ID: nht75-2.31

DATE: 05/20/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reply to your letter of April 22, 1975, the "wheel nuts" covered by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211 are large, center-mounted hub nuts, one to a wheel, that lock the tire to the axle.

They are not the individual nuts, often six to a wheel, that perform the same function, and which are generally covered by a wheel disc or hub cap.

Your hub nuts and hub bolts therefore need not be marked with a manufacturer's identification code.

YOURS TRULY,

April 22, 1975

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In the Docket No. 73-14; Notice 3 issued in the Federal Register dated on March 19, 1975, S 571.211 S 3.2. says,

"Each wheel nut, wheel disc, and hubcap shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the manufacturer's identification code---"

As shown in the sketch below, we use two ways to put the wheels on the vehicle, that is either (a) by screwing hub bolts only, or by screwing hub nuts into hub bolts inserted in the dram or disc with the pressure.

We are now wondering if these hub nut and hub bolt will be included in above requirement. We would appreciate your view on this issue. Thank you.

H. (SPEEDY) Hirai Technical Representative Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. (MAZDA) Representative Office

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.32

DATE: 12/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 20, 1975, letter concerning the use of replacement parts which may affect a vehicle's compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is applicable only to vehicles.

You have presented the example of a vehicle that, if equipped with a door that does not have guard bars, would not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. Because that standard is applicable only to passenger cars, there is no prohibition on the mere sale of such doors for use as replacement equipment. However, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ("the Act"), specifies that

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "motor vehicle repair business" means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.

Therefore, the installation of a door that does not have guard bars is a violation of the Act, if that installation is performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Installation of such a door by one of your dealers, for example, is not permitted.

Your letter also asked whether the use of such doors would be permitted in the future, in the event that Standard No. 214 is relaxed in a way that would permit the use of such doors on a new vehicle. It is the opinion of this agency that replacement of a door, or any other safety system installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, with a system mandated by a later safety standard (even if the later standard imposes a less stringent level of performance) would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

November 20, 1975

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is to ask your interpretation regarding the requirement for replacement parts in the case of FMVSS's which are applied to only the vehicle, such a FMVSS 105, 114, 208, 214, 215 and so on.

1) Since the above mentioned FMVSS's require that the vehicle must be in compliance with them at only the time of manufacture, may we understand that there is no requirement for replacement parts of the vehicle after retail?

(example)

When we replace the door of 1974 model vehicle, may we use the door without guard bars as the replacement part? ( In this case, this vehicle does not meet FMVSS 214 after replacement)

If the answer is no, is it due to the fact that there is Motor Vehicle Safety Act Sec. 108(a) (2) (A)?

2) When the requirement is relaxed, may we use the replacement parts which do not meet the requrement before relaxation?

(example)

If in the future, FMVSS 214 is relaxed and we need not use the door with guard bars as a result of relaxation, may we use the door without guard bars as the replacement part of the vehicle manufactured before relaxation?

Thank you for your attention to the above question. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

ID: nht75-2.33

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokio Iinuma

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 27, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 219 with respect to certain of your test results.

The primary purpose of Standard No. 219 is to protect vehicle occupants from impact with vehicle parts that have penetrated into the passenger compartment through the windshield during a crash. The inner surface of the windshield is the area of interface between the windshield and the passenger compartment. Therefore, the standard is designed to ensure that nothing penetrates into the passenger compartment by precluding penetration of the inner surface of the windshield below the protected zone in a crash test.

In Case 1, although the windshield below the protected zone was cracked, nothing penetrated the inner surface of the windshield. Therefore, it would appear that the windshield is in compliance with S5 of Standard No. 219.

Similarly, in Case 2, it appears that the object did not penetrate the inner surface of the windshield, although the windshield was deformed. Therefore, it would appear that the vehicle is also in compliance.

We hope this information is of assistance. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

August 27, 1975

Frank Berndt Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 219: Windshield Zone Intrusion

This is to request your interpretation of FMVSS 219; S.5 which states, "no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S.6"

Something hit against the portion of the windshield below the protected zone and cracked it in the following cases:

Case 1. As the deformation of the glass was very little, it could not be observed even in the movie analysis. However, the shock was enough to crack the glass.

