ID: 86-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steward Stanley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steward Stanley Junge Baking Company 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, MO 64801

Dear Mr. Stanley:

This responds to your letter dated November 8, 1985, inquiring whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulation apply to electric vehicles. They do so apply.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Under the Act. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations for motor vehicles and their equipment. Under section 102(3) of the Act, a motor vehicle means "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. Therefore, since electric vehicles are "drawn by mechanical power," they must comply with Federal requirements.

Enclosed are an information sheet for new manufacturers, a form for ordering copies of safety standards and regulations, and a copy of 49 Part 555. Under Part 555, manufacturers of motor vehicles may apply for a temporary exemption from these safety standards, for a period up to three years, if the exemption would facilitate the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle and would not unreasonably degrade the safety of such vehicle. A copy of a report prepared by this agency. "Applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to Electric and Hybrid Vehicles," is also enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

Administrator Nat'l. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C.

I am told that your office has no rules or regulations (other than bodies be equipped with seat belts) as pertains to Electric Vehicles.

If it is true I would appreciate you confirming that otherwise I would like to have a copy of that provision that deals with such vehicles.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Stewart Stanley 3102 Ohio Place Joplin, Mo. 64801

SMS:vb

ID: 86-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W. K. Sherman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W. K. Sherman Manager Inventors Research Foundation P.O. Box 02588 Portland, OR 97202

Dear Mr. Sherman:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1986, with reference to the possible interest of this agency in an illuminated license plate holder which is lit when the ignition is turned on.

The agency does not "approve" or promote proprietary items of lighting equipment. It does require illumination of the rear license plate in the manner set forth in SAE J587 October 81 (incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Laps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) but there is no requirement for illumination of the font plate; however, consideration is being given to proposing the installation of a daytime running light on the front of vehicles, as Canada has recently done. Should the agency issue a formal proposal your client may wish to submit comments to the docket with reference to its device. Your client may also wish to examine current Federal rear lighting requirements to determine whether a vehicle equipped with its device would meet Standard No. 108 If so, it may wish to market the device as original or aftermarket equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1986

Chairman National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 7th and D S.W. Washington, D.C.20007

Gentlemen:

Neil Goldschmidt of Oregon has suggested we refer our client's auto license plate concept to you for possible interest.

This device is an illuminated auto license plate holder which is a metal box with translucent plastic front, permanently attached to an auto. Two lights are turned on with the ignition, thus contributing considerably to the visibility and safety of motor vehicles.

If you would like to know more details we shall be glad to oblige.

The device has been registered with th Patent office under the Disclosure Document Act.

We anticipate your interest.

Sincerely,

INVENTORS RESEARCH FOUNDATION (IRF) W. K. Sherman, manager

WKS/bd cc:Client

ID: 77-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Silver Thread Studios

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1977, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to glazing for use in van-type vehicles. Your assumption that the glazing regulation is not applicable to plastic material used for porthole windows and sun-roofs in vans is incorrect.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for all glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard specifies the types of glazing that may be used in various locations in vehicles and, in addition, specifies performance requirements for each type of glazing. Although the standard does permit the use of plastic glazing in side windows and sun-roofs of van-type vehicles, the plastic glazing must meet specified performance requirements.

I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information. From the standard you will be able to determine the various types of glazing that may be used for side windows and sun-roofs in vans.

SINCERELY

SILVER THREAD STUDIOS

February 1, 1977

Office of Chief Council National Highway Transportation Safety

Mr. Rodness of your White Plains office referred me to you.

We are planning to manufacture windows for vans and would like to know which windows are required by law to be made of safety glass. More specifically, we are interested in the laws pertaining to portholes, sun-roofs and rear windows.

Portholes are those windows of varied design (such as heart shaped, etc.) currently made of plastic material and positioned on the side of the van to allow light in the rear of the van. Sun-roofs are those windows installed on the roof which can be opened to allow air in the rear of the van.

Both of these windows are currently made of plastic material, and I believe that safety glass regulations do not apply to them.

Could you please comment on this.

Thank you for your cooperation. I remain

Steven Katz

ID: 77-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, preempts the parking brake requirements specified in New York's school bus brake system regulations.

Safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective April 1, 1977, for school buses and establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems on these vehicles. The standard includes a static test requirement for parking brake systems (grade-holding capability) and a dynamic test requirement for service brake systems (emergency stopping capability). The New York brake system regulations include a static test requirement and also a dynamic test requirement for parking brake systems. You ask whether Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of New York's dynamic test requirement for parking brakes.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivisions of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 includes requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. It is the agency's opinion, therefore, that Standard No. 105-75 is preemptive of the nonidentical aspects of New York's school bus parking brake requirements.

