ID: nht75-2.6

DATE: 09/16/75

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

TO: Kleber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1975, asking whether it is permissible to import into this country a tire designed exclusively for racing purposes.

Tires designed to be used exclusively on racing vehicles, i.e., vehicles other than "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, are not regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and may be imported. The labeling that you propose to use appears to be appropriate to warn users of their intended purpose. Manufacturers of such equipment should take all reasonable steps to ensure that their products are not misused.

YOURS TRULY,

June 3, 1975

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Attention : Marc Schwimmer

First, let me briefly describe KLEBER CORP. KLEBER CORP. is a wholly owned subsidiary of KLEBER-COLOMBES of Paris, France. We are the second largest tire manufacturer in France after MICHELIN. All our tires are of radial concept. Since the beginning of this year, we are developing a distribution network in the U.S.A. Naturally, our passenger tires conform with Federal Standard 109.

In Europe, KLEBER manufactures tires that are designed for small formula cars (i.e.: Formula Ford). These tires are to be used exclusively on racing vehicles and not on regular automobiles. They do not bear the D.O.T. engravings.

We would like to import these tires in the U.S.A. and find that our sole competitor would be a GOODYEAR tire called "G-19". The "G-19" has no D.O.T. markings but on both sidewalls the caption "FOR RACING PURPOSES ONLY - NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE" appears in 1/4 inch letters.

We would like to know if it is legal to import and sell our tires (similar to the G-19) in this country, if, like GOODYEAR, we indicate "FOR RACING PURPOSES ONLY - NOT FOR HIGHWAY USE" on both sidewalls. As additional warning, we plan to print the same text on all invoices and literature related to these type tires.

On this subject, I contacted Mr. Diehl of the D.O.T. who feels that there should be no problem but suggested we check with you.

I am at your entire disposal for any further information you may need and remain,

KLEBER CORP.

Guy A. Catherine

General Sales Manager

ID: nht74-4.46

DATE: 01/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lewis S. Hollins, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Gregory has asked me to respond to your client's request for approval of the "Hollins system" interlock device. In an earlier version, the system was the basis of a petition for an alternative to Standard 208's seatbelt interlock system. That petition was denied by the NHTSA (38 FR 9830, April 20, 1973, and 38 FR 16072, June 20, 1973) as was a petition for reconsideration of our decision (38 FR 33110, November 30, 1973).

Standard 208 establishes performance requirements, but the NHTSA does not approve or disapprove specific equipment designs. Any design can be used to satisfy Standard 208 which fulfills the performance requirements. We have considered Mr. Hollins' proposal and, as set our in the Federal Register, have determined that his requested changes to the performance requirements are not justified. We feel that our consideration of Mr. Hollins' petition has been full and complete, and that further petitions on this subject will be repetitious within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 553.35(c).

SINCERELY,

December 26, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Docket No. 69-7 OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION Notice 30

Based upon the substance of the text of Notice 30, my client Jesse R. Hollins, entirely without prejudice and as evidence of his desire to be cooperative, has indicated his willingness to alter his system so that:

(a) The Hollins warning system will not function when the engine is operating and the transmission is in "Park" for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, or in "Neutral" for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions (S7.3).

(b) The Hollins system will be augmented so as to provide for the interlock feature for the outboard (right) front passenger's seat (S7.4).

I am accordingly so authorized to submit the above to you as an amendment and request prompt acknowledgment and approval of the Hollins system.

This request is submitted within the prescribed 30 days from the date of publication of Docket No. 69-7; Notice 30 in the Federal Register (Vol. 38 No. 230) Friday, November 30, 1973.

Ten copies are enclosed herewith.

Sincerely

LEWIS S. HOLLINS

ID: nht75-4.33

DATE: 04/10/75

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

TO: Director of Safety - CINCUSAREUR

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your question whether a recent amendment of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, which modified the requirement for a seat belt warning system, would make legal the disconnection of warning systems which conformed to earlier requirements.

The answer to your question concerning vehicle owners is yes. Disconnection of safety devices is subject to a Federal statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), as recently amended (P.L. 93-492). For your information, I will summarize the relevant provisions on disconnection.

The Safety Act prohibits knowing disconnection of safety devices after the first retail sale, as well as before this sale, with three exceptions.

First, after December 26, 1974, a private party may disconnect any devices after sale. Generally, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may not knowingly disconnect safety devices except during repair of the vehicle.

Second, after December 26, 1974, any person, including a new car dealer, may disconnect the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer (but not the warning light) at any time after sale of 1974- or 1975-model passenger car. This does not include the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.

Third, a dealer may disconnect the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer (but not the warning light) at the request of the first purchaser before sale of the new vehicle. This is the only exception to the rule that no person may disconnect any safety devices prior to sale. This does not include disconnection of the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.

YOURS TRULY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE and SEVENTH ARMY OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNAL

MARCH 3, 1975

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportaion

Reference the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 published in the 6 December 1974 issue of the Federal Register (Vol 39, No. 236).

Since the continuous or intermittent audible signal of one minute or more duration is no longer required, is it permissible for owners to disable these warning devices on vehicles so equipped.

LEONARD F. BLANDA Director of Safety

ID: nht75-4.8

DATE: 05/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision 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.

Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.

The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State "requirements" only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by @ 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

ID: nht95-6.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inche s. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On Septemb er 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht69-1.36

DATE: 05/20/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey; Bureau of Forestry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1969, in which you ask if there is any way you might legally use the Dodge Power Wagon Model M 300.

