ID: nht75-3.47

DATE: 06/13/75

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for a determination whether a mobile water tower trailer equipped with air brakes would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The answer to your question is yes. From the description supplied to you by Klein Products, the trailer does not appear to qualify for exclusion from the standard.

I would like to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently proposed exclusion of this vehicle type from Standard No. 121, and we invite the submission of comments from the Truck Body and Equipment Association or Klein Products on our proposal.

Yours truly,

April 9, 1975

Stan Haransky -- Truck Body and Equipment Association

Dear Stan:

Enclosed is a brochure with a brief description of our Klein Porto Tower which I discussed with you by telephone today.

I would appreciate your help in obtaining a clarification of the Federal Safety Standard #121 in regard to the application of the anti-skid system on this unit or whether this type of equipment is exempt.

This tank is set up on a construction site and uses the highway system only for a movement from job site to job site. It is not capable of carrying a load when being transported.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Very truly yours,

KLEIN PRODUCTS, INC. -- Ray Foote, Sales Manager

Enc.

SPECIFICATIONS

(Graphics omitted) Model Gallon Capacity Approx. Empty Weight Approx. Length KPT-80 8,000 10,000 lbs. 25 ft. KPT-120 12,000 18,000 lbs. 29 ft. KPT-160 16,000 21,000 lbs. 40 ft.

TIRES - 12 ply

SIZE 8.25 x 15

4 1/2 HP air-cooled engine to drive hydraulic system

All prices include a rust-resistant plastic coating on the interior of tank and the exterior painted one color of the customer's choice.

All prices and specifications subject to change without notice

KLEIN PORTO-TOWER -- COMPLETELY MOBILE

* Can be towed anywhere in down position as a conventional trailer. KPT-80 with tow hitch-eye KPT-120 and KPT-160 demi with king pin

* Legal dimensions and weight for highway transportation without a permit (in MOST States).

* Hydraulically erected and lowered by self-contained gasoline engine driven pump.

* One man can elevate and insert pins in 5 to 8 minutes -- completely stable in up position with 13' ground clearance from down-spout.

12 1/4 x 5 1/2 air brakes.

QUICK LOADING AND DISCHARGE

* 4" inlet float controlled valve (Model K-7140) is standard equipment on KPT-120 and KPT-160 3" control valve on KPT-80. 6" -- 12" inlet valves are available on request.

* 14" down spout and control valve for quick discharge -- up to 7500 gallons per minute. Standard equipment on KPT-120 and KPT-160: 10" down spout -- up to 3000 GPM on KPT-80 -- optional up to 20".

* 24" man hole with safety grate.

Specifications subject to change without notice

Economical On or Off-the-road Water Supply

KLEIN PRODUCTS, INC.

SOLD AND SERVICED BY:

Klein Porto - Towers

8,000 to 16,000 Gallon Capacity

A KLEIN EXCLUSIVE!

-- developed and engineered by Klein to fill an acute need for the construction industry.

-- patented by Klein (Patent No. 3,160,171).

Model KPT-120

The Porto-Tower is another example of the advanced developments in low cost water transportation and supply by Klein Products, Inc. This mobile water tower can be moved, elevated and lowered by one man -- no crane required. It is erected and lowered by a self-contained engine driven hydraulic pump. This unique equipment has a fast discharge, with rates up to 7,500 gallons per minute. The tank loads quickly with automatic float control assembly. No permit is required for transporting on the highway.

(See complete specifications on the back)

ID: nht95-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Chong D. Lee -- President, TMR International, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/28/95 LETTER FROM CHONG D. LEE TO PHILIP RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lee:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 28, 1995, asking several questions about the importation and sale of an aftermarket airbag. The airbag "comes in assembly with a steering wheel" and is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equippe d with a driver's airbag.

You have asked the following questions:

"a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale."