Case 22. The deformation of the glass could be observed visibly, but the film between glasses was not broken and nothing went through the windshield.

That is, the object did not get in touch with the air in the occupant compartment.

May we understand that the tested vehicles in the above two cases are in compliance with the requirement respectively?

Thank you for your attention to the above request. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Tokio Iinuma

Staff, Safety

ID: nht75-2.34

DATE: 06/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Beller Alfred Teves GMBH 6 Frankfurt/Main 2 Postfach 119155 Germany

Dear Mr. Beller:

This responds to your May 20, 1975, request for confirmatioin that reversal in the specified order of two required reservoir labeling statements on 40,000 labels produced for Alfred Teves GMBH will not be considered a violation of S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, when used on motor vehicles which must comply with the standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reviewed the sample label enclosed with your letter. The requirement of the standard in question reads:

S5.4.3 Each vehicle shall have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at least 1/8 of an inch high: "WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing, Use only -------------- ---fluid from a sealed container". . . .

It is possible that the words "statement that reads as follows" could have been misconstrued to permit a variation in the order of the two statements. As a general matter, the NHTSA does not consider any deviation from the illustrated order of labeling statements, where they are set out in quotation marks as in this standard, to be allowable. Because a letter of interpretation has been necessary in this case, however, the agency will not consider labels printed with reversed statements prior to receipt of this letter to be out of conformity with S5.4.3. The NHTSA will assume that further printings of the reservoir labeling statements will conform to S5.4.3 in all respects.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz

Chief Counsel

By Air Mail

U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Attn.: Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

Washington U.S.A.

TEV-Ballw./A. 908 May 20, 1975

Subject: Identification According to FMVSS 105a Hydraulic Brakc Systems

Dear Mr. Dyson,

Due to an error in transmission within our company, on app????? 40,000 adhesive labels which were to be identified according to FMVSS 105a, the text was mixed up.

S.5.4.3 specifics: warning Clean filler cap before removing Use only DOT 3 Fluid from a ???? container.

Our text reads : Warning Use only DOT 3 Fluid from a ???? container. Clean filler cap b???? removing.

The order of the prescribed sentences was confounded.

After the error had been detected, printing of these labels was stopped and the proper text was inserted. Unfortunately 40,000 labels had already been printed. An oral inquiry ad??? by our representative, Mr Paul Utans, to your Office resu??? in the decision that these labels could be used for once the text was complete.

Due to the fact that our customers are asking for a written firmation of this oral consent, we wouldd like to ask you to forward us a corresponding consent.

Thanking you for your kind assistance we remain,

Your sincerely,

ALFRED TEVES GMB

ID: nht75-2.35

DATE: 07/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cooney Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1975, requesting information on forms and information to be used in complying with NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) and Manufacturer Identification regulations (49 CFR Part 566).

There are no special forms which the NHTSA provides for manufacturers for purposes of compliance with these requirements. Part 566 information may be furnished on a business letterhead. Part 567 and 568 information should be furnished in any form which complies with the prescribed requirements. You should be particularly aware of Sections 567.5 and 568.6 of these parts, which specify the information to be included on a certification label by a final-stage manufacturer. The Quarterly Report of Vehicles Produced is no longer required to be submitted. Although these requirements may be modified as a result of litigation, the NHTSA will consider compliance with the published requirements to meet any manufacturer's responsibilities for certification under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403). Copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 are enclosed.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to write again.

ID: nht75-2.36

DATE: 10/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Willamette Wheel Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1975, asking whether you are required to have a "manufacturers number" as a result of modification work you perform on Datsun pickups.

It appears from your letter that you are a vehicle alterer as defined in 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed). As an alterer, you are not necessarily a manufacturer and are not required to file the identifying information required by 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed). However, as an alterer, you must affix a label to the vehicle stating that as altered, the vehicle conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label described in your letter does not meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567.7.

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

ID: nht75-2.37

DATE: 04/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whether a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of this office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code @ 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:

(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seven feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle;***

(b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shall be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***

It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code also provides in @ 46.1-267:

*** No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equipped with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.

As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to "preempt" the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 and Virginia Motor Vehicle Code @46.1-265 regulate the same "aspect of performance." If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:

* Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. An ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a "motor vehicle" under Virginia Code 46.1-265.

* Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certain specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.

