ID: aiam1059

Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in reply to your recent letter concerning the use of a rubbe stamp referencing the Federal odometer law on bills of sale applicable to more than one vehicle.; It is our position that a bill of sale may be used to satisfy th odometer disclosure requirements, so long as it contains the information required by CFR 580.4. The rubber stamp whose impression you forwarded to us contains the initial paragraph of the form set out in section 580.6 of the regulation. It is therefore acceptable as a means of conforming the bill of sale to the disclosure requirements.; The regulations do not require a statement to be made separately fo each vehicle in a multi-vehicle transaction. So long as the identifying information specified in section 580.4 is provided with respect to each vehicle, and the odometer mileage for each vehicle is given, a single introductory statement in the form specified in section 580.6 will be sufficient to comply with the Federal requirements as to each vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0370

Dear Mr. Mizuno: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1971, concerning coverin material for seats and door trim that is used solely to protect the interior of the vehicle during transportation from the manufacturer to the dealer. You have asked whether this covering material is required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302.; Whether the material must comply with the standard depends upon whethe it is likely to be used in a significant number of cases by the purchaser as part of the motor vehicle. You have stated that the only purpose of the material is 'to insure the delivery of a car in which the interior is in good condition.' It is important that this intent be carried out in practice, if the material is not to be considered vehicle interior material subject to the standard. Two criteria which would be considered in determining whether the material is covered by the standard are (1) whether it is placed in the vehicle in a way that its use after purchase is unlikely, and (2) what steps the manufacturer has taken to see that it is removed before sale to the purchaser.; We cannot make a final determination as to whether such material mus meet the requirements without more information, particularly with respect to the questions noted above. However, if Nissan does take appropriate steps to ensure that such material will not be used as a seat cover by the purchaser, then the material would not be required to meet the requirements of the Standard.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely,Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0773

Dear Mr. Dershko: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, in which yo requested our interpretation of several sections of Standard 121. I apologize for our delay in replying.; Your first question concerns the air reservoirs which are considered t be included in the service reservoir system. As shown in your diagram, three tanks are capable of providing air to the service brake chambers: the wet air tank, the dry air tank, and the accessory tank. The first two tanks are clearly part of the service reservoir system. The accessory tank, however, has not been generally considered as part of the service brake system, and it is our opinion that it should not be included in computing the reservoir system capacity.; Although the exclusion of the accessory tank from the service reservoi system would seem to weigh against the present location of your pressure gauge in the accessory system circuit, there is another feature of its operation in its present location which leads us to conclude that it would not be acceptable under the present wording of S5.1.4. In the event of a pressure loss in the accessory system (your Condition No. 1), the gauge would accurately indicate the pressure in the dry tank until the pressure falls to 65 p.s.i., at which point the gauge would cease to indicate the dry tank pressure and would be only an accessory tank gauge. Thus, if the check valve functions properly, the dry tank would be at 65 p.s.i. even though the gauge may read 0 p.s.i. Because the pressure deliverable to the brake from the service reservoir system would be the 65 p.s.i. of the dry tank, the gauge would not be indicating the service reservoir system air pressure as required by S5.1.4.; Your third question is whether the vehicle must be stationar throughout the static retardation force test of S5.6.1. Our reply is that the vehicle need not remain stationary. Its friction may be overcome by the test pull, although it must exert a force of the magnitude specified in the section.; Your last question relates to the treatment of trailing axles under th requirements of S5.7.1. You indicate that you presently offer an automatic emergency system as an option and that it appears inconsistent to require parking brakes on each axle under the automatic application option when they are not required on each axle under the other option. We are continuing our evaluation of the parking brake requirements, including the axle-by-axle braking required by S5.7.1. At this time it has not been decided whether to formally institute rulemaking to adjust the requirements. We will advise you if such rulemaking will be forthcoming.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-2.27

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Barry Breslow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Barry Breslow 120 Ryder Avenue Dix Hills, New York 11746

Dear Mr. Breslow:

This responds to your recent letter asking for information concerning the Federal and State regulations that would be applicable to conversions of gasoline-powered vehicles to run on LP gas. I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of such conversions. You will have to contact the individual States to find out any requirements they may have, however.

