ID: nht71-3.45

DATE: 07/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Rueck and Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1971, to the National Highway Safety Bureau (now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) concerning the requirements for sealed beam headlamp units.

The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Sealed beam units must meet the photometric specifications in SAE J579 at the design voltage at or below the maximum amperes specified in SAE J573.

2. Tolerances are as follows:

Electrical power - the maximum electrical power is the product, in watts, of the design voltage multiplied by the maximum amperes at design volts. There is no specified minimum electrical power.

Maximum amperes - There is no tolerance. Maximum amperes is the maximum specified in SAE J573.

Design watts - There is no tolerance. There is, however, a tolerance on the actual watts or electrical power as described above.

3.4.4. The filament types and positions are illustrative of current practice only. Any type or position may be used to meet the specification of J579 and J573.

5. All glass sealed beam units are not mandatory. There are no restriction in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or the SAE Standards on the number of pieces or the materials which are used to complete the assembled sealed beam unit as long as the specifications, including those in SAE J571, are met. Caution should be used, however, to ensure that a good and durable seal is obtained between the metal back, if used, and the other parts to optimize the useful service life of the sealed beam unit.

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: nht93-3.32

DATE: May 4, 1993

FROM: St. F. Steiner -- Consultant, AET Network

TO: John Womack -- Chief Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-17-93 from John Womack (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to St. F. Steiner (A41; Part 591)

TEXT: As an environmentally, concerned company, our goal is to become proactive before the new California 2010 Emissions State Law is to be effective and the President of the United States signs the new Environmental Protection Laws. We think it's time to aggressively contribute in the development of human responsibility and thus, build up an agreeable base for our children and future.

Because of this, our company is into environmental protection by way of contributing toward the reduction of gasoline pollution attributed to the transportation industry. In our efforts, our goal is to import electric automobiles from Europe for research and exploration. In order to do this, we need your assistance on the following U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements for 3 and 4 wheelers with 1 to 5 passengers.

o Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?

o Is there a minimum speed standard regulation for the above mentioned automobiles?

o Are there weight limitations for the above mentioned automobiles?

o What conversions would be required in order to meet U.S. specifications and standards? o Could these automobiles be permitted on highways?

Thank you for taking the time to review our needs. Your immediate response and assistance would be greatly appreciated in supporting our effort towards improving our environment. If you should inquire additional information about our electric automobiles please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht95-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We a re not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht73-3.24

DATE: 02/14/73

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

TO: Orin D. Miner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your letter asking that we respond to your questions.

In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collected from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).

Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the general funds of the United States Treasury.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including the passenger car tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.

In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers of non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not an area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.

Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed in tire manufacturers' plants, this has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your views in this area.

ID: nht69-2.13

DATE: 07/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1969, in which you ask whether a form that you enclose satisfies the requirements of Consumer Information section S75.106, Acceleration and Pusint Ability.

Your placement of the words "not capable" in the figure conforms to the requirements of the section. It is not necessary to include the words in the diagram also. In reference to your question concerning line spacing: In presenting the information "in essentially the form illustrated in Figure 1" (section 375.106(c)), it is not necessary that the manufacturer's presentation be an exact copy of the figure in respect to type face, line spacing, and so forth. The presentation in your enclosure would be adequate in those respects.

In answer to your question about teduction of the figure. The regulation did not specify a type size, but the information is required to be exactly legible. The size in which the figure appeared in the Federal Register would appear to approximate the minimum in this regard.

Finally, I should note that the "Description of Vehicles to which this Table Applies" is required by section 375.106(c)(1) to be "in the(Illegible Word) by which they are described to the public by the manufacturer". This would normally be in terms of the model designation,(Illegible Word) equipment, or other common description, not the regulatory type of "motor-driven(Illegible Word) as you indicate (unless, of course, this is your company(Illegible Word) designation of this type).

I am pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht70-1.50

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Florence L. Dawson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of March 2, 1970, to Mr. Douglas Toms concerning the failure of the electrical system in your 1968 Volkswagen has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards include no specific requirement for electrical systems. However, there are minimum performance requirements for certain vehicle components--such as a brake system warning light and various lighting components--which necessarily rely upon a properly functioning electrical system for compliance with the applicable Standards.

I have enclosed for your information a booklet describing briefly the Federal Standards which are presently in force. A copy of the complete Standards publication and all supplements may be purchased at an annual price of $ 8.00 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20102.

This Bureau does not become involved in individual contractual relationships, such as exists between you and(Illegible Word) Motors or Volkwagon of America, Incorporated. Accordingly, we cannot assist you in obtaining further repairs for your vehicle. We are, however, interested in your experience from the point of view that what you have encountered might occur in other 1965 Volkwagon vehicles. Presently, we have no knowledge of other related failure, but we have made note of your complaint and we will remain alert for any similar reports.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does not create a right of action by which a vehicle owner way sue a vehicle manufacturer if a safety-related defect is discovered in a vehicle. I suggest you contact an attorney as to possible recourse under Pennsylvania law.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review your experience.

ID: nht70-1.7

DATE: 03/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Industrija Gouijevih

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of January 8, 1970, the Department of Transportation hereby assign number 212 to Sava, Industrija Gouijevih,(Illegible Words) Jugoslavija as its approved code mark. The approved code mark is for use in identifying the tire manufacturer in accordance with S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1421(1)).

You are correct that all passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968 must have permanently molded into or onto them the approved "DOT" recital. However, the application of the recital is not to import purposes only. The application of the(Illegible Words) by a tire manufacturer is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all of the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Standard 109 specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements for bend unseating resistance, strength, endurance and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labeling requirements. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

The National Highway Safety Bureau does not certify tires prior to the manufacturer's application of the "DOT" symbol. However, we do maintain a compliance test program by which certification of manufacturers are verified. Violations of this certification are subject to a fine of $ 1,000.00 per tire.

Your attention is directed to the requirements for designation of an agent in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Subsection (110(a)). This requirement is implemented by our General Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process: Agents. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements for your information.

ID: nht95-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: aiam4772

"Dear Mr. Blackwell: This is in response to your letter asking whethe a certain vehicle that you plan to export to the United States would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You state that Liquidus has 'designed a system' by customizing an existing road tanker for 'overhead' loading. The vehicle you plan to export would be used for 'aircraft de-icing storage' and 'loading of aircraft de-icing tarmac vehicles while in a fixed location.' The road tanker used in your system was originally built in Canada by a firm that has since gone out of business. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new 'motor vehicles' and new items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' Accordingly, your vehicle is subject to the safety standards only if it is considered within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are also not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., certain airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In addition, items of mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads. NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. We would apply these principles to the vehicle identified in your letter as follows. Your letter stated that this vehicle will be immobilized after it reaches the airport. Assuming this immobilization occurs, this vehicle would appear to be designed and sold solely for off-road use, just like certain other airport runway vehicles. In this case, it would not be a motor vehicle, even though it is operationally capable of highway travel before the immobilization. However, if the vehicle were not subsequently immobilized, and were moved from airport to airport with only a limited stay at any job site, this vehicle might be considered a 'motor vehicle.' This conclusion would be even more likely if a significant percentage of the vehicle's purchasers were to use the vehicle by moving it from airport to airport, notwithstanding your company's intent that the vehicles not be so used. This situation would be analogous to the classification of dune buggies. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact John Rigby of this office by mail at the above address or by telephone at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";