TO: A. Nathan Darby

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George Smyth (A37; Std. 101); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-75 from Richard B. Dyson (signed by Z. Taylor Vinson) to Byron A. Crampton; Also attached to letter dated 8-27-68 from Eugene B. Laskin to Barry G. Seitz (Std. 203; Std. 204); Also attached to letter dated 3-1-68 from George C. Nield to Earl Allgaier

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1967, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the installation of dual controls on passenger cars.

The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not prohibit the installation of dual controls provided none of the requirements specified by the standards are eliminated or adversely affected by such installation. In other words, if a dealer or manufacturer modifies a conforming vehicle, then he assumes the responsibility for the vehicle's certification. We enclose a complete set of standards now in effect for your information.

In the event that dual steering controls and other controls are provided on driver training vehicles, the applicability of the appropriate standards is confined to the primary controls, For example, under Standard No. 101, the person seated behind the secondary steering control need not be able to reach all controls.

We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing safety standards.

ID: nht71-3.19

DATE: 06/10/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1971, concerning the marking requirements in the proposed amendment to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (Docket No. 71-1; Notice 1). These requirements are only proposed at present, as is their effective date, and do not represent the agency's final decision on the matter. If the agency determines to amend the standard, and before any compliance with new requirements is required, a "final rule" will be issued that is based on the proposed rule but may differ in some respects from it. The final rule will specify an effective date for these new requirements which, in this instance, will probably be later than the effective date proposed.

You ask whether the effective date of the proposed standard would apply to the manufacture of the glazing, or to the fitting of the material into the vehicle. Standard No. 205 applies to "glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses", and the effective date of any amendment to this standard refers to the date of manufacture of the glazing material, and not to its fitting into the vehicle.

Your second question, whether we will accept your marking without a hyphen between the "DOT" symbol and your code mark, has been answered in our letter to you of May 26, 1971.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

ID: nht91-2.20

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TO: Billy S. Peterson -- President, Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. at TRC of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-7-91 from Billy S. Peterson to Office of Chief Council (OCC 5709)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1991, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. 108, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. 108 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

ID: nht88-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT CUZZI -- BREDA TRANSPORTATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 12-9-87, FROM ROBERT CUZZI, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, RE: 020-1287

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in respondin g to your letter.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as muni cipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard.

You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) f or their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your bus es. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

ID: nht76-1.44

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your May 19, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You were particularly concerned with one paragraph in the preamble of Notice 4 (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19). That notice delayed the effective dates of certain requirements of the standard. The paragraph in question is:

Manufacturers should note that, apart from the changed effective date for the requirement in S5.1.1 that vehicles be equipped with properly marked rims, there is no delay in the September 1, 1976, effective date of the standard's basic requirement, S5.1 (Tire and Rim Selection).

Section S5.2, Rim Marking, is the only the section of the standard that applies directly to rims. Section S5.1 applies directly to vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, however, two aspects of S5.1 (both found in S5.1.1) involve rims as well.

The first sentence of S5.1.1 includes a "suitability" requirement:

. . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with . . . rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . .

The second sentence, as amended by Notice 4, reads.

On and after September 1, 1979, each such vehicle shall be equipped with rims that meet the requirements of this standard.

The paragraph in question is simply a reminder that the "suitability" requirement, among others, is effective September 1, 1976, as originally established in Notice 3 (41 FR 3478; January 23, 1976).

ID: nht90-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOSEPH R. WHEELER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/90 FROM JOSEPH R. WHEELER TO KEN WEINSTEIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More spe cifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, "Except as provided in S4.1.5 [and another section not relevant to your inquiry], each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the [automatic restraint requirements]." S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and tha t are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law.

ID: nht89-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GAY M. ARTHUR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/20/89 FROM GAY M. ARTHUR TO TAYLOR VINSON; OCC 3447

TEXT: Dear Ms Arthur:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked if "detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars," specifically "for the exterior roof."

You appear to have in mind an item of aftermarket equipment, that is to say, an item which is not original equipment on a car, but one that the vehicle owner purchases during the course of his ownership. There is no restriction under Federal law as to r oof-mounted novelty items if they are installed by the vehicle owner. If they are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, they are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, eq uipment that is installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, if installation of the novelty light affected the wiring and hence the performance of lighting equipment installed on the vehicle by its manufacturer, that would be a "rendering inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition.

Use of the novelty light would be determined by the laws of a State in which it is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for further information, you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-04.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: JACK H. MCDANIEL -- TRIM PLUS AUTOMOTIVE ACCESSORIES

TO: JEFFEREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK H. MCDANIEL LETTER DATED 01/09/86 FROM JACK MCDANIEL TO JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,