ID: nht91-5.19

DATE: August 9, 1991

FROM: Alonzo Bendolph

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Alonzo Bendolph (A38; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing in regards to a business endeavor I plan to persue.

On August 08, 1991, your vehicle safety department was contacted regarding any possible regulations governing the placement of personalized stickers in the upper portion of the front and rear windsheilds of a vehicle. I was told that to get the proper interpretation of this matter that your department should be contact.

Essentially my business idea is this: I'd like to offer personalized stickers for the front and rear windsheild that would extend to both sides of car (frame to frame). The same sticker would be no greater than 6 inches in length. These same stickers would contains some of the following phrases listed below:

"My wife is #1" "young and single and I love to mingle" "Can't touch this"

These signs would be clear and containing no additional tint. Only the lettering would be visble.

In an efforts to get a definite answer as to the legality of these stickers, NY State dept of motor vehicles was contacted. I was told that all signs placed in the front and rear windshield other than inspection and registration are illegal. Inspite of this, many motorist proudly display such signs as Toyota, Honda, Chevy Blazer, and so on. Is this supposed law in New York a law that is enforced? Or is it just a law on the books - like jay walking and improper parking distance from the curves.

please supply written correspondence as to the NHTSA position relative to this issue. Hoping to hear from your office soon.

ID: aiam3842

Dear Mr. Cucheran: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1984, addressed to Mr Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The reply that Mr. Vinson had drafted was misplaced while being circulated for comment, and we greatly regret any inconvenience that this may have caused you. We are also replying to a telephone call Mr. Vinson made to you on June 14.; You have informed us, in essence, that there appear to be certai vehicle configurations in which photometric requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp, at the 5 degree down position, will not be met when such vehicles are equipped with a deck-mounted luggage rack of the type manufactured by JAC Products. You have asked for an interpretation 'exempting deck rack cross rails from compliance to the 5 degree down cone area', alternatively, you request that we 'consider a new rule exempting the 5 degree down cone requirements for vehicles supplied with deck mounted luggage carriers'. You have also informed us that General Motors intends to use the new lamp on some of its 1985 model lines, and that because of this requirement the company will drop the rack as an optional accessory.; General Motors petitioned the agency to reconsider this requirement asking for a modified level of performance if a vehicle is unable to meet the original values and test points at 5 degrees down. The agency denied this petition on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed).; Absent a change in the language of the standard, we have no authorit to exempt, on our own motion, 'deck rack cross rails from compliance'. Temporary exemptions are granted only to manufacturers of vehicles, upon their petition, and only for a limited purpose, after a period of public comment. Given the rule concerned and the factual situation you present, we see no viable basis for such an exemption petition.; We understand that your company is a manufacturer of luggage racks fo motor vehicles, and General Motors intends to offer these racks on certain of its 1985 J-model passenger cars, which will be equipped with the new stop lamp as standard equipment. The J- cars will meet all the requirements in Standard No. 108 with the luggage rack installed. However, you have received inquiries as to the permissibility of blockage of the lamp by a duffel or other load on the luggage rack.; A manufacturer certifies conformance of a vehicle with Standard No. 18 in the state that it is sold to the consumer and not on the basis of how the consumer may use it. This means that the vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 with any factory option installed, or dealer option installed before sale. For example, if GM offered the J- car with both a luggage rack and a duffel, a car would have to meet center high-mounted lamp requirements with both rack and duffel in place. But there is no Federal requirement that the lamp meet requirements if the duffel is supplied by the vehicle owner. If there is any prohibition, it would be contained in a State law or municipal ordinance.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 77-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/77 EST

FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on theaftermarket repair automotive industry.

In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold.

The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any". . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instance upon the terms of the "applicable" standard.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. An example of this type coverage is found in Standard No.107- REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. "Since this standard does

not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard,e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have no legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment.

Where,however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after January 1,1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard/motor vehicles.

There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards,No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No.206 - Door Latches and Door Supports,were amended on March 29,1967 (32 F.R.5498),to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This means that manufacturers of rearview mirrors,door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment:

Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps -- Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Pursuant to each of the above standards, equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles,as a replacement part,an accessory,or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards exempt from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles.