There is no Federal prohibition per se against the sale of aftermarket airbags. However, pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in airbag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208, even if they are aftermarket equipment. Therefore the manufacturer of these items (or the importer, who is defined as a "manufacturer" under our statute) must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

S9 prescribes performance requirements that are found in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178, regulations of another Administration of the Department of Transportation. We suggest that you write the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research a nd Special Programs Administration, 400 7th Street, Washington, D.C. 20590 for an opinion as to whether other of its regulations apply to your product or its movement in interstate commerce.

As to whether the laws of the individual States regulate the sale of aftermarket airbags, you should write, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

"b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale."

The requirements for compliance with S9 of Standard No. 208 are set forth in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178. When the manufacturer who is responsible for certifying compliance is satisfied that the equipment, in fact, does conform, it certifies the product. At that point, pressure vessels and explosive devices that are part of an airbag assembly, if not manufactured in the United States, may be imported into this country. A state is not permitted to have performance requirements for pressure vessels and ex plosive devices that differ from those of S9, but it may have a standard requiring identical performance, and, if so, they may ask for documentary assurance of compliance.

"c) Applicable Federal law (e.g. FMVSS 208)."

See replies to your previous questions. You should also note that an aftermarket airbag is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

One Federal law does bear upon the installation of the airbag. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business replaces a piece of original equipment that was necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if the replacement part creates a noncompliance with that standard. The design of the steering wheel may affect compliance with Federal Standards Nos. 203 Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system and 204 Steering control rearward displacement. We recommend that you satisfy yourself that installation of the airbag will not affect the previous ability to comply, of the vehicle in which it is installed, before marketing the product.

"d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks."

We are not in a position to advise you on matters that do not relate to Federal laws that we administer. We recommend that you consult a private attorney on these matters.

"e) Any other information of which we should be aware."

You should encounter no difficulties in importing the airbag and steering wheel under our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591 as long as any components that are required to comply with S9 of Standard No. 208 are certified as meeting that standard.

I am enclosing an information sheet that outlines the various laws and regulations that we administer pertaining to motor vehicles and equipment with the thought that you might find it helpful.

ID: 8978

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, Va. 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993, with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that the "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to

the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps on the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as "marker" lamps, including the "clearance" lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent

that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel /BODY>

ID: nht67-1.17

DATE: 08/07/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Kar Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Haddon asked me to thank you for your letter of June 19 concerning certification procedures for your product.

Apparently our reply of June 14 did not reach you prior to your sending your second letter. I have enclosed a copy of this answer for your reference. This reply was based on the assumption that your KAR Safety Mirror was not original equipment but rather would be sold in the aftermarket.

Your second letter asks three questions. The first question states that the KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968 and asks what steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose. The answer to this question is that the certification obligation contained in Standard No. 111 applies to the vehicle and it is therefore the vehicle manufacturer who will have to certify that the vehicle needs all applicable standards including Standard No. 111. Question No. 2 concerns the transfer of mirrors from cars now equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror, and question No. 3 concerns the certification requirements on 1963 models where the owner installs the KAR Safety Mirror as an after purchase add on piece of equipment. The answer to both of these questions, of course, is that there is no certification requirement at this time for the mirror, as such, as an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Thank you again for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

June 19, 1967

William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Administrator National Traffic Safety Agency

Under date of May 19, 1967, I wrote to you asking for guidance in submitting the KAR Safety Mirror to the proper local authority for certification under the provisions of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Act of 1966. The absence of a reply, to this date, would indicate you have not had sufficient time to implement this prodigious and important program. However, at the risk of being importunate, I earnestly inquire for answers to the conditions presented herein; namely,

1. The KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968. What steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose?

2. A number of owners now having cars equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror will trade for 1968 models and will transfer said KAR Safety Mirror to the new car immediately 'after purchase'. Is prior certification required under these circumstances? If so, how do we proceed?

3. Will prior certification be required for the KAR Safety Mirror when owners of 1968 models buy outright and install said KAR Safety Mirror directly 'after purchase' of the new car?

We would appreciate your comment and reply to these questions at the earliest practical moment.

