ID: nht87-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Proxmire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Proxmire:

This is in reply to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Todd Suer of Janesville.

Mr. Suer, in his letter to you of April 15, 1987, refers to cars "that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in" and asks if there is a law against them.

We are not familiar with the lighting equipment that Mr. Suer mentions. It is not part of the front lighting equipment required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It appears to be aftermarket, accessory equipment, and as such, its use is subj ect to regulation under State law. We suggest that Mr. Suer direct his complaint to State or local authorities.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Todd Suer Rt Dunbar Road Janesville, Wi. 53545

April 1, 1987

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate

Dear Senator Proxmire

I am writing to you about people that drive cars that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in. Is there a law against them? If they have them they should only be on when the brights are on. When they have there dims on they should be off. The little lights are ok. Some people have fog littles on all the time, they should only be used in the fog. Some people have there dims on, and they shine right in your face.

I think the police should stop people that have these light problems because they blind you. Please inform me of this problem. Thank you very much.

Yours truly,

Todd Suer

ID: nht76-1.32

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Intercraft Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 29, 1976, letter concerning regulations applicable to farm tractor tires whose importation is contemplated by one of your clients.

Farm tractors are not "motor vehicles" as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et Seq.). Accordingly, tires designed exclusively for use on farm tractors are not "motor vehicle equipment." Therefore, the importation of such tires and tubes is not subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards or other regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We are unaware of any other regulations of the Department of Transportation concerning such tires.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Intercraft Corporation

March 29, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A foreign tire manufacturer has indicated to us that he is interested in exporting certain agricultural tires and matching tubes to one of our clients in the United States. If a transaction can be concluded, these tires and tubes would be imported to the U.S. by our client and would be sold by him in this country.

Two sizes of farm tires and tubes would be involved: 15.5-38 (6 and 8 PR) and 18.4-38 (8 PR). We understand that both of these sizes of tires and tubes are made for the rear wheels of farm tractors for field use only and are considered "Off The Road" in the tire industry.

We would like to ask if there are any U.S. Department of Transportation regulations concerning motor vehicle safety standards, tire identification and recordkeeping, or manufacturer identification that apply to the importation to the United States of tires and tubes of those two size designations? Do any DOT regulations apply to any other facet of the importation of such tires and tubes to the U.S.?

Sincerely, Robert M. Brodkey -- President

ID: nht76-2.18

DATE: 11/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gillig Bros.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 13, 1976, in which you ask whether Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, requires that the 20-inch maximum separation between the seating reference point and the rear surface of the restraining barrier be measured at the point of greatest distance between the two.

The restraining barrier you describe has padded tubing around its circumference which would be closer to the seating reference point than the center section of the barrier. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets the requirements of paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard No. 222 to mean that the 20-inch distance must be measured from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back or restraining barrier, exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface. The side tube portion would constitute such a protrusion.

SINCERELY,

September 13, 1976

Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have a question relative to School Bus Safety Standard Number 222. The standard states "that there shall not be more than 20" from the seating reference point to the rear surface of the restraining barrier". This distance being measured along a horizontal longitudinal line through the S.R.P in the forward direction.

Our question is this: What is considered the rear surface. Is it part furthest to the rear, which in our case would be the padding on the side tube portion of our seat frame? Or is it considered to be the rear padding on the sheet metal center section of the seat?

Attached is a sketch which we hope will clarify our question.

As our new seat spacing design requirements hinge on your answer, we would appreciate your written answer as early as possible.

