ID: nht68-4.11

DATE: 09/06/68

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

TO: The Flink Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in answering your letter of April 9 to the Office of Performance Analysis, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the obligations of Flink as a manufacturer of spreader equipment for installation on trucks. It appears that your primary concern is with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment).

You have asked:

"1. Who is responsible for the meeting of the requirements when the spreader is shipped to a distant point and there mounted on an existing truck either by a dealer or by the ultimate customer?"

Section 101(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes in the definition of manufacturer any person engaged in the assembling of motor vehicles. Accordingly, any person including a dealer, mounting a spreader to a truck, prior to its sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, will be responsible for insuring that the completed vehicle, when sold, complies with Federal Standard No. 108 and any other standard which might have been adversely affected by installation of the spreader.

"2. If the manufacturer complies with the law and attaches the lights, etc., is his responsibility ended or is he responsible after the unit is mounted by another party?"

Flink's status, as a spreader manufacturer, is that of a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. There are no standards currently applicable to spreaders. In other words, the Act does not require that Flink install lights on spreaders if Flink is not attaching spreaders to trucks. Even if Flink attaches lights to a spreader pursuant to a contractual obligation, the responsibility for insuring compliance with Standard No. 108 lies with the party mounting the spreader. In neither event is certification by Flink required.

"3. If a dump body to which a spreader is to be attached already has the required lighting, etc., is anything further required on the spreader?"

Since Federal standards currently do not apply to spreaders, nothing is required on them. If Flink is mounting spreaders to trucks, however, it is possible that this installation could affect Standard No. 108 so that Flink would have to install lighting devices on the spreader to insure compliance with this standard. If Flink's mounting of spreaders does not affect previously existing compliance with Standard No. 108, no certification by Flink is required.

ID: nht68-4.12

DATE: 09/10/68

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

TO: National Highway Users Conference

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 23, to Mr. George Nield, concerning the compliance of crane carriers and fire engines with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 103 and 104.

The crane carrier you have described is a "motor vehicle" subject to the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. For purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards the described crane carrier is classified as a "truck." Although currently Federal Standards 103 and 104 do not apply to trucks both standards, by amendment, issued April 24, 1968, (33 F.R. 6466-69), will be applicable to trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1969.

Similarly, a fire truck is a "motor vehicle" and a "truck" and subject to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to this category of vehicle, including Standards 103 and 104. However, the open cabs found on many fire trucks may make full compliance with Standard 103 impossible. A public docket, Docket No. 24, has been established to receive comments pertaining to the possible classification of fire fighting equipment as a separate vehicle category which might be exempt from certain standards.

ID: nht68-4.13

DATE: 08/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. B. Laskin; NHTSA

TO: Cleveland Public Schools

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of July 3, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, of the National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.

The installation of dual controls on driver education cars is not per se in violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the secondary equipment must meet the same safety standards established for the primary controls. The secondary steering column must fulfill the same requirements made for the primary column as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 203 and 204. The installation of an additional foot brake must not affect compliance with Standard No. 105. However, duplicate compliance with the control location and identification requirements of Standard No. 101 is not required since the "driver" of such a vehicle remain the person seated behind the primary controls. For the same reason the "driver" mirror requirements of Standard No. 111 apply only with respect to the person seated at the primary controls.

Changes may be made to original equipment when necessary for installation of secondary controls but none of the standards requirements specified may be eliminated or adversely affected by the alteration.

You may make available copies of this letter to dealers and interested parties.

ID: nht68-4.14

DATE: 09/11/68

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

TO: Meyer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of April 23, in which you provided certain certification information and details on your wheeled spreaders.

The wheeled spreaders attached to a towing vehicle are considered motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and have been categorized as "trailers". Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is currently the only Standard applicable to trailers, specifically those 80 inches and more in overall width.

This Standard will also apply to trailers of lesserwidth manufactured after December 31, 1968.

Accordingly Meyer Products is required to certify compliance in accordance with section 114 of the Act. I enclose for your guidance copies of the Act, Federal Standard No. 108, and the certification Notice currently in effect.

ID: nht68-4.15

DATE: 09/11/68

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

TO: Ashton Martin Lagonda Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 27 and your cable of September 5.

You have written me with respect to the possibility of crash-testing an Aston Martin with weight added to the 6 cylinder engine so as to approximate the weight of a V8 engine which you may introduce in the future.

