ID: 77-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. C. L. Ray - Governor of Washington; DIXY LEE RAY -- GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views on legislation recently enacted by the State of Washington, which appears to be preempted by Federal regulation of the same subject matter.

Specifically we understand that R.C.W. @ 46.37.320 was amended in May 1977 to require that motor vehicle "lighting devices"

". . . shall correlate with, and, so far as practicable, conform to the then current standards and specifications of the society of automotive engineers applicable to such equipment and to the headlamp standards established by the United Nations agreement concerning the adoption of approval and reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicle equipment and parts done at Geneva on March 20, 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian standards association (CSA standard D106.2): Provided, that the sale, installation, and use of any headlamp meeting the standards of either the society of automotive engineers or the United Nations agreement, as amended, shall be lawful in this state."

Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d):

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." [Emphasis added.]

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

Although Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many lighting standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) it contains numerous qualifications of, and variations from, the SAE specifications. Even when Federal requirements and SAE specifications are identical, amendments by the SAE, which occur frequently, do not amend the corresponding Federal requirements. In short, that portion of the amendment to RCW @ 46.37.320 requiring compliance to SAE specifications does not establish requirements that are identical to those of Standard No. 108 and, in our opinion, are preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) and of no legal effect.

In addition, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, it does not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, does not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to R.C.W. @ 46.37.320 is, in our opinion, also preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.

As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Washington manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States through the State of Washington any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon R.C.W. @ 46.37.320, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

We would appreciate the views of the State of Washington on this subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

ID: 77-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: Grove Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire label requirements contained in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.

Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels is governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the drivers seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.

SINCERELY,

February 17, 1977

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for deviation applicable to Part 567, and FMVSS #120 (Certification Labeling)

Reference: 42 FR 7140 dated February 7, 1977

As manufacturers of mobile hydraulic cranes it has always been our company policy to conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to the best of our ability. As you are probably aware, a self-propelled crane has unique features as regards their work function, and as such, manufacturers are obligated, morally and legally, to assure these features, both carrier and superstructure modes are properly placarded as to operation, maintenance, etc. and notwithstanding, safety which is always our prime concern.

The most important document that accompanies our product line to the ultimate user is the operators handbook. Not only do we supply such a document with the physical shipment of the crane but also provide a second set geared to the specific model involved to the buying distributor. The operators handbook must be fully understood and digested before a crane operator physically operates the equipment. It is to be noted, that the prime-mover (carrier) is equally important as to safety of operation as is the superstructure cranning function.

Tire and rim selection from the design Engineering viewpoint is rather unique within our industry in that, crane manufacturers per se do authorize limited "Lift" capability on rubber and subsequent movement of the load at a given maximum speed. Decal location of these "on rubber" limits are posted to the centerline of the driver side carrier door adjacent to the vehicle certification label. In addition, this information is fully cited in our operators handbook along with suggested substitutes of tires and rims with their recommended cold PSI for on rubber and highway functions.

One must also consider the usage factor of this type of equipment within the realm the real world. Construction companies and users of our type of equipment are considered unique in that usage of the equipment is primarily performed in an off-highway configuration, yet is capable of travel from the owners yard to the job site. However, in terms of odometer miles on the carriage in any given time-frame, it would equal merely a fraction of an over the road semi-tractor type piece of equipment.

Attached herewith as Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 are typical examples of our certification label and tire inflation chart decals. Attached as Enclosure 3 is a typical decal installation drawing on one of our crane families. Please note the many different types of decals ie, caution, warning, danger, etc. which we, as vehicle manufacturers, feel obligated to attach to our machine totally in the interest of safety to our users. To expand our present certification label to include suitable tire and rim information would increase the overall size by one-third. The label is presently sensitized to a metal mounting plate which is needed due to the acoustical package placed on the exterior of the door for noise abatement. The door therefore, would require extensive redesign along with an enlarged mounting attachment for the decal. Predicated on the type of equipment, work function, and limited highway travel mode, it is requested that your Administration reconsider the label information requirements under S5.3 for our type of equipment and keeping in mind that we have and are conforming to the standard and merely are asking relief as to location of the mandated information.

GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst

cc: E. GARDENHOUR; W. KENNER; L. JOHNSON; F. KRUECK; H. BARRETT; B. SPANGLER

(Illegible Text)

ID: 1983-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Duane W. Duvall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Duvall:

We have received your letter of October 27, 1943, informing us of your plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.