Lewis C. Coffey Chief Engineer

cc: TIMOTHY HOYT -- OFC. OF CRASHWORTHINESS

(Graphics omitted) (Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-03.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 10, 1985 Mr. Barry Mitchell Sun Country Imports/Sales 6232 N. 7th Street, Suite 209 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Dear Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. Your letter states that you plan to ship vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen of Brazil to Canada where they would be brought into compliance with United States safety standards requirements. These vehicles, which you describe as being manufactured in more than one stage, would be certified as complying with applicable safety standards before being imported to the United States. You asked whether you should use the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to them by the Brazilian manufacturer. Section 4.1 of Standard No. 115 requires the use of the VIN assigned to them by Volkswagen of Brazil, whether they are completed vehicles manufactured in one stage (i.e., they can perform their intended function as manufactured in Brazil, regardless of whether they complied with U.S. safety standards), or incomplete vehicles, such as chassis cabs which need work-performing or other equipment added to them during a second or subsequent stage. Please note that, if these vehicles are imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), they would be exempt from the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.7 of Standard No. 115. A copy of the Federal Register notice of January 30, 1985, making this correction to the final rule of May 19, 1983, is enclosed. You should also be aware that, for vehicles imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), a bond is required for all vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with the safety standards but brought into conformity before entry. This procedure is explained in the final rule on importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment issued by the Customs Service on December 4, 1978 (43 FR 56655). A copy of this notice is also enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Janet L. Nedoba

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Janet L. Nedoba Attorney at Law 111 Addison Elmhurst, Illinois 60126

Dear Ms. Nedoba:

Your letter of September 4, 1985, to the Consumer product Safety Commission was forwarded to our agency for reply, since we issue safety standards for motor vehicles under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). You asked if there are regulations that would apply to a safety belt used in a race car.

Our agency has issued Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of the standard is enclosed. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(B)) defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for the public streets, roads, and highways,...." Whether a race car would be considered a motor vehicle covered by our standard would be determined by whether it was used on the street or whether it was intended and sold solely for off-road use. If the race car was manufactured for off-road (or non-public road) use, the standard would not apply.

If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 4, 1985 The Consumer Product Safety Commission 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois Gentlemen:

I am presently working on a product liability lawsuit. The product involved is a safety belt designed for a race car, manufactured in 1979 by Rupert Industries, Inc. of Wheeling, Illinois, model number 85.

I would appreciate your forewarding to me any information you may have concerning standards applicable to this product or similar products.

Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Janet L. Nedoba JLN/jln

ID: 1985-04.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. O'Connell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 Mr. John L. O'Connell Public Transportation Administrator Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109-1896 Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1985, to Jeffrey Miller, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked whether a new style school bus warning lamp system developed by the Whelen Engineering Company meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and referenced SAE standards, and whether such a system can be installed and used on school buses in compliance with Federal regulations. Pursuant to paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, a school bus must be equipped with a system of red lamps, or red and amber lamps meeting SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964 (copy enclosed). The Whelen system is said to comply with SAE J887 May 1982, with the possible exception of dimensions. The requirements that the Whelen system must meet are those of the 1964 version of J887. Dimensional specifications are not included in the 1964 version, however, the minimum effective projected luminous lens area requirement of 19 square inches must be met. The test report indicates that the Whelen lamp meets the minimum photometrics of both the 1982 and 1964 versions of J887 and its dimensions, 7" x 2.75", indicate that the minimum luminous lens area requirement may also be met. However, the test report indicates that the light flashes at a rate of 55 cycles per minute. The Whelen lamp therefore does not comply with the 1964 requirement that school bus warning lamps flash at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute (nor the 1982 SAE specifications of 1-2 H which is 60-120 cycles per minute). For this reason, the Whelen system does not meet Federal requirements and cannot be installed on school buses certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-04.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: P.J. Pennells

