ID: nht76-5.21

DATE: 07/08/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kentucky Manufacturing Company's June 17, 1976, question whether the replacement of the frame of a converter dolly constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the fifth wheel of the damaged converter dolly are reused. This office received clarification from you by telephone that the fifth wheel would be reused, although this was not stated in your letter.

The replacement of the frame is considered a repair by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and not the manufacture of a new vehicle. Thus the operation you describe would not constitute the manufacture of a new trailer that would require certification of compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

I have enclosed a copy of a recent amendment of NHTSA regulations that permits the rebuilding of trailers without certification in some cases when it was previously prohibited. The details of the conditions under which such rebuilding is allowed are discussed in the preamble of the document.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

June 17, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Would the installation of a new frame on a converter dolly require certification to FMVSS-121 if the axle, air brake equipment, wheels & tires are used from the old, damaged unit? The dolly would still carry the old identification, serial number, etc.

Very truly yours,

Glenn W. Dobrick -- Chief Engineer

ID: nht74-3.27

DATE: 09/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales Inc.

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1974, inquiring as to whether or not a vehicle with unitized construction, developed as a truck and converted to carry passengers may be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Your description of the vehicle in question indicates that it does qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The reference to "truck chassis" in the MPV definition was intended to include vehicles that were designed and developed as trucks but have been produced in a version for carrying passengers. Since the delivery van referenced in your letter was developed as a truck, its modification to enable the carrying of passengers places it in the MPV category.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A. INC.

August 12, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would like to request your interpretation of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as defined in @ 571.3 Definitions of PART 571-FMVSS Subpart A.

Our concern is with the meaning of "truck chassis" and whether or not we can classify the following vehicle in the MPV category under the above-cited definition.

Among our car lines we have a delivery van, a diagram of which is attached. This van has a unitized body construction, but it was developed for cargo transportation. In other words, it could be classified as a truck. If we were to install enough seats in this van to enable it to carry ten passengers or less, could this vehicle as modified be classified in the MPV category?

Your interpretation of the above will be greatly appreciated.

THANK YOU.

K. Nakajima

Director/General Manager

Factory Representative Office

ATTACHMENT (Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

Wheelbase: 2200 mm

ID: nht75-4.46

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1975, in which you ask whether the exemption provided by 49 CFR @ 571.7(c) applies to all commercial vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.

All vehicles (including commercial vehicles) meeting the definition of "motor vehicle" in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(3)) that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity to contractual specifications are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under 49 CFR @ 571.7(c).

We hope this information is of assistance.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

UNITED STATES ARMY TANK AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND

AUGUST 29, 1975

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The advice provided by your letter of 6 June 1975 (copy attached) was sincerely appreciated and resolved the specific matter of the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to Commercial Construction Equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces.

We would appreciate your further advice concerning applicability in the case of commercial vehicles (other than commercial construction) sold directly to the Army. These would include such items as commercial truck tractors.

More specifically our inquiry is with regard to the applicability of the exemption stated in Section 571.7(c) to all commercial vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ALBERT A. DAWES

Chief, Procurement Law Division

ID: nht95-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E. -- The Braun Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/18/94 letter from Jerry G. Sullivan to Mary Versailles (OCC 10443)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on n on-school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section @5.2.

The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating pos itions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement.

With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door a s an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht91-6.43

DATE: October 30, 1991

FROM: Edward M. Klisz -- Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Edward M. Klisz (A39; Std. 119; Part 574)

TEXT:

Reference is made to a telephone conversation between Mr. Marvin Shaw of your office and Mr. Edward Klisz of the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) on 25 Oct 91, regarding foreign made tires procured in Southwest Asia (SWA) during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield.

As indicated during the telephone conversation TACOM (as the Department of Defense's (DOD) designated tire manager) is trying to ascertain the suitability for Army use of foreign made tires procured while units were in SWA. Some of these tires had DOT markings on them and some did not. Enclosed is a listing of tires currently stored at Fort Stewart, GA. Request your office review this list and determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to your records.