This Bureau does not control the end use of the vehicle after sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Public Law 89-563, Section 108, states in part, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in Interstate Commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard." A copy of Public Law 89-563 is enclosed.

In short the Chrysler Corporation, under this law cannot manufacture for sale after the date a standard takes effect, a vehicle for use under the circumstances in which you describe unless the vehicle conforms to the applicable standard.

The vehicle, to which you make reference, can be classified in two different categories as follows:

1. Multipurpose passenger vehicle, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off the road operation or:

2. Truck, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.

Although other standards are applicable to the above classifications, the collapsible type steering column is not. We are enclosing a copy of "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with Amendments and Interpretations thru August 6, 1968," in which you will find the applicable standards.

Regulations concerning control of anti-pollution emission devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Acting Associate Commissioner for Abatement and Control, National Air Pollution Control Administration, DOT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22200, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.

We trust this reply will be of assistance to you.

ID: nht68-1.9

DATE: 12/15/68

FROM: LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER FOR ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY--NHTSA

TO: Heath Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13 with regard to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the GT-18 Trail Bike kit, and the "Boonie-Bike" assembled from it.

I am unable to tell from your letter the exact nature and use of the Boonie-Bike but I will assume that it is an off-the-road special purpose motorcycle designed for recreational use. Such a machine is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1955 since, like a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it is equipped with special features for off-road use but is capable of being operated both on and off the public roads. Thus it is not correct to say that trail bikes have not been considered motor vehicles in the past. The interpretation to which you refer, incidentally, if it appears, will be directed toward the so-called "mini-bikes".

Accordingly, it is possible to confirm your understanding that:

". . . for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Heath's responsibility is limited to insuring that any kit item which it supplies to which a Federal Safety Standard is directly applicable (i.e., only glazing materials at the present time) shall meet such Safety Standards, and inasmuch as Heath does not build the kits or perform the actual conversion, it is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles and consequently not responsible for the entire assembled product."

Since a Boonie-Bike is equipped with a "5-broke horse power Briggs and Stratton 4-cycle engine" it is sub-classified as a "motor-driven cycle" which is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less".

As you(Illegible Word) Federal Standard(Illegible Word) 103 will apply to motorcycles manufactured or assembled on or after January 1, 1969. Motorcycles are required to be manufactured with one white headlamp in accordance with SAE Standard J584 (Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps). This SAE Standard allows a motor driven cycle to be assembled with either a single or multiple beam headlamp. Consequently a motor driven cycle assembled with a single beam headlamp is not subject to paragraphs S3.4.1 and S3.4.2 of Federal Standard No. 108 requiring provision of a headlamp beam switch and indicator.

I hope this answers your questions

ID: nht68-3.28

DATE: 04/24/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Schein Body and Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of February 29, 1968, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr. concerning the location of lamps and reflectors on your dump semi-trailers and equipment loaders.

Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that the side reflex reflectors be mounted not less than 15 inches nor more than 60 inches above the road surface. To meet this requirement, the front side reflex reflectors on your dump semi-trailers may be mounted below the side rail of the body. If necessary, a protective shield or housing could be provided to prevent the reflector from being damaged by rocks and mud.

With respect to the location of rear clearance lamps on your dump semi-trailers, Standard No. 108 requires that these lamps be located as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle, except that optional heights are permitted when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. Your photograph does not show identification lamps on the rear of your trailer; however, it does not appear that these lamps could be mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, since the tail gate is often removed. In this case, the rear clearance lamps must be located as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle. It appears that clearance lamps located immediately forward of the rear post of a point not obscured by the covering tarpaulin would meet this requirement of the standard. A combination clearance and rear side marker lamp at that location would also be permitted by the standard.

On your tilt type and roll-back equipment loaders, location of tail, stop, turn signal, and identification lamps 30 inches from the extreme rear of the platform, and location of the rear clearance lamps and rear reflectors 44 inches from the extreme rear of the platform, appear to be in accordance with the location requirements of Standard No. 108.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht68-4.11

DATE: 09/06/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Flink Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in answering your letter of April 9 to the Office of Performance Analysis, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the obligations of Flink as a manufacturer of spreader equipment for installation on trucks. It appears that your primary concern is with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment).

You have asked:

"1. Who is responsible for the meeting of the requirements when the spreader is shipped to a distant point and there mounted on an existing truck either by a dealer or by the ultimate customer?"

Section 101(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes in the definition of manufacturer any person engaged in the assembling of motor vehicles. Accordingly, any person including a dealer, mounting a spreader to a truck, prior to its sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, will be responsible for insuring that the completed vehicle, when sold, complies with Federal Standard No. 108 and any other standard which might have been adversely affected by installation of the spreader.

"2. If the manufacturer complies with the law and attaches the lights, etc., is his responsibility ended or is he responsible after the unit is mounted by another party?"

Flink's status, as a spreader manufacturer, is that of a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. There are no standards currently applicable to spreaders. In other words, the Act does not require that Flink install lights on spreaders if Flink is not attaching spreaders to trucks. Even if Flink attaches lights to a spreader pursuant to a contractual obligation, the responsibility for insuring compliance with Standard No. 108 lies with the party mounting the spreader. In neither event is certification by Flink required.

"3. If a dump body to which a spreader is to be attached already has the required lighting, etc., is anything further required on the spreader?"

Since Federal standards currently do not apply to spreaders, nothing is required on them. If Flink is mounting spreaders to trucks, however, it is possible that this installation could affect Standard No. 108 so that Flink would have to install lighting devices on the spreader to insure compliance with this standard. If Flink's mounting of spreaders does not affect previously existing compliance with Standard No. 108, no certification by Flink is required.