* The configuration and color of the lights required by the two laws differ.

Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the extent that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code @ 46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia or Federal standards, is incorrect.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, II

March 21, 1975

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Recently several members of the Truck Body and Equipment Association have raised questions concerning state versus federal motor vehicle lighting requirements.

The vehicle in question is a multipurpose passenger vehicle less than eighty (80) inches wide, equipped with a raised roof.

Our question is as follows: Can a state require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under FMVSS #108?

Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht75-2.38

DATE: 08/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Budd Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1975, asking which standards might be affected by the mounting of a tail lamp in the elastic skin of a bumper.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, prescribes barrier and pendulum impact tests to which vehicles must be subjected without incurring certain types of damage. Included in the list of safety systems that must remain undamaged are lamps and reflective devices. S5.3.1 of Standard 215 states that each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, must remain free of cracks and comply with the applicable visibility requirements of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

The manufacturer should be aware that placement of a tail lamp in the elastic skin of a bumper might expose it to damage during Standard 215 compliance testing.

For your information, I have enclosed copies of the current Standard No. 215, the proposed Part 580 bumper damageability standard, and Standard No. 108.

ID: nht75-2.39

DATE: 05/30/75

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

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 15, 1975, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 requirements for Type 1A and 2A automotive headlamps.

The following answers are provided for your specific questions

1. FMVSS No. 108 would not prohibit use of metal-back Types 1A and 2A headlamps that conform to all requirements of the standard.

2. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals on automotive equipment. The equipment manufacturer self certifies that the equipment conforms to the applicable FMVSS. The various states may, however, require equipment approval. Information on these approvals may be obtained from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20036.

3. The drawings of the Type 1A and 2A headlamp submitted with your letter, indicate that aiming pads have been deleted. Aiming pads are required by FMVSS No. 108.

For your information enclosed is a copy of FMVSS No. 108, which includes requirements for Types 1A and 2A headlamps, and a copy of Docket No. 75-8 Notice 1, that proposes to allow use of the four-lamp rectangular systems indefinitely.

ID: nht75-2.4

DATE: 06/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co. of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your requests for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119.

Your letter of March 3, 1975, presented the following two questions:

1. Say a person with a vehicle which has Canadian or Mexican license plates is driving this vehicle in the United States. If the tires do not comply with the FMVSS No. 119 is it illegal for this vehicle to be operated in the United States Territories?

Under Part 12 of the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR Sec. 12.80, a person may import such tires if he files a declaration that the importation is primarily for his personal use for a period not exceeding one year and that he will not resell the tires within the United States. For persons regularly entering the United States at the Canadian or Mexican borders, there is a special provision for simplifying the declaration procedure. The relevant portion of the regulation is Section 12.80(b)(2)(v) (copy enclosed).

2. Say a driver is vacationing in Canada or Mexico and receives an unrepairable puncture on one tire. If this new tire does not comply with the FMVSS No. 119, is it legal for him to re-enter the United States with this tire on his vehicle (Illegible Word) run the tire for the remainder of its tire life?

It is not legal for the driver to reenter the United States with this tire. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits the importation of such non-complying tires, with certain exceptions specified in Section 108(b). None of the exceptions is applicable to the situation which you have described.

Your letter of April 18, 1975, requested clarification of the testing requirements resulting from the use of the word "any" in the definition of "test rim" in Standard No. 109. That definition is as follows:

"Test rim" means, with reference to a tire to be tested, any rim that is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accordance with S4.4 . . .

Standard No. 109 does not specify the testing which you must do; it does specify the performance levels which tires must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. You have presented the example of tire size JR78-15, for which five rims are approved by the Tire and Ram Association. In this situation, each tire must be capable of meeting all of the Standard's performance requirements with whichever of the five rims the NHTSA chooses to use in its compliance testing. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to conduct tests with all five rims, you are not legally obligated to do so. The legal requirement is that you exercise due care in assuring yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA with a rim chosen by the NHTSA from among the five possibilities, the tire will meet the specified performance levels. You may do this by whatever means you determine to be reliable and necessary.

The letter of March 14, 1975, from Mr. Ohgiya of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturer's Association, Inc., was responded to on May 22, 1975, by Mr. E. T. Driver of this agency. I have enclosed a copy.