Alan Axtell, President

cc Honorable George Murphy

cc Honorable Warren G. Magnuson

Will Scott Ford Motor Company

I see no objection to your request of June 28, 1967, to ship the outside mirrors loose in your Econoline models until reaching dealer destination. Since the mirror is shipped and the mounting holes are drilled at the factory, the installation of the mirror by the dealer is purely a routine dealer service.

Sincerely,

William Haddon, Jr., N.B.

DR. WILLIAM HADDON JR DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20591

PARAGRAPH S3.2.1.1 OF STANDARD NUMBER 111 SPECIFIES THAT AN OUTSIDE REAR-VIEW MIRROR QUOTE SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNQUOTE ON APPLICABLE VEHICLES. IT HAS JUST BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT FORD ECONOLINE MODELS ARE SHIPPED WITH OUTSIDE MIRROR LOOSE IN VEHICLE. THIS PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED BECAUSE OF RESULTING INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE FOR LOADING ON LOWER LEVEL OF HAULAWAY VEHICLES IF MIRROR IS INSTALLED AT FACTORY. ECONOLINES EQUIPPED WITH MIRRORS COULD, OF COURSE, BE SHIPPED ON UPPER HAULAWAY LEVEL ONLY BUT SHIPPING DELAYS AND FREIGHT PENALTIES THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UNDERUTILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT MAKE SUCH A PLAN UNREASONABLE.

WE DRILL MIRROR MOUNTING HOLES AT FACTOR TO INSURE THAT MIRROR IS IN FACT, INSTALLED BY DEALER PRIOR TO CUSTOMER DELIVERY. WOULD THIS BE ACCEPTABLE TO BUREAU OR WILL IT BE NECESSARY TO CLASSIFY THESE UNITS AS IMCOMPLETE VEHICLES SORRY TO BOTHER YOU WITH THIS DETAIL WHEN BUREAU HAS FAR MORE IMPORTAND SUBJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION REGARDS

WILL SCOTT FORD MOTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE BLDG DEARBORN MICH

ID: nht67-1.32

DATE: 06/14/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 10, 1967, clarifying the intent of your petition for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, and seeking a review of Order No. 12, dated March 29, 1967, denying your petition.

At your request I have reviewed your petition for reconsideration and wish to(Illegible Word) for the record, as you have asked, that your company did not seek to be relieved from the requirements of Standard No. 210, but rather sought permission to provide upper(Illegible Word) restraint anchorages in addition to those required by the standard. After reviewing Order No. 12, I have concluded that with respect to your company the order was intended as a(Illegible Words) paragraph(Illegible Words) is unnecessary, however, for the reason that Standard No. 210(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) anchorages in addition to those required in paragraph 4.1. The location criteria for the anchorages as outlined in accordance with paragraph 4.1, and not to any additional anchorages provided by the manufacturer.

I believe the foregoing interpretation will enable your company to continue its practice of furnishing additional(Illegible Word) restraint anchorages on the(Illegible Words) large persons(Illegible Words) you have further questions concerning the(Illegible Word) please do not(Illegible Word) to let me know. MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator United States Department of Transportation

I have Dr. Haddon's letter of April 4, 1967, enclosing a copy of your order of denial regarding our petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 210, dated March 3, 1967.

It is important to indicate that it was not the intention of our petition to request relief from the requirement of Standard No. 210 (S 4.3.2.1) as stated in Order No. 12 issued on March 29. Our request was simply that Standard No. 210 be amended to allow a second upper torso restraint anchorage point -- in addition to an anchorage point complying with Standard No. 210 -- in order that such an additional point be available for persons of unuaually large body dimensions.

I think it important that the record clearly show that Mercedes-Benz of North America did not seek relief from Standard No. 210, but rather sought permission to comply with the Standard and at the same time provide for optimum restraint and comfort of persons of unusually large size. It has been standard practice in our company to furnish at least two upper torso restraint anchorages when they are mounted in the B--pillar of sedans and we sought in our March 3, 1967 petition to continue this practice.