If you have any questions after reviewing the enclosed information, feel free to contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

April 7, 1980

Ms. Debra Weiner National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7 Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Weiner:

The White Plains Office of the NHTSA suggested I contact you to verify the national and state regulations and certifications relating to LP gas conversions for automobiles and light trucks.

We are planning to introduce a "dual fuel" conversion for passenger type vehicles and light trucks. This conversion will retain the standard type gasoline system, and have a switching mechanism to change-over to the independent propane system.

It is our understanding that the propane system is not regulated by standard # 301-75, as the regulation only governs fuel with a boiling point above 32oF. (propane boils at -44oF.)

I would sincerely appreciate your earliest response as to what Federal/State regulations and certifications are necessary to properly introduce this product to the U.S. market.

Very truly yours,

Barry Breslow 120 Ryder Avenue Dix Hills, New York 11746

ID: 8096

Mr. Harry Cameron
Safety, Ltd.
31W651 North Ave.
Dupage Airport
West Chicago, IL 60185

Dear Mr. Cameron:

This responds to your letter of November 23, 1992 requesting information on "the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206." When you were contacted by Mary Versailles of my staff for clarification on what DOT 206-3206 is, you explained that you are also unfamiliar with this requirement but had been told that you had to comply with it. Based on your request, this letter will explain the laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the responsibilities of your company when you repair motor vehicle safety belts by replacing worn or frayed webbing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 209, Seat belt Assemblies, (49 CFR 571.209) which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). If you were manufacturing new seat belt assemblies to replace those with worn or frayed webbing, you would be required to certify that the new assemblies complied with Standard No. 209. If you were installing replacement assemblies, the manufacturer of those assemblies would have certified that the assemblies comply with Standard No. 209.

The requirement that an item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the item's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the item is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This section would prohibit you from replacing the worn or frayed webbing in a manner that would negatively affect the seat belt assembly's compliance with Standard No. 209. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

We urge you to exercise care when repairing safety belts. The belts you repair will fail to achieve their intended purpose if the webbing breaks or separates from the hardware or vehicle in a crash. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#209 d:2/22/93

ID: nht93-1.45

DATE: 02/22/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HARRY CAMERON -- SAFETY, LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-23-92 FROM HARRY CAMERON TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8096)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 23, 1992 requesting information on "the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206." When you were contacted by Mary Versailles of my staff for clarification on what DOT 206-3206 is, you explained that you are also unfamiliar with this requirement but had been told that you had to comply with it. Based on your request, this letter will explain the laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the responsibilities of your company when you repair motor vehicle safety belts by replacing worn or frayed webbing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 209, Seat belt Assemblies, (49 CFR 571.209) which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). If you were manufacturing new seat belt assemblies to replace those with worn or frayed webbing, you would be required to certify that the new assemblies complied with Standard No. 209. If you were installing replacement assemblies, the manufacturer of those assemblies would have certified that the assemblies comply with Standard No. 209.

The requirement that an item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the item's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the item is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This section would prohibit you from replacing the worn or frayed webbing in a manner that would negatively affect the seat belt assembly's compliance with Standard No. 209. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

We urge you to exercise care when repairing safety belts. The belts you repair will fail to achieve their intended purpose if the webbing breaks or separates from the hardware or vehicle in a crash. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Mills.1

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Designs Limited
Normandy Way, Hinckley
Leicestershire LE10 3BZ
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Mills:

This responds to your March 22, 2005, letter in which you requested clarification regarding the proper method for measuring the required edge-to-edge separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether the minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is measured: (1) "In a 2-dimensional plane, viewed directly from the front of the motorcycle, that would only take account of the visible, vertical edge-to-edge distance between the two lamps" or (2) "In a tangential plane that would take account of the upward/downward or forward/rearward separation distance". As discussed below, our interpretation differs from the two you suggest. We interpret Standard No. 108s requirement for the separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp as being the shortest distance between the edges of each lamps effective light-emitting surface as projected onto a two-dimensional vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle (i.e. , the view that would be perceived by oncoming drivers). This projection is defined within FMVSS No. 108 as the "effective projected luminous lens area".

By way of background, Table IV, Location of Required Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires motorcycle front turn signal lamps to have a minimum edge-to-edge separation distance of four inches between these lamps and the headlamp. Our interpretation that the distance is measured with a two-dimensional frame of reference is consistent with both the purpose of the standards separation requirement and at least one prior interpretation.

Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance between headlamps and turn signal lamps to minimize the possibility that an observer will not see the turn signal. A motorist approaching the motorcycle in oncoming traffic will perceive the required four-inch edge-to-edge separation distance in a two-dimensional plane. If measurement along a tangential plane were substituted, as in the second method identified in your letter, the perceived separation distance in this scenario may be reduced to less than four inches, as seen by the driver, and a situation could arise in which the conspicuity of the turn signal is masked by the headlamp beam. If the oncoming driver does not perceive the important information provided by the turn signal, traffic safety could be compromised.

The minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is the shortest distance between the edges of the effective projected luminous lens areas of the two lamps. "Effective projected luminous lens area" is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 108 as "the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference". In this case, the defined direction is the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle.

This same reasoning and result were applied in our interpretation letter of April 23, 1986 to a party whose identity was kept confidential (see enclosure). That letter dealt with the plane of reference for measuring the separation distance between a motorcycles rear turn signals and stop/tail lamp and the view provided to traffic approaching from the rear. However, the principles and reasoning are otherwise identical to the forward-facing situation.

We would also point out an important additional requirement for motorcycle turn signal lamp placement contained in Table IV. That requirement is that the turn signal lamps must not be closer than 16 inches, as measured from their centers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d/5/3/05

ID: nht71-2.36

DATE: 04/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hartman Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1971 concerning certain provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." In your letter you ask whether S4.4 of the standard requires the child seating system itself to be restrained by the seat belt assembly. You state that S4.5.1 indicates to you that the vehicle seat belt assembly is employed to restrain both the child and the seating system, and request that this issue be clarified.

S4.4(a) of the standard requires each child seating system, when installed as the manufacturer directs, to be restrained by the vehicle seat belt assembly. The vehicle seat belt assembly may also be used to directly restrain the child, but it is not required to do so. When it is used for this purpose, however, it must distribute the restraint forces as specified by S4.5.1 of the standard.

The statement in the preamble of the notice of March 23, 1970 to which you refer describes the scope of the standard. This statement means that any device for seating children in a motor vehicle that is designed to utilize the vehicle restraint system or provides restraint by itself, or both, is a "child seating system" and must comply with all the requirements of the standard.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: aiam3817

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1984, asking thre questions concering the compliance test procedures of Standard No. 210 that would be used in testing a truck with a forward tilt cabin. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; You first asked whether in doing the compliance test, 'may the tes sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?' In conducting Standard No. 210 compliance tests, the agency conducts the test on a fully assembled vehicle (i.e., cabin and chassis/frame).; You then asked whether the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry could b reinforced during the testing. The answer is no, the agency tests the vehicle as manufactured.; Finally, you asked 'should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanis be considered within the scope' of the Standard No. 210 compliance testing. The answer is no. The purpose of the standard is to measure the performance of the seat belt anchorages. A falure of the tilt cab latch would not constitute a failure of Standard No. 210. I must note, however, that a failure of a tilt cab latch under the loading experienced during a Standard No. 210 compliance test could raise the question of whether the latch contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I urge you to design the latch in such a manner that it will withstand the loads generated during a crash.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4636

Dear Mr. Aston: This is in reply to your letter with respect to you wish to import motor vehicle parts from England, to be used in the construction of a kit car for your own use. I regret the delay in responding. You have informed us that you are not importing parts controlled by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as 'lights, tires, brake hoses, glazing materials,' or 'the engine, transmission, wheels, instruments, and miscellaneous items that are readily available here'. Instead, you will be importing 'body parts, frame parts, suspension and some steering parts, some electrical parts and the gas tank.' From your description, we believe that your intention is to import motor vehicle equipment and not a motor vehicle. The only items of motor vehicle equipment which are covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and hence must comply or be brought into compliance with those standards are: brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting and reflective devices, passenger car tires, retreaded tires, tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, wheel covers, warning devices, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and child seating systems. If the motor vehicle equipment you are importing includes none of these items, then the equipment may be entered without the necessity of giving a bond for the production of a statement that it has been brought into compliance. I hope that this letter is helpful to you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;