We are also interested in understanding the process better. It is our understanding that foreign manufacturer's must register with your office to obtain a certification number which would signify that the tire will meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). When the tires enter the U.S., the importer, in-essence, becomes the manufacturer and is responsible for the certification of the tires. Further, we understand that the process is a self-certification process and there may be some random testing done. Request you correct any misunderstanding we may have or enlighten us further on how the process works and any pitfalls we should be aware of.

We would appreciate a reply by 15 Nov 91 so that we can act as expeditiously as possible to dispose of any unsafe tires.

ID: nht95-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott E. Mack -- Senior Product Manager, Philips Lighting Company

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM SCOTT E. MACK TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10269)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mack:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1995, requesting a confirmation of your interpretation that "Philips Color Clear (TM) Halogen Headlights . . . are in compliance with FMVSS-108."

The product in questions "appears to be colored when not in use" but "when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C." You have provided a report from ETL Testing Laboratories which "indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight."

There is no definition of white light in SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978. We believe you mean SAE J578d Color Specification for Lighting Devices, September 1978 which does contain a definition expressed in chromati city coordinates. The report you supplied indicates that the Philips lamp provides a light within the color coordinates for white when equipped with a red, black, blue, or white insert. As Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the color of glas s lamp lenses or bulbs, only the light emitted from the lamp, we confirm your conclusion that the Philips Color Clear (TM) headlamp has been designed to conform to the color requirements of Standard No. 108.

We appreciated your visit to NHTSA on April 26 to demonstrate the lamp with its various inserts. I understand that the light produced by the lamp, and by a standard headlamp, appeared identical to the naked eye in a side by side comparison.

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

ID: nht95-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1995

FROM: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting and Electrical, Federal Mogul Corp.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/16/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN C. GOLDEN (A43; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); STD. 125)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

We are seeking some clarification on F.M.V.S.S. 125 and how it relates to a letter you wrote Mr. John G. Klinge, Executive Vice President, Visibility Systems Company dated 12 August, 1994.

We market a wide variety of lighting and safety devices under the brand name Signal-State. Mr. Klinge provided us a copy of your written response to his inquiry before we chose to go ahead and market his product under our name.

Now, Mr. Klinge would like us to market a three-pack version of his battery operated safety strobe device (an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2" on each side) that is, in our opinion, specifically designed for use on DOT warning triangles. We think i t is a terrific idea. However, before we market this item we have one question:

The requirement for warning triangles is for 17" (minimum) leg length and 2" (minimum) leg width. The red reflector must be 1/2" (minimum) width. Does the mounting of one of these devices (as pictured, attached) take away minimum reflective area suc h that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?

Our greatest fear is the possibility of a motorist coming over a hill on a dark night . . . and over that hill is a broken down vehicle . . . with triangles properly deployed . . . but with a Lightman on top of each . . . with dead batteries.

If you think we should contact the Federal Highway Administration for clarification, please be kind enough to direct me to the proper person.

(Brochure Omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas L. Wright, -- Acting Manager, MVS Customer Services, State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JEFFREY PUENTES; ALSO ATTACHED TO 4/28/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 10890)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your request for information about responsibilities of motorcycle manufacturers. As you discussed with Dorothy Nakama, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "regulate" how an enterprise becomes a "recognize d manufacturer."

Enclosed is NHTSA's information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which discusses the main requirements of 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. (formerly the Vehicle Safety Act). A copy of the Act is enclosed. Under section 30112(a) of the Act, a motorcycle manufacturer may not manufacture a motorcycle for sale unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and is covered by a certification issued under 49 U.S.C. secti on 30115. One safety standard is Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. (See 49 CFR 571.115.) In our regulations, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, NHTSA has promulgated the requirement that a manufacturer certify complianc e of its motorcycle with all applicable safety standards. Under part 566, NHTSA requires manufacturers to submit certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce.

Also enclosed is a copy of a July 13, 1992 interpretation letter to Mr. Jeffrey Puentes, discussing serial numbers on motorcycle frames versus motorcycle VINs.

As you may be aware, "certificates of origin" are matters relating to vehicle titling, which the State regulates, rather than NHTSA.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede e Stabilimenti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/22/95 LETTER FROM GIUSEPPE DI VITO TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10947)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil test). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test applies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede e Stabilimenti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/22/95 LETTER FROM GIUSEPPE DI VITO TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10947)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter t hat you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil t est). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test appl ies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.