Inasmuch as the relief denied in Order No. 12 is not the relief sought by Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., I would greatly appreciate your reviewing the Order in the hope that since we comply with Standard No. 210 the inclusion of an additional anchorage would be allowed to enhance the safety and comfort of unusually large persons.

Sincerely,

PEUGEOT, INC.

May 26, 1967

Mr. O'Mahoney National Traffic Safety Agency

Regarding our telephone conversation of May 26, I am in need of legal interpretation concerning Standards 208 and 210.

According to Standard 208, paragraph S3.1.1, Type 2 seat belt assembly should be installed in each outboard passenger car in the front seat position, including the windshield, within the impact area, which, in my mind includes the front seats only. Thus, the rear seats should have only Type 1 (lap belt).

From Standard 210, table 1, it seems to clearly indicate that we must have seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt in outboard seats in the rear, but it does not expressly state that the Type 2 seat belts should be installed in the outboard seats in the rear.

Would you kindly let me know if my interpretation is correct: on a 4-passenger car, we should have Type 2 seat belts in the front, Type 1 seat belts in the rear, but anchorages in the rear for Type 2 and Type 1 seat belts.

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

Henri B. Combe Executive Vice President

ID: nht67-1.5

DATE: 09/21/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1967, requesting clarification of several requirements specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In answer to question No. 1 of your letter, the addition of a side mounted ladder would not be considered as an extension of the length of the vehicle.

Question No. 2 concerns the requirement for use of front identification lamps on open-cab fire trucks and trucks equipped with rotating red lights. We agree that the front identification lights might be slightly obscured while the emergency red lights are flashing. However, when these lights are not flashing, the identification lights would clearly identify a vehicle that is more than 80 inches in overall width. Therefore, identification lights will be required on the fire trucks which are depicted on the photographs enclosed with your letter.

With respect to question No. 3 regarding possible locations for rear identification lamps on fire trucks, it should be noted that Standard No. 108 does not specify a height requirement for location of these lamps. Therefore, a possible location for the lamps would be along the edge or under the edge of the rear step. In any event, the problem of providing the lamps does not appear to be a major one.

Question No. 4 relates to possible locations for clearance lamps on the front and rear of fire trucks. Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be mounted as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle. A provision is also included for mounting the rear clearance lamps at an optional height, when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. We note from your photographs that (Illegible Word) lamps are normally mounted at approximately the extreme edges of the vehicle. It appears that a similar arrangement could be provided for mounting the clearance lamps.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

July 17, 1967

George C. Nield, Acting Director -- Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Nield: The Technical Committee of our Association has reviewed the requirements of "Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Volume 32, Number 23, Federal Register of February 3, 1967. The following questions have arisen and we request clarification.

1. Standard 108, Par. S3.1.1.2, page 2411. Your paragraph refers to 30 ft. overall length. The industry builds many pumpers that are less than 30 ft. length but occasionally the addition of a side mounted ladder will extend beyond the rear step and will increase the overall length beyond 30 ft. The Pirsch picture 5904 enclosed illustrates a ladder so mounted.

The question is - would this ladder addition be interpreted to mean a length greater than 30 ft.?

2. Standard 108, Par. S3.1.1.3, page 2411. Almost every fire truck will include a rotary type flashing red light and other flashing red lights which of necessity will impair the effectiveness of the front identification lights and would seemingly make (Illegible Word) lights (Illegible Word). Will these three front identification (Illegible Words) on a fire truck? See Pirsch picture 622 enclosed as (Illegible Words) please note Pirsch picture 6124 enclosed showing an (Illegible Words) is commonly used and advise if identification lights (Illegible Words) on this type.

3. Standard 108, page 2411, Trucks I and II. The (Illegible Words) lights do not appear to be (Illegible Word) to fire truck picture 5904, a rear step is included on the average fire truck with (Illegible Word) riding the rear step. As it is readily seen, there is no place for the three identification lights that could possibly be effective. We definitely feel that rear identification lights are not feasible on a fire truck.