As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment items in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called "bumper standard" is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and Sept. 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.

On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to both lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 104, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Here unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol "DOT". In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required. A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure that safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.

There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance to your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that "no device or element of design" added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.

To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as they were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 27, 1983 Office of Chief Council 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

To Whom it May Concern:

A local agency referred me to this administration for some information that I need. Please send the proper pamphlets or publications.

I am designing a fiberglass front-end replacement kit for Chevrolet Vegas, years 1971-77. The rear will be unchanged, I plan to incorporate a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware, will this meet safety regulations?

I also need front exterior lighting regulations, and the procedure to certify this kit for national distribution.

Your prompt response is sincerely appreciated. I am enclosing $2 for any postage or duplication fees.

Thanks, Original signed by Duane W. Duvall (206) 766-6845 901 North Beach Rd.

Bow, VA 98232

ID: nht79-3.4

DATE: 10/04/79

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

TO: Stratos Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office on July 12, 1979, about your company's plans to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks for passenger cars. You noted that the tanks will be designed for placement in the trunk above the existing fuel tank and that your company will act primarily as a manufacturer of these tanks but may do some installation. Specifically, you asked what Federal regulations or standards would apply to the manufacturer, as well as the placement and installation, of auxiliary gasoline tanks in motor vehicles. You also asked whether we have testing facilities for such tanks and, if so, whether the agency would be able to test one of your company's tanks.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks.

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. As a manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seq., copy enclosed). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or yourself, you would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

If you installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, you would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, you would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, you would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.

If you installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, you would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part 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 applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

Thus, if you added an auxiliary tank to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I would like to point out that in addition to the Federal law discussed above there may be State product liability laws applicable to your company's proposed activities. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before your company begins manufacturing and installing auxiliary gasoline tanks.

At the present time, NHTSA is not testing auxiliary gasoline tanks, but the agency is involved in testing vehicles to determine their compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75.

At some point the agency will probably begin testing auxiliary tanks that have been installed in vehicles, but such testing will be done only as part of our enforcement efforts. It is not a policy of the NHTSA to test and approve the products of particular manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

In conclusion, please note that, in general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration discourages the use of auxiliary fuel tanks of any kind because of the grave dangers of fire and explosion posed by their improper manufacturer or installation. In the near future, this agency will be making a press release warning consumers of these hazards and discouraging them from using auxiliary fuel tanks.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

ID: nht81-2.44

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Burlington Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehcile Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of "edger fabric strips", pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.

The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b), because it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.

In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in your request for an interpretation, is the following statement: "The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt . . . ." Similarly, in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments section of the patent, Section 3 begins, "The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt . . . ." Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Stanard 117; "No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing."

Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered a belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of "edger fabric," the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable with the existing cords of the casing that is used.

Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreaded passenger car tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.

Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards.

ENC.

May 1, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Attention: Stephen Kratzke

Re: NHTSA Standard No. 117 - Retreaded Pneumatic Tires

Dear Sirs:

Upon suggestion by Mr. Stephen Kratzke, I am writing to request an interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 117 relating to retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. In particular I would appreciate a written opinion as to whether S 5.2.2(b) of the Standard would apply to a retreading process by which the tire was stripped and a recap containing "edger" fabric molded therein then bonded to the carcass. For your better understanding, please note that "edger" fabric is a narrow strip of fabric positioned on each side or shoulder of the recap around the entire perimeter of the tire. The strips are intended and believed to aid in the prevention of steel belts "turning up" and rendering the recapped tire unsafe.

A careful reading of Standard No. 117 convinces me that "edger" fabric strips which are molded into the retread prior to the retread being secured to the casing is not addition or replacement of a belt or ply to the casing as contemplated by Standard 117. In fact, the purpose of the "edger" fabric is entirely consistent with the purpose of Standard 117 in that it is intended to make a retreaded steel belted tire safer and longer lasting than if the fabric were not incorporated into the recap. To hold that the "edger" fabric falls within the language and intended scope of Standard 117 would therefore run counter to the purpose and policy considerations behind the Standard.

