ID: nht87-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst; Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.

The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe it consists of two additional parts: "the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two "component adhesive", and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier...." In your words, "The two parts are held together by three screws", and you believe that "the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded".

Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly. . . ." In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp" that is permissible for use on motor vehicles sold and used in the Unite States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical aimability is that the beam and aiming pads are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.

ID: nht87-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Tackett

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Tackett:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel system spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a new-car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed, Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.

The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that:

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

Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercial business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.

In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I hav e enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: nht87-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen R. Tank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud, MN 56301

Dear Mr. Tank:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect to the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.

The definition of a motorcycle is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." This is technically inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say "tires" rather than "wheels." Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehi cle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have communicated with George Shifflett in the Department regarding our three wheel vehicle. According to your standards, we are governed by the laws specifically addressed to motorcycles. The question was raised, if the three wheel vehicle had two whe els in the front with one in the rear, the rear rim having two tires mounted on it, would it still be regarded as a motorcycle.. I have enclosed three photos that will visually explain our proposed application.

I would appreciate your opinion on the additional tire effect on our motorcycle classification.

Sincerely,

Allen R. Tank President

cc: George Shifflett

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: nht80-3.41

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: F. BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Borg-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 29, 1980, letter asking whether Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, would prohibit the use of a free-wheeling device.

Section S3.1.2 of that standard states that "[in] vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour." The purpose of this section is to provide a transmission braking effect as a supplemental braking system at speeds below 25 miles per hour. According to our understanding of your device, it may not provide the type of supplemental braking described in this paragraph. However, if the driver may activate some type of device to override the "free wheeling" aspect to provide some engine braking, then the requirement of Section S3.1.2 could be met.

SINCERELY,

Borg-Warner Corporation

July 29, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Opinion

Dear Sir:

We are interested in determining whether the provision of a free-wheeling device (such as a one-way clutch) in series with the drive train of a vehicle would violate any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, or any other law or statute.

Our engineers have proposed incorporating a one-way clutch in series with the prop shaft of a vehicle. The only standard which we found that appears related to this is No. 102, and particularly S3.1.2 "Transmission Braking Effect". We do not believe this would rule out incorporation of a free-wheeling device, as the driver could easily place the shift lever in neutral and preclude engine braking whether the transmission is manual or automatic.

Thank you in advance for considering this matter and providing us with your opinion.

James J. Jennings Assistant Patent Counsel BORG-WARNER CORPORATION

ID: nht80-4.23

DATE: 12/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 20, 1980, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number (49 CFR 571.115).

Your question concerns the submission of horsepower data to the agency as required by the standard (S4.5.2). On February 25, 1980, the agency published an amendment to Standard No. 115 in the Federal Register (45 FR 12255) which authorized slight variations between the engine horsepower encoded in the vehicle identification number (VIN) and the actual engine horsepower. Except in the case of motorcycles, a variance in horsepower of plus or minus 10 percent was authorized. You wish to know whether the engine horsepower data you submit to the agency should be consistent with the VIN coding, or whether you should submit the precise horsepower.

The information which must be submitted pursuant to S6.3 is that necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN. Consequently, the engine horsepower submitted should represent the horsepower actually encoded in the VIN, whether or not this is the precise horsepower.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 20, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

RE: Submission Data for VIN

As per our conversation concerning the above captioned matter, the following is (Illegible Word) question which we request to have your official written interpretation as soon as possible.

QUESTION

Is it necessary to submit the precise data concerning the engine net horse powers for each engine type which shows or certifies that our brake hose powers are within the same engine type differ or does not differ of more than 10 percent, in the case of the vehicles except motorcycles?