I am puzzled by your opening statement "We are arranging . . . to crash one of our DBS cars . . . on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do . . .." A review of the correspondence between the Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Safety Bureau and Aston Martin Lagonda does not disclose either our instructing you or you agreeing, to crash test any motor vehicle. Generally, this correspondence has concerned the limited production vehicle problem and Public Law 90-283.

Since the demonstration procedure set forth in certain of the standards involves a crash test, an actual crash test seems the best way for a manufacturer to verify conformance with these standards. The standards, however, do not per se require a crash test, and 23 C.F.R. @ 255.11 specifically states that "As approved equivalent may be substituted for any required destructive demonstration procedure."

With respect to your planned test for September 13, our engineers do not view the 40 pound weight differential as significant, and, assuming no further modifications to the DBS, crash testing a 6 or a V8 simulation would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for the current 6 or projected V8 model.

I understand your concern with the "thought of having to smash cars every time there is a change in specification", but you will have to face this issue every time a new Federal standard appears with a crash demonstration procedures. You may not know of newly issued Standard No. 212 (Windshield Mounting - Passenger Cars), requiring a barrier collision test, and I enclose a copy for your information.

Robert M. O'Mahoney, Esq., Assistant Chief Counsel, US Department of Transportation,

August 27, 1968

We are arranging very shortly to crash one of our DBS cars in 6 cylinder form, on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do, and this will be done during mid September.

As if this is not worrying enough, we are wondering if we may get some concession or help on a further aspect which could cause much financial calamity later on. This is that we may, in the future at a date not yet decided, be in the position to offer an alternative engine capacity of V8 formation in the same chassis.

Basically, this engine will only weigh 40 lbs more than the existing 6 cylinder installation and all mounting points and other fittings will be, to all intents and purposes, identical.

Could you please let me know, as soon as possible, whether or not this alternative will make it necessary for us to crash yet another car; or can it be considered that the minor weight variation would not affect the aspects for which the crash has been organised, i.e. the steering wheel penetration and fuel tank installation.

As a further alternative, might it be possible for us to add this extra weight, in some form to be defined by you, to the existing 6 cylinder engine on our forthcoming crash test in September.

We would be grateful if this particular concession could be made, as quite frankly we had serious thoughts about continueing with the US market when it came to smashing one car, which represents our profit margin for a complete year. The thought of having to smash cars every time there is a change in specification is horrifying and would mean financial penalties which are too heavy for us to bear.

Could I please trouble you for a very prompt reply in view of the possibility of the extra weight 'concession' we have requested to simulate the V8 unit, and the time needed to organise this prior to the crash test of the 6 cylinder car.

D.C. Gerston. Director of Engineering ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LTD.

ID: nht68-4.16

DATE: 09/16/68

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

TO: Messrs. O'Donohue and O'Connor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of August 15 you ask for a copy of regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which might apply to "a small refuse-carrying three-wheeled vehicle" which is being designed by one of your clients.

I enclose a copy of all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which have been issued to date. You will note in 23 C.F.R. @ 255.3(b) that the definitions of "truck" and "motorcycle" or "motor driven cycle" appear to apply to the vehicle you have described. In order to make a definite classification we need more information such as 'a photograph of the vehicle and a technical specification sheet'.

However, if the vehicle is classified as a "truck", 23 C.F.R. @ 255.7(a) provides that the Federal Standards will not apply if its curb weight is 1,000 pounds or less. If the vehicle is classified as a "motorcycle" or "motor driven cycle", Federal Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1969, will be the only Standard applicable to this category of vehicle.

If there is any further assistance I can give you I shall be happy to do so.

O'DONOHOE AND O'CONNOR

August 15, 1968

National Highway Safety Bureau

It is our understanding that under the President's Executive Order of June 6, 1967, your Bureau is charged with the carrying out of the principles of the Highway Safety Act.

This firm represents a small local corporation which is engaged in the design for marketing of a small refuse-carrying three-wheeled vehicle, to be primarily used in combination with a larger packer truck.

Could you please forward to the undersigned copies of such bulletins or regulations as you have promulgaged with reference to required safety features in this particular type of vehicle.

The vehicle will be three wheeled, operate with hydrostatic drive, and will have a dump box at the front. As stated above, it's main purpose will be to pick up from trash cans in alley ways and up driveways and then to deposit its load when full in the larger packer truck.