In order that you may more fully understand the nature of the recapping process utilizing an "edger" fabric incorporated into the recap, I have attached hereto a copy of a U.S. patent generally directed to the process and highlighted some of the more pertinent portions. I hope that the above is sufficient for full understanding of our request, but please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 379-4517 if I may offer further explanation.

We respectfully solicit an expeditious opinion on this matter and thank you for your assistance to us.

Richard E. Jenkins Assistant Patent Counsel

ATTCH.

ID: nht81-3.16

DATE: 09/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Global Link, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Ms. Nancy Nishmura Global Link, Inc. 548 Rose Avenue Venice, California 90291

Dear Ms. Nishmura:

This letter confirms your recent telephone conversations with Joan Griffin of my staff regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked Ms. Griffin what safety standards apply to the manufacture of automotive glazing materials, and whether glazing manufacturers must obtain prior approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) before manufacturing and marketing their products.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). The requirements of Standard No. 205 are set forth in ANS Z26 in terms of performance tests that the various types or "Items" of glazing must pass. There are 13 "Items" of glazing for which requirements are specified in the standard. Copies of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 were sent to you at an earlier date.

NHTSA does not require or offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination. Standard No. 205 sets forth specific certification and marking requirements in paragraph S6. It is our understanding that you represent Asahi Glass Co., a manufacturer of glazing materials. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) such as Asahi are set forth in paragraphs S6.1-6.3. These para- graphs require each prime glazing material manufacturer to mark the glazing materials in accordance with Section 6 of ANS Z26 and Section 114 of the Act. Section 6 of ANS Z26 requires that the glazing be permanently marked with the words "American Standard" or the letters "AS", a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, the manufacturer's trademark or designation, and the "Item" number. Paragraph S6.2 further requires the manufacturer to mark the glazing with the symbol "DOT" and the manufacturer's code mark, which is assigned by NHTSA. The code mark assigned to Ahasi Glass Co. is "20". Section 114 of the Act provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that:

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....

Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation of Section 108. However, Section 108(b)(1) provides that there is no violation of Section 108 if the person establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment did not conform to certain standards. Thus, Asahi does not necessarily have to follow the test procedures set forth in ANS Z26 in determining that glazing complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. As long as the manufacturer acts with due care, he can certify that his glazing materials comply with the standard based on means other than such testing. For example, it should be sufficient to use analytical means alone if they are reliable predictors of how glazing would perform when tested. The procedures set forth in ANS Z26 are the procedures that the agency will follow in doing its compliance testing.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Joan Griffin (202-426-9511) if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-3.7

DATE: 08/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1981 asking for an "exemption" from the requirement of paragraph S4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that an illuminated pilot indicator be provided in each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit.

In your opinion, the front turn signal lamps mounted on the handlebars of certain motor scooters that you manufacture can serve as pilot indicators; if a front turn signal lamp fails to operate, the failure is readily apparent to the operator; if a left turn signal lamp fails, there is an "appreciable change in the flashing rate" of the front lamp.

We concur in your interpretation. Although S4.5.6 does require the indicator, SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, incorporated by reference, requires it only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Because the operability of both front and rear turn signal lamps on the vehicles you describe may be confirmed by the front turn signal alone, the front lamp is the functional equivalent of a turn signal indicator, and a separate indicator need not be provided.

As this is a matter of long-standing interpretation of Standard No. 108 we have no plans to amend S4.5.6 to incorporate it.

SINCERELY,

Date: 7th July 1981.

To

The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Subject: Petition for exemption from the requirements for illuminated pilot indicator (Illegible Word) to 49 CFR PARTS 571 S 108 Lamps - Reflective devices and (Illegible Word) equipment.

Dear Sir,

We are herewith making a petition in connection with the above stated reference for exemption from fitting illuminated pilot indicator. The facts concerning this are placed below for your kind consideration.

PETITION:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, S 4.5.6 states "Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J 588 (e) Turn Signal Lamps" (September 1970) except where a variable lead turn signal flasher is used on a bus, truck, multipurpose passenger vehicle etc.

According to SAE J 568 (e) "Failure of one or more lamps to operate should be indicated by a "Steady On" or "Steady Off" or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated pilot indicator". Also it states "If any signal lamp is not readily visible to the driver, ther shall be as illuminated pilot indicator to give him a clear and (Illegible Word) indication that the turn signal system is turned "ON".