Sincerely yours, R. Kawaguchi -- Technical Representative, Toyo Kogyo USA Office

ID: nht81-1.48

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Leo P. Ziegler, Jr. Manager, Motor Vehicle Safety and Environment Program Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096

Dear Mr. Ziegler

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1979

Mr. Howard H. Magor President Aluminum Body Corporation P.O. Box 40 Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Magor

I am in receipt of a copy of your November 30, 1979 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with regard to the assignment of a World Manufacturer (Maker) Identifier (WMI) Code for Aluminum Body Corporation. I am therefore, as the USA national authority, making the following assignments:

Aluminum Body Corporation ? W. Washington Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640 UNITED STATES

1 & 9 (With the 3rd, 4th, & 5th characters of the Vehicle Identifier Section to be: 0 0 8)

Commercial Trailer

If you have any questions regarding the above assignment, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Leo. P. Ziegler, Jr. Manager, Motor Vehicle Safety and Environment Program

jeh

cc: M. W. Dixon K. F. Erickson, NHTSA R. P. Hickey

ID: nht81-1.50

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department Aston Martin Lagonda, Ltd. Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell Buckinghamshire MK 16 9AN

Dear Mr. Goldsmith

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. F. Berndt, Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington D.C. 20590, U.S.A. 11th December, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt, Vehicle Identification Numbers

Thank you for your letter of 18th November, in which you indicate that Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) deciphering information is made available to the public. I would like to point out that only the brake horse power (BHP) data is confidential, not all the engine type information.

However, as you suggest, I have reviewed the engine type information by deleting the BHP data, and adding the vehicle make, model and manufacturer's name.

None of the information in the VIN decipher is now confidential but complete vehicle identification is readily available. Thus please find enclosed herewith the Aston Martin Lagonda resubmission of the VIN constructed to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

Yours sincerely,

R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department

RG/JL

copy Aston Martin Lagonda Inc., U.S.A.

ID: nht81-2.16

DATE: 04/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PolyDyne Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. O. Vandewege, President PolyDyne Engineering Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

Dear Mr. Vandewege:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1981, to Joseph Zemaitis, Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX, regarding Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You wish to obtain approval of your warning device (the "short stop") for use on trucks and trailers. Your device is a collapsible reflective triangle that is designed to be permanently mounted on the side or rear of a vehicle.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices, establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The rule does not apply to warning devices that are designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and thus does not apply to your device. Hence, it is not necessary for you to obtain the "approval" of this agency before you may manufacture or sell a "short stop" or before an owner may use such a warning device on his vehicle.

However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has promulgated a regulation (49 CFR S 393.95) regarding the use of emergency equipment on heavy duty trucks and buses that are used in interstate commerce. This standard may prohibit the use of warning devices such as the "short stop" on certain types of vehicles. Since the FHWA can best address this issue, we have forwarded your letter to that agency's Chief Counsel for response. The address of that office is Room 4213, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.22

DATE: 05/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. F. Gordon, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 8, 1981 NOA-30

Richard F. Gordon, Esq. 610 Arendell Street P.O. Box 489 Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

Dear Mr. Gordon:

This responds to your recent request for information on any safety standards this agency may have published for retreaded tires. We have a Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117) which applies to all retreaded passenger car tires. I have enclosed a copy of this standard and Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109), which is referenced in Standard No. 117.

As you will see, Standard 117 requires that the retreaded tires pass certain size and strength requirements, that the casings of the original tires which are retreaded meet certain requirements, and that certain information be labeled on the retreaded tires.

I hope that this information will be useful. If you have any further questions in this area or need further information on tire safety standards, feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 18, 1981

General Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Regulations governing the manufacture of retread automobile tires.

Dear Sir:

We earlier wrote your department seeking copies of the regulations governing the manufacture of retread automobile tires. We got back a pamphlet on Uniform Tire Quality Grading.

What we are seeking are the regulations promulgated pursuant to 15 USCS 1426. There is not a set of CFR's in this county. We have a situation where a young girl was injured when a recently retreaded radial tire failed on a paved surface and examination of the tire disclosed rusty steel in the wall of the tire. We need to determine whether the manufacturer should have retreaded that tire.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Richard F. Gordon Attorney at Law

RFG/lmw