In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such

standards when they are forreplacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or members of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President

ID: 8745

Mr. David Degenstein
Manager, Product Safety & Compliance
Kenworth Truck Company
P. O. Box 1000
Kirkland, WA 98083-1000

Dear Mr. Degenstein:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether a control for an automatic vehicle speed system (also known as a cruise control) would meet the location requirement of Standard No. 101, and whether the control must be illuminated. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

Your letter explained that your company is developing a vehicle that "will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob." You state that the switches on the console will be "operable by the driver." You believe that because the cruise control console's location is similar to that of a switch located on the vehicle floor console, illumination of the cruise control is not necessary.

Your first question asks whether the proposed location of the cruise control would meet Standard No. 101. S5.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies that each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished" must be operable by the driver. S5.1 lists, under the heading of "hand operated control," the automatic vehicle speed system (i.e., the cruise control). Thus, under S5.1, a furnished hand operated cruise control must be operable by the driver.

It appears from your letter that the switches on the cruise control console are operable by the driver. Two photographs you enclosed show the cruise control as mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, and as located so close to the driver's seat as to be almost touching it. Accordingly, the proposed location of the cruise control console would be permitted by Standard No. 101.

Your second question asks whether your proposed cruise control would be subject to the illumination requirements of S5.3 of

Standard No. 101. S5.3.1 sets requirements concerning controls which must be illuminated. It provides that (except for hand operated controls mounted on the floor), any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, "Illumination," shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. The automatic vehicle speed control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and is accompanied by "yes" in column 4. Therefore, Standard No. 101 specifies that the cruise control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated, unless it is otherwise excepted in S5.3.1. As explained below, your cruise control would not be excepted.

You believe that the control is akin to being "mounted on the floor console" and thus excluded from S5.3.1's illumination requirements. We disagree. The dictionary definitions of "mount" include "to place on something raised," and "to place, fix, or fasten on or in the proper support, backing, etc. for the required purpose." (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Both definitions support the view that the cruise control console is "mounted" on the transmission shift lever, not the floor. The console is placed on the transmission shift lever (i.e., "something raised"), and is "place(d), fix(ed) or fasten(ed)" on the transmission shift lever for the "required purpose" of being operable by hand. The console with the cruise control would not be operable by hand if the console were "mounted" on the floor. Since the cruise control console is mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, not on the floor, it is not excluded by S5.3.1 from the illumination requirements.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101 d:9/7/93

ID: nht81-3.21

DATE: 09/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flag-It Signaling Device Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Transportation Safety Board had forward for reply your letter of June 10, 1981, asking whether the "Flag-It Automobile Signaling Device" would be legal to use according to your new regulations . . . ."

Requirements for equipment use are not established by the Federal government but by the individual State in which a vehicle is registered.

Our agency within the Department of Transportation establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to vehicle and equipment manufacturers. Your device consists of reflectors which hang beneath the front and rear bumper. They are not covered by our standard on reflectors (Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) nor would their installation appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, which could raise a question as to their legality.

SINCERELY,

FLAG-IT SIGNALING DEVICE CO.

JUNE 10, 1981

James King National Transporation Safety Board

Dear Mr. King:

I was interested in knowing if the Flag-it Automobile Signaling Device would be legal to use according to your new regulations that is perhaps now headed by the Regan Administration.

I have here in enclosed a copy of the letter I received sometime ago from the National Transporation Safety Board where as it was stated that the Flag-it device could be voluntarily installed on the rear of motor vehicles as are reflecting devices to promote visual awarness.

I have here in enclosed a sample Flag-it Safety Device, a copy of the United States Patent, also other material pertaining to this development.

Charles Schamblin

January 6, 1978

Charles Schamblin Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device Co.

Dear Mr. Schamblin:

Thank you for your recent letter which provided us the opportunity to examine your patented flourescent signaling device.

While the staff of the National Transportation Safety Board will certainly endorse any means which may prevent accidents by increasing the conspicuity of moving vehicles, we are not in the position to evaluate the potential benefits of any particular device. As you probably know, our primary function is accident investigation. We have no regulatory authority or research capability.

As indicated by others in previous correspondence, we find no reason why your Flag-It signal could not be voluntarily installed on the rear end of motor vehicles as are other reflecting devices to promote visual awareness. We believe, however, that present regulations regarding such installations are adequate.

Your device appears to be developed to the extent that it can be marketed in automotive accessory shops, but beyond that we can offer no further suggestions.

We are returning your sample and once again we wish to thank you for the interest which you have shown in the promotion of motor vehicle safety.