Also SAE J 568 (f) (Reference SAE Hand Book 1981) states "If one right and one left turn signal is not readily visible to the driver there shall be an illuminated indicator provided to give clear and unmistakable indication that the turn signal system is (Illegible Word)."

The Motor Scooters, we are manufacturing fall under the (Illegible Word) of Class I motorcycles. The scooters are provided with turn signal lamps both at the front and the rear. The front signal lamps, one left and one right are positioned on the handle bar and are directly in front of the rider and are fully visible to the rider. In our opinion those from signal lamps themselves can serve as pilot indicators based on the following analysis:

CASE (a): When both the signal lamps on one side, say right side are working, the front right lamp is visible to the rider.

CASE (b): If any of front signal lamp is not operating, the failure of it is directly observed by the rider.

CASE (c): The failure of rear lamp to operate is indicated by a appreciable change in the flashing rate of the front lamp.

In view of this, in our opinion, the vehicle conforms to the provisions of SAE J (e) and J 568 (f) without providing an illuminated pilot indicator.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF ORDER

In view of the above points made we would like exemption from the requirement of illuminated pilot indicator and also an ammendment in 49 CFR PART 108 S 4.5.6 saying "If visible to the rider, (Illegible Word) front signal lamp can serve as the pilot indicator".

We are enclosing herewith photographs illustrating the location of the front signal lamps on our vehicle for your observation and kind consideration.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:

M. S. (Illegible Word) MANAGER (RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT)

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED (Illegible Word)

(Illegible Word) - 411 055 INDIAN.

Thanking you, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

(M. S. (Illegible Word) MANAGER ((Illegible Word))

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: nht87-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Russell Thatcher -- Director, Mobility Assistance Program, Exective Office of Transportation and Construction, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Commonwealth of Massachusetts 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 Boston, MA 02116-3969

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1986, to NHTSA Regional Administrator Jack Connors requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explained that you are in the process of buying a number of vans which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporation's Model D117 seats. You stated that questions have been raised about whether the safety belt placement on those seats complies with our standard. You enclosed a quarter-scale diagram of the seat in question showing the location of the safety belts and asked our opinion about whether the safety belt placement complies with our standard.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency enforces, it is the responsibility of a vehicle manufacturer to certify that its products comply with the requirements of our standards. This agency does not have the authority to approve a manufacturer's design plans. We can offer our opinion, but it is the manufacturer's obligation to ensure that the finished vehicle complies with all of the applicable standards.

The standard which affects the mounting angle for safety belts is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. The drawing enclosed with your letters shows that the lap safety belt anchorage for this seat is installed on the frame of the seat. S4.3.1 .3 of the standard provides:

In an installation in which the seat belt anchorage is on the seat structure, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage shall extend forward from that contact point at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20o and not more than 75o.

According to the drawing enclosed with your letter, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the safety belt, on the outboard side of the seat, with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage is 75o. If the outboard porti on of the safety belt is installed in a completed vehicle in the location shown in the drawing would meet the requirement of S4.3.1.3, since its mounting angle is not more than 75o.

We cannot offer a opinion as to whether the inboard portion of the safety belt would comply with S4.3.1.3, since the mounting angle for that portion of the safety belt is not depicted in the drawing. I want to emphasize again, that this letter represents the opinion of the agency based on the facts you have presented. It is a manufacturer's responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to certify that its completed vehicle complies with our standard.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Jack Connors, Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 55 Broadway / Kendall Square Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142

Re: Interpretation of, and Compliance with, Specification 49 CFR Section 571-210 Subsection 4.3.1.3

Dear Mr. Connors:

The State of Massachusetts, acting through the Executive Office of Transportation & Construction, administers the Federal 16(b)(21 and State Mobility Assistance Programs. These programs provide grant subsidies to private and public non profit agencies ac ross the state for the purchase of wheelchair lift equipped vans and minibuses used to transport elderly and disabled persons.

We are currently in the process of purchasing forty three (43) vans from Collins Bus Corporation which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporations Model D117 seats. Questions have been raised about the current seat belt placement being utilized by Republic Seating.

We would like to request an opinion from your office on whether or not the design complies with federal standards. Attached is a quarter-scale diagram of the seat showing the location of the seat belts.

