ID: aiam2761

Dear Mr. Beyer: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1977, requesting a interpretation whether motorcycles with turn signals are required to have turn signal indicators. You noted that Table 2 of Standard No. 123 does not include a turn signal indicator as a motorcycle display, while there appear to be conflicts within Standard No. 108, S4.5.6 requires an indicator but SAE Standard J588c (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108) requires an indicator only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.; Although S4.5.6 does require each vehicle equipped with a turn signa operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator, in my view a manufacturer who eliminated them in reliance upon J588c would not fail to comply with the standard if all signal lamps are readily visible to the driver.; However, we interpret 'readily visible to the driver' to mean visibl to the driver when facing forward in the driving position. Motorcycles are required to have separate turn signal lamps at or near the front, and at or near the rear of the vehicle. If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of his rear turn signal lamps, then those lamps are not 'readily visible to the driver' and a turn signal indicator must be provided. While Standard No. 123 itself in Table 3 does specify requirements for identification of turn signal 'control and display identification', it does not provide requirements for illumination and operation of the display in Table 2, as you noted.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2762

Dear Mr. Beyer: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1977, requesting a interpretation whether motorcycles with turn signals are required to have turn signal indicators. You noted that Table 2 of Standard No. 123 does not include a turn signal indicator as a motorcycle display, while there appear to be conflicts within Standard No. 108, S4.5.6 requires an indicator but SAE Standard J599c (incorporated be reference in Standard No. 108) requires and indicator only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.; Although S4.5.6 does require each vehicle equipped with a turn signa operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator, in my view a manufacturer who eliminated them in reliance upon J588c would not fail to comply with the standard if all signal lamps are readily visible to the driver.; However, We interpret 'readily visible to the driver' to mean visibl to the driver when facing forward in the driving position. Motorcycles are required to have separate turn signal lamps at or near the front, and at or near the rear of the vehicle. If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of his read turn signal lamps, the those lamps are not 'readily visible to the driver' and a turn signal indicator must be provided. While Standard No. 123 itself in Table 3 specifies requirements for identification turn signal 'control and display identification', it does not provide requirements for illumination and operation of the display in Table 2, as you noted.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your re view.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdictio n which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht94-8.49

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your review.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdiction which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: aiam5410

"Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This responds to your letter of June 1, 1994 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked whether the term 'underride protection device' as used in S5.7.1.4.1 in Standard No. 108 'only include the device yet to be required by NHTSA or would it include the device described in TTMA RP No. 92?' At present, the term 'rear underride protection device' as used in Standard No. 108 means the common 'ICC bumper' described by the Federal Highway Administration in 49 CFR 393.86, or a similar device that the manufacturer of a trailer has provided regardless of whether it is required by 49 CFR 393.86. Thus, it presently includes the device described in TTMA RP No. 92. You have informed us that some manufacturers are installing guards with round cross sections, and some with square cross sections rotated 45 degrees which results in a 'diamond' shape orientation. In addition, on some trash trailers, a curved hook grabs and holds the round cross section guard while trash is loaded into the trailers. You have asked whether a 38 mm wide retroreflective strip of sheeting applied to these guards will comply with Standard No. 108. S5.7.1.4.1(c) of Standard No. 108 specifies only that the strip shall be applied 'across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device.' Although the reflective material is certified by its manufacturer for photometric conformance in the vertical position, Standard No. 108 has not been interpreted to require structural changes in trailers for the sole purpose of enhancing the conspicuity installation. The agency's decision to avoid exceptions for trailers with unusual configurations was based on the expectation that manufacturers would use their available structures for conspicuity material, rather than re-engineer them. Thus, we believe that the application of 38 mm wide sheeting to either of these guards would comply with S5.7.1.4.1(c). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2460

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your November 2, 1976, letter concerning th type of statement regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, that must be included in the incomplete vehicle document supplied by General Motors Corporation along with its Cadillac commercial chassis.; You have essentially repeated the argument of your August 24, 1976 letter to me, in which you disagreed with the interpretation of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, that appeared in my July 20, 1976, letter to you. My letter explained that Part 568 prohibits the use by General Motors of a 'type (iii)' statement with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document.; Both of your letters emphasize the significant effects that the work o the final-stage manufacturer has on the capability of the completed vehicle to conform to Standard No. 301-75. The NHTSA is mindful of the significance of these effects, and has never suggested that the final-stage manufacturer's work would *not* substantially determine the vehicle's conformity with the standard. Both of your letters erroneously conclude, however, that because the work of the final-stage manufacturer '*will* substantially determine such conformity' (your emphasis), 'the design of such an incomplete vehicle many times *will not substantially determine* conformity...' (your emphasis). This conclusion ignores the interpretation in our letter that, with regard to the vehicles in question, conformity is '*substantially determined by both* the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer' (emphasis added). The NHTSA stands by this position.; As you have requested, the letters discussed above have been include in Docket No. EX76-3, Notice 2.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2462

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your November 2, 1976, letter concerning th type of statement regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, that must be included in the incomplete vehicle document supplied by General Motors Corporation along with its Cadillac commercial chassis.; You have essentially repeated the argument of your August 24, 1976 letter to me, in which you disagreed with the interpretation of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, that appeared in my July 20, 1976, letter to you. My letter explained that Part 568 prohibits the use by General Motors of a 'type (iii)' statement with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document.; Both of your letters emphasize the significant effects that the work o the final-stage manufacturer has on the capability of the completed vehicle to conform to Standard No. 301-75. The NHTSA is mindful of the significance of these effects, and has never suggested that the final-stage manufacturer's work would *not* substantially determine the vehicle's conformity with the standard. Both of your letters erroneously conclude, however, that because the work of the final-stage manufacturer '*will* substantially determine such conformity' (your emphasis), 'the design of such an incomplete vehicle many times *will not substantially determine* conformity...' (your emphasis). This conclusion ignores the interpretation in our letter that, with regard to the vehicles in question, conformity is '*substantially determined by both* the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer' (emphasis added). The NHTSA stands by this position.; As you have requested, the letters discussed above have been include in Docket No. EX76-3, Notice 2.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.11

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of August 4, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, to an intermittent-operation windshield wiper switch.