William G. Laynor, Jr. Chief, Vehicle Factors Division -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

STOPPING DISTANCE: From eye to brain to foot to wheel to road

BRAKING DISTANCE

(ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED)

Following the vehicle ahead too closely and making unsafe lane changes -- two of the leading contributing causes of accidents on freeways -- also were two of the most common violations for which freeway motorists were cited in 1971, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The Patrol reports it issued 100,016 citations for following too closely (tailgating) and 66,617 for unsafe lane changes.

Following too closely is covered by Section 21703 of the California Vehicle Code. It states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway."

According to the National Safety council, 3,282,800 accidents, or 13.2 percent of all urban accidents in the United States in 1971, were reported to have been caused by following too closely behind another vehicle.

A general rule-of-thumb is to keep at least one vehicle length (about 20 feet) behind the vehicle ahead for each 10 miles per hour you are traveling. Thus, if you are moving at 60 mph, you should stay at least six vehicle lengths (about 120 feet) behind the other vehicle. You should stay even farther behind, of course, when highways are wet or icy. In this way, if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly, you will have a much better chance of avoiding a rear-end collision.

Unsafe lane changes can get you in trouble, too. Offenses in this category include straddling the line be-two lanes and moving from one lane to another when it is unsafe to do so. Such maneuvers can cause sideswiping accidents, and cause other motorists to take evasive action which may result in collisions.

These violations are covered by Section 21658 of the Vehicle Code, which provides that: "(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety." This applies where the road has two or more marked lanes for traffic in one direction.

If you have any comments on the Flag-It Safety Device I would appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely, Charles Schamblin

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Date June 23, 1981

Dear Mr. Schamblin:

We have received your correspondence concerning the Flag-It Signaling Device dated June 10, 1981, and June 17, 1981.

The National Transportation Safety Board, however, does not have jurisdiction over or information about this matter. Your correspondence has therefore been referred to the agency shown below for such action as may be necessary:

Mr. George Parker Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Sfty. Admin. 400-7th St., S.W. Wash., D.C. 20590

National Transportation Safety Board

Mr. George Parker National Hwy Traffic Sfty. Admin.

Dear Mr. Parker:

I have here in enclosed a sample of the Flag-It Signaling Device from this model it can be seen from both sides adding additional safety for vehicles. SINCERELY,

Charles Schamblin

FLAG-IT SIGNALING DEVICE CO.

JUNE 17, 1981

James King National Transportation Safety Board

Dear Mr. King:

I forward to you about a week ago a sample of the Flag-it Safety Device. Since that time I was also interested in knowing of approval can be obtained for the manufactures Flag-it Safety I have here in enclosed the sample for approval.

It is my understanding that white reflectors meets specifications for bicycles that is approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

If it were possible to have the approval of the National Transportation Safety Board for the Flag-it Safety Device I have here in enclosed I personally believe it would be very effective in the prevention of automobiles.

Thanks for your interest in automobile safety.

Charles Schamblin

[45] Feb. 12, 1974

[54] SIGNALING DEVICE

[76] Inventor: Charles H. Schamblin, 1714 South M St. Bakersfield, Calif. 93302

x[22] Filed: Feb. 26, 1973

[21] Appl. No.: 335,658

[52] U.S. Cl. 116/28 R. 40/129 C. 280/154.5 R

Patent Omitted.

ID: nht76-1.39

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of March 22 and June 9, 1976, concerning the classification of motor-scooters and the tires designed for them.

"Motorcycle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

"Motor-driven cycle" is defined as:

a motorcycle with a motor than produces 5 brake horsepower or less.

The category of "motor-driven cycles" includes, but is not limited to, motorized bicycles. There is no definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter". Such a vehicle is a motorcycle and, depending on the brake horsepower of its engine, may also be a motor-driven cycle. In any event, a tire for use on such a vehicle is a motorcycle tire that is subject to all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. However, your letter is being considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Federal Register notice on this subject.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DUNLOP LIMITED

Ref: RGC/MJW/5859/40G

Richard B Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 22, 1976

Dear Mr Dyson

SCOOTER TYRES - MVSS 119

I am advised that american importers of scooters are insisting that tyres for these machines be labelled to show conformity with Standard 119 and this poses a number or problems, both legal and practical.