4. The side clearance lights are specified to be mounted as near as possible to the upper right and left front edges and the upper right and left rear edges. Our pictures illustrate the problem of the extreme edges and we would like to know where lights should be placed on this type of vehicle.

Very truly yours, E. L. Koepenick -- Secretary-Treasurer

Encls.

ID: nht68-1.26

DATE: 07/29/68

FROM: DAVID SCHMELTZER FOR ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY -- NHTSA

TO: Anadite Products Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1958, in which you ask that:

1) We "confirm in writing immediately that all forward facing windows in multipurpose passenger vehicles must be glazed with S-2 laminated with .030 plastic film [and] . . . etched as required in Z25."

2) We confirm that anything less than edges(Illegible Word) specified in J573 [Society of automotive Engineering Recommended Practice J573 'automotive glazing', June 1950] will(Illegible Word) a window with unbanded edges a non-complying article.

3) We forward "the proper instructions for manufacturers who are being undersold due to non-complying competitors."

With regard to your first request, we cannot confirm that all forward facing windows in multipurpose passenger vehicles must be glazed with S-2 laminated with .030 because windshields of multipurpose passenger vehicles must comply with the S-1 requirements. However, your request that slide-in campers be allowed to use S-1 liminated with an .030 plastic film in under consideration, and further reply will be made. You also ask for confirmation that the glazing be etched as required by Z25. This matter is also being considered as part of a rulemaking which would amend the glazing standard to provide for this type of etching.

With regard to your second request, Standard No. 205 presently requires that, except in school buses, expanded edges of glazing materials shall have an edge radius of between one half the nominal thickness of the material and inch. Exposed edges not meating these limits are not in compliance with the standard.

Finally, with the regard to your third request, if you have any additional information available concerning "non-complying competitors" please submit it to the National Highway Safety Bureau, Office of Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, 400 5th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591, and whatever action is considered appropriate will be taken.

Once again we wish to thank you for your active interest in the motor vehicle safety program.

Sincerely,

May 23, 1968

David Schmeltzer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Dear Dave:

This letter will serve as a formal request for information which we discussed in our telephone conversation of May 22.

Please confirm in writing immediately that all forward facing windows in multipurpose passenger vehicles must be glazed with AS-2 laminated with .030 plastic film. Also, confirm that each glass pane must be etched as required in Z26.

One question we did not discuss has to do with windows with exposed edges. At the present time, Standard 205 requires that in all except school buses, windows with exposed edges must be treated in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineering Recommended Practice J673, "Automotive Glazing", June 1960. This includes the window we refer to as a 4" Jalousie. It would be convenient if you could justify written instructions that the radii specified in J673 for edge treatment will be necessary for compliance with Standard 205. The reason for this is that we "webber" (grind to no specific radius but remove enough edge material so that you would not cut your finger if you rubbed it along the edge of each unbanded pane) 4" Jalousie panes and have for many years. The information available from SAE is a little confusing, for it looks like a webbered edge; however, it specifies a radius from 3/16" to 1/4". As you know by now, it is difficult to take some of this Automotive Engineering data and use it without expanding its meaning when concerned with pickup canopies and campers. We are not asking for you to give us any relief or to approve the webbered edge as satisfactory. We concur in your decision that an unbanded edge should have a close tolerance and responsible radius. We only want to ascertain that anything less than edges as specified in J673 will make a window with unbanded edges a non-complying article.

One last point -- please expedite if possible the proper instructions for manufacturers who are being undersold due to non-complying competitors. I have requested this previously.

Sincerely yours,

ANADITE, INC.

PRODUCTS DIVISION --

John E. Orr

Director of Marketing

ID: nht70-1.1

DATE: 04/30/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: David Sugarman, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of April 16 I enclose copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 107 (Reflecting Surfaces) and 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Copies of the ASTM and SAE standards cross-referenced in the Federal standards are available from the American Society for Testing and Materials and the Society of Automotive Engineers. You may find particularly helpful SAE Handbook Supplement 19, "SAF Technical Reports Referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards".