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 P.J. Pennells Pilkington Glass Limited Triplex House Eckersall Road Kings Norton Birmingham ENGLAND B38 8SR Dear Mr. Pennells: Thank you for your letter of October 7, 1985, concerning the application of our glazing regulation to slow moving vehicles, such as agricultural vehicles and earth moving equipment. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies only to vehicles classified as motor vehicles by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. The agency does not consider agricultural vehicles, such as tractors, to be motor vehicles since the legislative history of the Vehicle Safety Act indicates that Congress did not intend to cover those vehicles. Whether construction vehicles, such as earth movers, will be considered motor vehicles depends on their use. For example, construction vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not. I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet prepared by the agency which discusses additional factors we consider in determining whether a vehicle meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle." We would be glad to give you an opinion as to whether a particular construction vehicle would be classified as a motor vehicle for the purposes of our regulations, if you will provide us with specific information about the design characteristics and use of the vehicle. Since the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the U.S. Department of Labor has regulations which effect off-road construction vehicles, I have referred a copy of your letter to that agency. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 86-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 24, 1986 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1986, telling of your development of a center high-mounted stop lamp which would utilize light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a light source, rather than a light source incorporating a tungsten filament. You have asked whether such a device would be permissible under Standard No. 108. In support of your argument that such a light-producing device would be acceptable, you have brought to our attention paragraph S4.1.1.19 which allows a lamp manufacturer to use "bulbs" that are not listed in SAE Information Report J387 Jul83 is appropriate. The SAE defines a "bulb" as "an indivisible assembly which contains a source of light and which is normally used in a lamp." In further support of your position, you have submitted a summary of test results indication that your LED stop lamp meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, except for S4.1.1.41(e). That subparagraph requires the lamp to "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools." We have reviewed your request, and have the following comments. As you have pointed out, Standard No. 108 does not define a "bulb," but we interpret that word in a manner similar to the SAE, that it refers to a photometric performance requirements of Standard No. 108, and you have indicated that your LD4ED lamp complies with these requirements. However, your LED lamp must also meet the requirements of S4.1.1.41(e). Access must be provided for convenient replacement, without use of special tools, of either the individual clusters of LEDs which burn out or the entire lamp. If your lamp is designed so that it meets S4.1.1.41(e) in one of these two ways, then your lamp would appear to be acceptable under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 77-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Union Carbide Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 31, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, currently requires a border around the safety warnings that are required to be placed on brake fluid containers.

Standard No. 116 was recently amended (41 FR 54942, December 16, 1976) to specify color coding requirements for hydraulic brake system fluids and to make a minor change in the required warning label. The proposal preceding this amendment did specify that the safety warnings on brake fluid containers be surrounded by a color coded border (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975). However, after reviewing the comments submitted regarding the cost of the proposed borders and after reevaluating the expected safety benefits, the agency decided to withdraw the proposed requirement. The final rule, therefore, did not include a requirement for color coded borders.

Although Standard No. 116 does not require a border around the safety warnings on brake fluid containers, manufacturers are permitted to use a border if they choose.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

January 31, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

It is my understanding from reading Docket No. 71-13; Notice 12 published in the Federal Register 41, No. 243 - Thursday, December 16, 1976, that the border around the warning statement on brake fluid containers specified in Standard No. 116 (49CFR 571.116) is no longer mandated.

It is my further understanding that a border around the statement is permitted for the purpose of setting off the statement from the balance of the information on the label.

If my understandings are correct, I wish to receive written confirmation of them from your office.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Whitehead -- Manager, Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs

cc: D. Raymond; F. M. Redler; R. W. Shiffler; G. W. Warnock

ID: 77-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1976, asking whether 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) permits the installation of quartz halogen headlamps on State-owned vehicles. It is understood that these headlamps are manufactured in France, and are not of sealed beam construction. Thus they do not conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your letter also commented that certain "state highway and law enforcement agencies . . . have indicated . . . that they prefer the quartz halogen units but are reluctant to install these units in their state vehicles because they are not of an approved type."

Importation and sale of nonconforming motor vehicle equipment is expressly forbidden by Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 may be imposed for each violation. Therefore, quartz halogen headlamps that do not conform to Standard No. 108 may not be imported into the United States and sold to State agencies.

Your inquiry appears premised that such may be allowable pursuant to Section 1392(d) which reads in pertinent part:

Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard.

Section 1392(d) reflects a primary purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that there be uniform national safety standards for the manufacture of motor vehicles, and that the flow of interstate commerce not be burdened by differing requirements among the States. An exception is made, however, that allows the States to set higher standards for vehicles manufactured for State use. Section 1392(d) would be inapplicable to your fact situation which, as we understand it, involves a conversion after purchase, and does not involve a procurement specification affecting the vehicle manufacturer.