I am taking the liberty of writing to you for advice on this subject since it is closely related to the general question of the application of Standard 119 to the case of tyres for speed-restricted motorcycles i.e. the case covered in ETRTO submission No. 6/119 dated 5 February 1975; for ease of reference I would advise that you acknowledged this petition in your letter N40-30MS dated 4 March 1975 and also advised in your letter N40-30, dated 26 February 1976, that you expected a Federal Register notice on this petition to be published shortly.

The primary problem is one of definition, since I cannot find any legal definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter".

On the other hand it can be argued, with justification, that a scooter falls within the definition of "motorcycle" or "motor-driven cycles" of part 571.3 "Definitions" depending on the brake horse power of the engine with which the machine is equipped.

I would believe - and perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm this - that the term "motor-driven cycle" is intended to cover motorised bicycles e.g. mopeds, rather than vehicles whose sole source of propulsion is an engine.

Should this be the case then we are left with the definition of motorcycle as including scooters and while this is legally reasonable the resulting implications are somewhat unreasonable within the context of Standard 119 and, in particular, the high speed test requirement of Standard 119.

This test is designed to establish a high speed capability for motorcycle tyres of 85+mph on a test drum which equates to a speed significantly greater than 85 mph on the road and is a prefectly reasonable test for "full-blooded" motorcycles which normally have a speed capability of this order, but is totally unrealistic for scooter tyres, since scooters, in general, are, by design and nature of the vehicle, of much lower speed capability, normally c50-60 mph max. It is for this reason that they are equipped with very small tyres, usually in the order of 4" tyre section width and fitting wheels of 8", 10" or occasionally 12" diameter - clearly these are tyres not designed for very high speed operations.

However, unless scooters are defined differently from motorcycles these small tyres will be required to pass the high speed test of Standard 119.

An alternative, which I would believe to be legally admissible, would be to mark scooter tyres as speed-restricted tyres reference Standard 119 para. S6.5 (e), on the basis that the high speed test would no longer be applicable. In the case of scooter tyres the speed restriction could be 60 mph which would then directly relate scooter tyres to "tyres for small cubic capacity motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)" of ETRTO submission No. 6/119.

Should this alternative be the one adopted this would resolve the problem of the high speed test but there would then remain the question of the breaking energy values to be used i.e. either the values in Table 2 of Standard 119 under the title "motorcycle" or under the title "all 12" or smaller rim size" and this can presumably be resolved only after a decision is taken on whether scooters remain within the definition of motorcycle or are separately defined e.g. as "motorcycles of restricted speed capability 60 mph max".

In view of the fact that our inability to determine the relevance of scooter tyres within the context of Standard 119, and hence the test and markings which are applicable, it will be appreciated that there is a certain barrier to trade in this context; thus your earliest advice on the problems expressed above would be appreciated and, in particular, your advice on whether this problem can be treated as an extension of ETRTO petition No. 6/119.

Yours sincerely

R G CLIFTON -- Manager - Tyre Legislation

ID: nht68-1.15

DATE: 09/12/68

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

TO: California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 19 inquiring as to the certification responsibility of manufacturers or assemblers of dune buggy kits with respect to conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But the issue you raise is far broader and involves the whole area of owner-assembled motor vehicles.

You have stated:

"It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use."

This interpretation is incorrect. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for any person to:

". . .introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . .any motor vehicle. . manufactured (or assembled) on and after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . .unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ."

This means that the final assembler of a dune buggy whoever he is, must insure that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable Standards including No. 108. In the case of dune buggies, this means Standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles since a dune buggy is "constructed. . .with special features for occasional off-road operation." (23 C.F.R. @ 255.3(b)).

It is our understanding that a dune buggy consists of a newly manufactured body mounted on the modified chassis of a passenger car previously in use. An issue is raised by the facts that dune buggies are assembled from both new and used items of motor vehicle equipment and that there is language in the Act which appears to exempt "any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (section 108(b)(1). However, since the modification involving used components goes far beyond customizing a used vehicle and results in the end product having a different classification under the Federal Standards and a different purpose than the original vehicle a dune buggy is a "new" motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.

Continuing your interpretation you further state:

"However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108."

Only assembled vehicles are required to conform to most Federal Standards including No. 108, and there is no legal requirement under the Act that a kit seller furnish lighting equipment meeting the various SAE requirements specified in that Standard. Some Federal Standard however, do establish requirements applicable to equipment items as well as to assembled vehicles. If a kit manufacturer furnishes hydraulic brake hoses (Standard No. 105), new pneumatic tires (Standard No. 109), glazing materials (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel discs, wheel covers, or hub caps (Standard No. 211), then these items must conform to the applicable Standard.