Your expeditious handling of the matter would be greatly appreciated. During the last year approximately 100 vehicles across the State have been purchased and are being operated in transportation programs.

Should you require additional information, please contact my Assistant Director Royal Spurlark or myself at 973-?000. should you need to contact Republic Seating for information, you can call Mr. Peter Redding, President of that company at (312) 628-8500 .

Sincerely,

Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht80-3.43

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Columbia Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 17, 1980, and in confirmation of your several telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

In your letter, you asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) must reflect each of your 16 moped "models" if the differences between the models are cosmetic. Table 1 of S4.5.2 requires that the following information be encoded in the VIN of motorcycles: Type of motorcycle, line, engine type, and net brake horsepower. The encoding of models is not required. "Line" is defined in S3. Definitions to mean a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles within a make which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type. Therefore, if the 16 moped "models" are of the same construction, they would not be considered different lines unless Columbia chose to designate them as different lines.

You have also stated that Columbia has changed its moped motor manufacturer and has made minor modifications in its open frame moped. You wish to know if this must be reflected in the VIN. The VIN standard for mopeds does not take effect until September 1, 1980, for vehicles whose model year changeover date occurs prior to September 1, 1980, and subsequent to January 1, 1981, and until the actual model year changeover date for vehicles whose model year changeover date falls between these two dates. Therefore, any changes Columbia has made prior to the effective date of the standard would presumably already be reflected in the VIN.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 labels as forwarded with your letter. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your labeling system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 17, 1980

Fred Schwartz -- Department of Transportation, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

We have 16 moped models. Most of these models are different cosmetically. Is it necessary to have these models reflect in our V.I.N. number?

We also changed our motor manufacturer and have minor changes in our open frame moped. Is it also necessary for this to reflect in our V.I.N. number?

I would appreciate your approval on our enclosed sample and your answers to the above questions by June 27, 1980.

Sincerely,

David R. Stevens -- Quality Control Manager

enc.

1CEMT0156AC000001 1CEMT0158AC000002 1CEMT015XAC000003 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0151AC000004 1CEMT0153AC000005 1CEMT0155AC000006 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0(Illeg.)0000007 1CEMT0159AC000008 1CEMT0150AC000009 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0157AC0000010 1CEMT0159AC000011 1CEMT0150AC000012 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0152AC000013 1CEMT0154AC000014 1CEMT0156AC000015 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0158AC000016 1CEMT015XAC000017 1CEMT0151AC000018 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0153AC000019 1CEMT015XAC000020 1CEMT0151AC000021 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0153AC000022 1CEMT0155AC000023 1CEMT0157AC000024 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0159AC000025 1CEMT0150AC000026 1CEMT0152AC000027 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0154AC000028 1CEMT0156AC000029 1CEMT0152AC000030 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 JULY 1980 1CEMT0154AC000031 1CEMT0156AC000032 1CEMT0158AC000033

MANUFACTURED BY COLUMBIA MFG. CO.

MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

MANUFACTURED BY COLUMBIA MFG. CO.:

MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

MANUFACTURED BY COLUMBIA MFG. CO.:

MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

THIS MARGIN CONTROL PUNCHED

PAPER FOR THIS PLY IS

PRINTED IN INK UNLESS INDICATED BY BRACKETS

ID: nht80-4.10

DATE: 10/08/80

FROM: F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul R. Hingtgen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1980, requesting information concerning all Federal Motor Vehicle Safey Standards relevant to the manufacture and sale of an auxiliary wind deflector.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Based upon the information you have provided, it is our opinion that your wind deflector is subject to Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (copy enclosed). Incorporating by reference "ANSZ26", the American National Standard's Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard). Thus the material you propose to use is acceptable since it is Plexiglass or Acuylite having an Item 4 rating, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. Such AS-4 glazing material must of course meet Test No. 2, "Luminous Transmittance," which requires that the material "show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the light, at normal incidence, both before and after irradiation."

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing you use in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are set out in Paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5. By reference to section 6 of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Safety Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.

After the first purchase of the equipment for purposes other than resale, i.e., its purchase by a consumer, tampering with the equipment is limited by Section 108(a)(2)(A). This section prohibits certain entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards. The prohibiiton applies only to manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and to motor vehicle repair businesses. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle or equipment. Section 109 provides a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of this section.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

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