However, the second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not preempt governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use if such requirements impose a higher standard of performance. Thus, the State of New York may specify these additional parking brake requirements for public school buses. The second sentence of @ 103(d) does not permit governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all aspects of Standard No. 105-75. A school bus manufacturer, therefore, would have to meet the force requirements specified in Standard No. 105-75 for engagement of the parking brake, even for school buses intended for New York's own use.

ID: 6406

Mr. Scott R. Dennison
Consultant
Excalibur Automobile Corporation
1735 S. 106th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53214

Dear Mr. Dennison:

We have received your letter of May 31, 1994, petitioning for a temporary exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation (the Federal Express Airbill indicates that it was mailed July 9, 1994).

The petition does not, as required by 49 CFR '555.5(b)(7), set forth the reasons why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

You make the statement that "the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength." Please provide a copy of the test report that demonstrates this performance. Under '555.6(d)(1)(iv), a petitioner is required to provide "the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall level of safety exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards."

The second page of the petition references a "Plymouth Sunbird" vehicle for model year 1994. We assume you mean Pontiac, as we are unaware of any Plymouth with this model name.

The timing of your letter raises the inference that Excalibur may presently be manufacturing convertibles equipped with manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Please inform us as to the number of Cobras that the company may have produced on or after September 1, 1989, that were equipped with driver and passenger manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

Finally, it has been customary for petitions to be signed by an officer of the manufacturer. We have accepted petitions signed by foreign manufacturers but submitted by a person resident in the United States, on the manufacturer's behalf. Your use of Excalibur's letterhead leads to an assumption that you have the authority to make the representations of the

petition, but your title of "Consultant" does not identify you as a corporate officer. We would appreciate an explanation of your relationship to Excalibur, or, alternatively, the signature of a corporate officer on the petition.

We shall hold the petition in abeyance until we have heard further from you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:7/20/94

ID: 77-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Algus Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 27, 1977, letter asking whether tires that you export for use on agricultural vehicles are required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to be labeled with the letters DOT.

The answer to your question is no, unless the tires can also be used on vehicles other than agricultural vehicles. If the tires can be so used, they must be marked with the DOT symbol and meet any Federal requirements applicable to them.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Algus Enterprises, Inc.

June 27, 1977

J. J. Levin -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Your name was kindly refered to us by Mr. Casanova, in the Tire Division of the Department of Transportation, because we are in need of your assistance.

Our firm specializes in the exportation of tires. Our major market at this time is Venezuela, and we have a small problem there.

A short time back we made a shipment of Agricultural tires to one of our clients. He contacted us this morning informing us that his shipment has not allowed in the country by the government agency "COVENIN" which is responsable for verification of quality on imports to Venezuela.

The reason they objected was that the Agricultural tires did not have the letters D.O.T. on the actual tires. They do have the serial number and brand.

We informed him that Agricultural tires in the U.S. are not required to have the (D.O.T.) on them, only the registration number and tire brand are normal nomenclature on Agricultural tires.

He then informed us that the Venezuela government required a letter from the Department of Transportation confirming and explaining that Agricultural tires are not required to show the (D.O.T.) on the tire.

We respectfully request that you please send us a letter with the information they require, so that we may forward it to them.

It will supply the Venezuelan Government with proper information so that they may conduct their business properly.

In hopes that we may hear from you soon.

I remain,

Sincerely,

Gustavo R. Lima -- Vice-President

cc: files

ID: 77-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 8, 1977, letter asking where a school bus sidewall ends and the bus roof begins for purposes of complying with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

You enclosed a sketch detailing the bus sidewall and roof structure. On that sketch, you have a section of the bus labeled "A" where the sidewall and roof structure join. You have called this a quarter panel section. However, from your sketch, it appears that this panel is divided into two segments, with one extending upward from the window a short distance and connecting with a second more rounded section that continues over the top of the bus. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that your interpretation that the section labeled "A" need not comply with the requirements of the standard is incorrect. The agency concludes that the portion of the "quarter panel" that is a continuation of the bus sidewall is exempted from the requirements. However, the rounded portion of the panel that is merely a continuation of the roof must comply with the standard.

In your other sketch you present a roof drawing of a larger school bus. The agency has determined that the section you have labeled "roof section" is the only section of the drawing subject to the head protection zone requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

June 9, 1977 Dictated June 8, 1977

Roger Tilton Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Relating to our phone conversation to-day pertaining to the "head impact zone confines" I pose for you the following question:

Q. Using the simple line sketches enclosed, we request an interpretation of that area "not occupied by bus sidewall"?

It is our interpretation that the area marked "A" is considered to be a part of the sidewall section and would thus be excluded from the impact zone confines.