Your letter of June 4, 1975, described such an intermittent operation switch which is distinct from the normal windshield wiper switch. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, Standard No. 101 requires neither illumination nor any particular location for this intermittent switch, because the normal switch is already subject to all of the standard's requirements.

SINCERELY,

June 4, 1975

Richard B. Dyson NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

This is to request your official interpretation as to the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in the case of an 'intermittent-operation' windshield wiper switch. The switch would be offered as a dealer installed option and is intended for use when driving in light rain.

I am enclosing photographs showing the recommended switch positions, photo A shows placement on vehicles fitted with air conditioning, photo B is without airconditioning. The location of the standard wiper switch is shown in both photos.

The optional switch has a non-illuminated control knob identified by a windshield wiper symbol and the letters 'INT'.

The switch will cause the wipers to operate intermittently, one stroke across the windshield and back to the parked position, at intervals ranging from 2 to 10 seconds depending upon the degree of rotation of the control from the 'ON' position. The intermittent operation switch will operate the wipers when the standard wiper switch is in the 'OFF' position; switching ON the standard switch will over-ride the intermittent operation.

I would appreciate your early response on this matter. Please contact me if you need further information.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities (Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4178

Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretatio of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, *Windshield Retention*, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.; Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle (sic) that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.; You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, fo purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1 (sic); As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288) one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag- restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-4.14

DATE: 10/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Cross; Wrock; Miller & Vieson

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1980. In it you described the plan of your client, Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., to offer a modification of its Model A replica passenger car, currently produced under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, and you asked several questions regarding this modification.

Specifically, Model A wishes to offer a modification in which the rear section of the vehicle (rumble seat) is removed and replaced by a flat bed with sides. The seating capacity of the vehicle would be reduced to two passengers and the "modification will result in a vehicle configuration with the appearance of a Model A pickup truck." You have asked:

"1. As the modification will occur before complete manufacture of the vehicle, please confirm that the Company will not be considered as 'a person who alters certified vehicles' within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 568.8."

Since a vehicle cannot be said to comply until its manufacture is completed, and because certification is not legally required until the vehicle is delivered to a distributor, an alterer's statement is not required when modifications are made upon the assembly line by the certifying party itself, even if the certification label has been attached earlier in the manufacturing process.

You have also asked:

"2. Should the Company, for purposes of the certification required under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, treat the modified vehicle as a passenger car; or, in the alternative, should the Company certify the vehicle as a truck, relying on the same waivers granted the Company under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01 (and to the extent necessary, the exemption granted for Safety Standard 109 (new pneumatic tires) and and Safety Standard 110 (tire and rim combinations) for the comparable non-passenger vehicle Safety Standards 119 and 120)."

The question of whether a vehicle is a "passenger car" or "truck" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be answered by a manufacturer on the basis of the definitions contained in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Certainly the modification could be viewed as a "vehicle . . . designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (passenger car). But if it is "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment" it becomes a truck. Your letter does not indicate whether the "flat bed with sides" is intended to be load-bearing or merely decorative, or otherwise state the purpose for which its manufacturer intends it. If it is certified as a "passenger car," the exemptions in effect will apply to it.

We surmise, however, that the vehicle is intended as an alternate to the Model A passenger car, as a truck for carrying light loads. Certification as such would require compliance with Standards Nos. 119 and 120. Because the requirements differ from Standards Nos. 109 and 110, Exemption 79-01 would not cover the truck tire and rim standards, and Model A would either have to conform or apply for a temporary exemption.

We would, however, consider the vehicle as one covered by the original exemption if the modification results in no increase in the present gross vehicle weight rating stated on Model A's certification plate. An example of this would be if the modified vehicle's unloaded weight remains the same and its rated cargo load did not exceed 300 pounds (the equivalent of the reduction by two of the number of designated seats). This would insure that the modified vehicle's tires would bear no greater load than that of vehicles presently exempted and permit use of the exemptions currently in effect from the tire and rim standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

CROSS, WROCK, MILLER & VIESON COUNSELORS AT LAW

September 17, 1980

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corporation ("Company") has, since October 1, 1979, produced approximately 3,000 Model A passenger vehicles under the above-referenced Exemption. Because of the declining car market and the manufacturing cost increase, it is necessary, in order to promote sales for this vehicle, to offer a modification of the Model A passenger car. This modification entails removing the rear section of the vehicle (the rumble seat) and replacing it with a flat bed with sides. The resultant vehicle would have the added safety feature of eliminating the passenger seating that now exists in the rumble seat, and the modification would be done on the assembly-line before the vehicle is completed. Although the vehicle will in all respects be the same as the Model A passenger vehicle and would continue to be certified by the Company under NHTSA Exemption 79-01, such modification will result in a vehicle configuration with the appearance of a Model A pickup truck. In order to ensure proper compliance with the Exemption granted the Company, I would appreciate your review and response to the following items:

1. As the modification will occur before complete manufacture of the vehicle, please confirm that the Company will not be considered as "a person who alters