The answer to your first question is that Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, to be equipped with a total of 4 side marker lamps and 4 side marker reflectors, one marker and one reflector, amber in color, on each side of the vehicle "as far forward as practicable", and one marker and one reflector, red in color, on each side of the vehicle, "as far to the rear as practicable" Between January 1, 1969 and January 1, 1970 the option of reflectors or markers, or a combination of the two, was permitted. Prior to January 1, 1969 the Federal lighting standard did not apply to passenger cars. I will note in passing that the rear marker lamps on the Monteverd; displayed at the recent New York show were number and must be changed to red before these vehicles are sold. There are no requirements as to size and shape of lamps and reflectors, but the SAE standards applicable to them and incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 do set forth certain photometric requirements which must be met.

In answer to your second question, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires tail lamps to be red, but permits stop lamps and rear turn signals to be either red or amber. A proposal has been issued however (35 F.R. 106) that stop lamps be red only on passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1971.

You have asked in your third question whether headlamps may be placed in the grill. The answer to this is yes, provided that this location meets the lateral spacing and height above road surface requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108. Also, headlamps must not be covered by a grille or plastic shield when in use.

Standard No. 107 does not specify a particular color for the horn ring and hub of the steering assembly but it does specify a maximum permissible value for specular glass.

Finally, other than Standard Nos. 205 (Glazing Materials) and 212 (Windshield Mounting) which all passenger cars must meet, there is no "specific safety requirement as to the windshield" for convertibles, and there is no "requirement as to a roll bar".

Sincerely,

Enclosures April 16, 1970

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Re: F.H.W.A. Temporary Exemption

No. 69-9 issued to Automobile

Monteverdi Ltd.

September 9, 1969 expiring

August 1, 1971

Gentlemen:

I represent Automobile Monteverdi Ltd. of Switzerland. In furtherance of my letter of April 9, 1970 requesting certain information as to the above, will you inform me as to the following:

1-a)Is there a safety standard requirement with regard to lights on the side of the automobile (front and/or back); if so, is it a requirement for a light or may it be a reflector?

b) Whether it is a requirement for a light or a reflector, is there a requirement as to its size or shape?

2. With regard to rear lights, brake, safety stop and blinker; is there a specific requirement as to the color of such lights, may they be red or orange etc?

3. With regard to headlights, may the manufacturer place headlights in the grill on a two seater model and a convertible model?

4. With regard to the steering wheel is there a specific requirement that the cross bar of a steering wheel be a particular color e.g. black or grey? I know that it may not be chromed.

5. With regard to a convertible model, is there a specific safety requirement as to the windshield, and is there any requirement as to a roll bar?

I would appreciate hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

David Sugarman

ID: nht68-1.8

DATE: 04/24/68

FROM: NHTSA

TO: Utility Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the additional clearance lamps and reflectors that you have been requested to install on vehicles shipped to Hawaii.

Referring to the drawing attached to your letter, the use of clearance lamps as shown does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, provided (1) the two lamps on front of the body are amberin color, and (2) the lamp on the rear of the body is red in color. Also, use of the amber reflex reflector on front of the body would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. Paragraph S3.1.2 of the Standard states: "No additional lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment." This requirement applies to all applicable vehicles, including those owned by a State.

On your drawing, it appears that you have inadvertently indicated a red color for the clearance lamps on the front of the body. Use of red lamps at the locations shown would impair the effectiveness of the required equipment, since red lamps are used, in accordance with the standard, to designate the rear of the vehicle.

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.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

March 6, 1968

George C. Nield -- Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles Safety Performance Services, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. Nield:

I certainly enjoyed the meeting held in Washington last week concerning the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as sponsored by the Truck Body & Equipment Association.

I particularly enjoyed the afternoon panel discussion that you moderated.