In that production dates for the post-April standards are rapidly approaching, we respectfully request a prompt response with your interpretation.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice-President

BIG BUS - CONVENTIONAL FULL SIZE

SMALL BUS - VAN CONVERSION TYPE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.49

DATE: 01/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: SAE Lighting Committee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1978, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The standard was recently amended to establish a ceiling of 60 inches from the roadway surface for the mounting height of rear side marker lamps. You have asked whether it is permissible to mount an additional side marker lamp at the upper rear corner of a trailer whose overall height exceeds 60 inches.

The answer is yes. Such a supplemental lamp would not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, within the meaning of the prohibition of S4.1.3 that you mentioned.

SINCERELY,

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

December 18, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Attn: Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Docket No. MC-66-1; Amendment No. 77-8

Gentlemen:

The DOT/FHWA/BMCS recently announced a new rulemaking notice which required that large semi-trailers and full trailers have their rear side marker lamps located at a height between 15 inches and 60 inches above the road surface. This is the so-called tracking light to enable drivers to have better visibility of the rear section of the trailer in bad weather.

The specific question raised here is whether or not trailer manufacturers and users can continue to mount a side marker lamp at the upper rear corners of the trailers on the sides of the vehicles in addition to the newly required device at the lower mounting dimensions just described above.

Past precedent would indicate that having an additional, optional side marker lamp at the top rear corners would certainly not, in any way, interfere with the required lighting. However, we are getting inquiries as to whether or not this is permissable and I would like your confirmation that this presents no problem in using this added, optional light.

Apparently, some manufacturers and vehicle users prefer to use a rear side marker lamp at both the top and bottom which would undoubtedly increase the safety. We would appreciate your prompt response so that we can in turn reply to these inquiries.

Paul G. Scully Chairman, SAE Lighting Committee

P.S. The NHTSA final rule was published 31 August 1978 as Docket No. 77-1;

ID: nht79-3.2

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Delgado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-3O

Mr. Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

Dear Mr. Delgado:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning Federal and State laws applicable to the manufacture of van seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies and their installation to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats as installed in vehicles, including vans, but is not applicable to seats as individual pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat manufacturer, would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 207. However, under section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of vehicle seats would be responsible for any safety related defects in his products and would be required to notify owners and remedy the defects.

I am enclosinq a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 for your information, as well as an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of all our standards and regulations. You will have to contact the individual States in which you are interested to find out if there are any State or local laws applicable to your business.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

August 20, 1979

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentleman:

I am planning to start my own business, manufacturing van seats. I would appreciate if you can send me federal and state laws and regulations conserning the safety for van seats.

Please mail to:

Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Blvd. Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lourdes M. Delgado

LMD/tr

ID: nht79-3.39

DATE: 12/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Professional Automotive Consultant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking about the applicable Federal requirements for seat belts in a pickup truck that has been modified to be a convertible by removal of the top. Specifically, you ask what should be done with the shoulder portions of the seat belt assemblies in these vehicles.

I am enclosing for your information a past agency interpretation concerning this same question. You will note that the modified pickup must be in compliance with the Federal safety standards that would have been applicable to a convertible truck at the time the pickup was originally manufactured. Since Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, permits convertible trucks to be equipped with either Type 1 belts (lap belts) or Type 2 belts (lap and shoulder combination belts) at front outboard designated seating positions, the modified pickup would only be required to have a lap belt. Of course, your client is certainly permitted to retain the lap and shoulder belt if he chooses. We cannot, however, recommend how the shoulder portion of the belt assembly should be attached to the modified vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 7, 1979

Francis Armstrong, Director -- Office of Vehicle Compliance Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Administration, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

I am currently working with a client who is involved with a "Conversion" whereby the top of a pickup truck cab is cut behind the windshield and slightly above the rear bed height. After cutting this top off of the cab, it is fitted with moulded gaskets and held by four (4) aircraft quality latches to produce a convertible truck.

My questions are not concerned with the above process. I am now concerned about the shoulder harness and where it should be located. Naturally the harness becomes inoperable when the top is removed since the factory harnesses are pivoted in the top.

I would think that under the circumstances this finished vehicle should be treated as any other "convertible" with respect to seat belts and harnesses.

Please enlighten me as to what you suggest I should advise my client to do with respect to the relocation or elimination of the detachable upper torso portion of the seat belt assembly.

I thank you very much for your interest in this matter and look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

Don Johnson -- PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVE CONSULTANT