We will be glad to supply added details for your use in determining what regulations would be applicable;but frankly, right now, having just read the bare bones of the statute, I am at a loss to know what you will need to proceed.

We would appreciate it if you would send us such materials as you have on hand.

James E. O'Donohoe

ID: nht68-4.17

DATE: 09/17/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1968, to Mr. J.E. Leysath of this Bureau, concerning the Chrysler Super Lite which you intend to offer as an optional supplemental light on some of the Chrysler 1969 car lines.

You are correct in your understanding that a supplemental light of this type is not required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 does, however, specify, in Paragraph S3.1.2, that no additional lamp, reflective device, or associated equipmont shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

On the basis of our review of your technical literature on the Super Lite and our observation of limited field demonstrations of the light, it does not appear that the Super Lite will impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. It should be noted, however, that, while the incorporation of this lamp in your 1969 automobiles would not be precluded by the Federal Standard, the various States may interpose restrictions as to this lamp.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht68-4.18

DATE: 09/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Eugene B. Laskin; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol PAR=LOCATION

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 19, 1968, addressed to Mr. David A. Fay, of the National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.

The original list of definitions of vehicles was published in the Federal Register as part of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making dated December 3, 1966. Comments were requested from interested parties. Subsequently, the definition of a multipurpose vehicle as added to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in response to a number of comments received from industry requesting a different category for certain utility vehicles. Under the previous classification, there were a number of special purpose vehicles which did not fit into any single category. It was agreed that certain types of motor vehicles, such as Dune Buggies, the Carryall, Travelall, Compact Van, Jeep Wagoneer, Ford Bronco, and Scout type vehicles comprised a hybid class of motor vehicle which possessed the characteristics of more than one of the motor vehicle categories previously established. The "special features" include such items as 4-wheel drive amphibious equipment. Due to the differences in body construction, load time requirements, and general vehicle purpose, it was not considered reasonable to require those dual purpose vehicles designed to carry ten persons or less to meet all of the passenger car requirements, as would have been required by the Notice. For those reasons, the new category of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" use added to Section 245(b).

Your interest in the automotive safety program of the Federal Highway Administration is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht68-4.19

DATE: 09/19/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard A. Heffron; NHTSA

TO: Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10 to the Federal Highway Administrator with reference to implementation of 19 C.F.R. S12.80, in the Virgin Islands.

You have informed us that your analysis of S12.80(b)(1) which begins "Any vehicle or equipment item offered for importation into the customs territory of the United States. . . ." leads you to believe that these regulations are not applicable to the Virgin Islands, which are not within the customs territory of the United States.

These regulations were issued jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Transportation pursuant to section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102 (8) of this Act specifically includes the Virgin Islands in the definition of "State" so that the Act applies to the Islands. Since the Act applies, regulations issued under the Act also apply by their own force.

It is our understanding that these regulations have been implemented in AmericanSamoa and Guam, also outside the customs territory of the United State by Executive Order of the respective governors. We believe that Governor Palewonsky should do the same, substituting the word "Virgin Islands" for "customs territory", and an Island enforcement agency in lieu of the Bureau of Customs, and making such other minor changes as appear called for by local conditions. The alternative, of course, is for the Secretary of Transportation to issue a separate set of regulations applicable only to the Virgin Islands.

We would appreciate knowing what action will be taken by Governor Paiswonsky, and which Island agency will be responsible for enforcing the regulations.

ID: nht68-4.2

DATE: 08/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the method of operating school bus signal lamps as required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S3.1.3.2(b)(2) of Standard No. 108 requires that the system of red and amber signal lamps shall be wired so that the red signal lamps are automatically energized, and the amber signal lamps are automatically de-energized, when the bus entrance door is opened. Paragraph S3.1.2 of the standard does not permit the installation of an additional lamp, reflective device or associated equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

Therefore, the criteria for determining the compliance of an additional manual switch for controlling operation of the signal lamps is whether or not the manual switch would impair the effectiveness of the required automatic entrance door switch. A manual switch which overrides the entrance door switch only while the entrance door is closed does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required automatic switch. However, a manual switch which controls operation of the signal lamps while the entrance door is open would definitely impair the effectiveness of the automatic switch.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for writing.