If I may, I would like to request an interpretation on lighting, as covered under Standard 108.

Section 103 (D) of Public Law 89-563, of course, spells out that no state shall require additional lamps unless they are identical to the Federal standards. Standard S.3.1.1 confirms this fact in spelling out the "in the number" or quantity. Section S.3.1.2 states no additional lamps from Standard 108 unless, of course, the vehicle is owned by the state.

You will find enclosed a copy of our drawing describing lighting on an open bed service line construction body which we manufacture. Item 10, as shown, is the rear face clearance lamp. Item 11, rear marker reflector. Item 12, rear red marker lamp.

On units we ship to the State of Hawaii, we are still being asked to furnish lighting per their state law, which was written basically around the ICC standard. They have asked that we add additional clearance lamps, as shown in the three red rectangular boxes that I have added as No. 10. One on the front face of the body at the top corner; one at the front side top of the body corner; and one at the rear side face of the body. They have also asked that we add an additional reflector, as shown as Item No. 8 at the lower side front corner of the body.

Of course, the same lighting configuration would be duplicated on the other side of the vehicle.

In your interpretation, by the addition of these three lights and one reflector per side, are we impairing the effectiveness of the Motor Vehicle Standards as specifically spelled out by number and location under Standard 108?

I would appreciate your comments.

Yours very truly,

UTILITY BODY COMPANY

Dick Romney,

Sales Manager

Enclosure - Drawing

TYPICAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht68-2.48

DATE: 09/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1968, calling my attention to Mr. Paul Johnston's comments and suggestions on the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As Mr. Johnston pointed out, Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, provides for optional use of either the eight-lamp or four-lamp signal system. This optional provision was adopted after careful consideration of the comments and recommendations which were received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making as published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967. The "Minimum Standards for School Buses", as published by the National Conference on School Transportation, and the regulations governing minimum standards for school buses in various states were also considered during development of the optional provision for signal lamp systems. Results of our studies and investigations indicated that approximately forty states were using either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system. Other states were using the adopted system with only minor variations in the installation and operational requirements.

Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1967. Under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, any person adversely affected by this order may petition the Administrator under Part 216, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed. No petition of the adopted requirements for school bus signal lamps has been filed.

Although we do not dispute the safety benefits which Mr. Johnson claims for a six-lamp system, I must emphasize that our long-range objective is the adoption of one nationwide system. Even with the presently adopted systems, a motorist could be faced with the problem of interpreting two sets of signals during a very short time period. This problem will become more prevalent with the anticipated increase in rapid interstate traffic. To permit the use of a third optional system, six-lamp or other, would further complicate the situation.

Standard No. 108 applies only to new school buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1969. Retrofitting of buses presently in operation is not required. Since Iowa's fleet of buses is presently equipped with a six-lamp system, it appears that considerable data on the effectiveness of this system could be accumulated from this fleet during the next several years, or until such time that a single nationwide system is proposed. We will be pleased to carefully review and consider any such data which Mr. Johnson can provide in the future.

In summary, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision of Standard No. 108 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. Therefore, we do not believe that a change in this provision to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.

We have reviewed our files with respect to the written and personal contacts Mr. Arthur Roberts, Director of Pupil Transportation, has had with this Bureau.

This review indicates that the correspondence from Mr. Roberts was submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Standard No. 112 (subsequently combined with Standard No. 108) as published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967. It is not the practice of the Bureau to reply individually to the numerous responses received from published rule making notices, which often run to thousands of pages. However, a summary of the comments represented by the responses and the disposition of these comments is presented in the preamble to Standard No. 108 as published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1967. With respect to Mr. Roberts visit on May 7, 1968, the topics of discussion related primarily to the technical requirements of Standard No. 108 and other information relative to the merits of converting Iowa's school buses to either the four-lamp or eight-lamp system. Our understanding was that Mr. Roberts received the information he was seeking at the time of his visit and that no follow-up correspondence was necessary on our part.