Finally, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the certification required by section 114 of the Act. This certification is required to be furnished only by a manufacturer or distributor, and only to a distributor or dealer upon delivery of a motor vehicle or equipment item to which a Standard or Standards are applicable. No certification is required to be given by a manufacturer to a party not a distributor or dealer. Nor is there any requirement that the assembler per se certify the vehicle. This of course, does not relieve the assembler of his independent obligation to insure that the assembled vehicle meets Federal Standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely

Robert M. O'Mahoney

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

August 19, 1968

Ref: 61.A1117.A518

David Fay Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. Fay:

A question has arisen on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to certain types of constructed dune buggies.

Dune buggies are constructed from various vehicle chassis and bodies but most commonly from Volkswagens. The three basic methods of constructing a dune buggy are:

1. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted into a dune buggy by changing the chassis.

2. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted to dune buggies by modifying both the body and chassis.

3. Dune buggy kits are sold which are comprised of various modified vehicle components.

Vehicle owners have been converting their cars into dune buggies and then, after they are through using them, sell them. Kit manufacturers sell kits to a customer, who in turn assembles the vehicle himself. These are the usual methods of making dune buggies other than buying them directly from a dune buggy manufacturer who assembles the entire vehicle from his own plans.

It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use. However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108.

A question has arisen concerning whether or not it is the responsibility of the kit seller to certify that the kit, when assembled, will comply with the Federal standards or if the assembler must certify that the completed vehicle complies with the Federal Standards. There is no question of the necessity to certify the vehicle if it is manufactured or assembled by a dune buggy manufacturer. The California Vehicle Code requires dune buggies to comply with the equipment and lighting requirements of California. Inasmuch as the effect of Federal Standard No. 108 on these types of vehicles has been questioned, we request your opinion or concurrence on our interpretation of the applicability to the standard of these vehicles.

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEALTH --

Commander

Engineering Section,

DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

ID: nht93-1.50

DATE: February 26, 1993

FROM: Vincent Schulze -- Chief, Motor Carrier Inspection and Investigation, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation

TO: Ron Havelar -- Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration

COPYEE: D. Webb

TITLE: RE: FMVSS No. 217 Bus Emergency Exits MC 83-93

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from John Womack to Vincent Schulze (A41; Std. 217).

TEXT: Questions have arisen as to the interpretation of a position of FMVSS 217 pertaining to emergency exits on buses.

This office has always defined an emergency exit on a bus as a window or door that must open PERPENDICULAR to the surface of a bus, such as a car door, for example.

A bus company has presented a bus to this Department for inspection which has side windows that SLIDE OPEN as opposed to opening PERPENDICULAR to the bus surface. This office has rejected the bus for not meeting the requirements of FMVSS 217 (S5.4) which states that the push-out window or other emergency exit shall ... be manually extendable .....

My question is this -- can a bus meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 by having side sliding windows?

Thank you for your anticipated response.

ID: nht71-5.4

DATE: 11/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1971, concerning the status of your petition to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", to allow the use of Uvex plastic sheet in motor vehicles. You request our comments regarding three matters which you list, and which are incorporated into our responses below.

You ask us to "explain that Uvex Sheet Plastic is and has been under active consideration for vehicle glazing approval for some time and that an early decision is anticipated." A notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205 (Docket No. 71-1) was published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326). This notice would allow the use in motor vehicles of plastic materials, not presently allowed, that meet certain specified requirements. This notice is based in part upon a petition submitted by Enstran Chemical. The requirements do not refer to Uvex or any other material by name. The Administration takes no position on whether Uvex material would meet the proposal requirements. A final decision based on this notice is anticipated in the near future.

The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 9, 1971, does, as you indicate, propose other amendments to Standard No. 205. Some of these proposals have engendered substantial interest from industry and have consequently affected the amount of Agency work involved in the rulemaking action.

Finally, you ask if State highway standards preventing the use of Uvex will continue to be effective if Uvex is allowed to be used under the Federal standards. Under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), a State motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a particular aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance must be identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to that same aspect of performance. Consequently, a State vehicle standard prohibiting all use of Uvex would be pre-empted to the extent that amendment of Standard No. 205 permits its use.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.