ID: nht69-1.40

DATE: 08/26/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David E. Wells; NHTSA

TO: Challenge-Cook Bros. Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1969, concerning the responsibility of manufacturers who assemble work bodies such as concrete mixers to chassis-cabs produced by another company. You stated:

"We understand that in the case of installing concrete mixers of our manufacture on a chassis vehicle, our certification will cover only those Safety Standards relating to our own equipment and its installation, plus modifications, if made by us to the chassis vehicle in the area where Safety Standards apply."

As a final-stage assemblier you are responsible for any standards applicable to the completed vehicle to which conformity has not been certified by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and for any standards conformity to which is affected by the addition of the body. The chassis-cab manufacturer is required to affix a label listing the standards the chassis-cab conforms to. If the list includes all relevant standards, and you have no specific knowledge that the chassis-cab may not conform (as, for example, where it has been damaged in transit), then your statement above is essentially correct.

The relevant rulings are contained in the Federal Register notices of January 3, 1968, together with the certification regulations published July 9, 1969. Copies are enclosed.

ID: nht69-1.41

DATE: 07/09/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Tank Truck Service

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters dated April 7 and June 3, 1969, in which you request clarification of the Certification Regulations that become effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969.

You are correct in your interpretation that the certification should be attached to the door post or the other locations in the cab of a vehicle that are specified in section 367.4(c). You should note, however, that the label is not a "body certification", as you describe it, but certifies that the entire vehicle conforms to applicable safety standards.

With regard to your suggestion that the label should be placed on the body rather than the chassis of the vehicle, since in the case of your vehicles the body is likely to last longer, it has been determined that uniformity of location is of primary importance for enforcement purposes. The life of various components varies, as you know, from one vehicle to another. These regulations do not cover the situations in which used components are recombined with new ones.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht69-1.42

DATE: 06/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Gruman Allied Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter dated April 9, 1969, addressed to Robert M. O'Mahoney, which has been referred to this Bureau.

The location you have selected on the windshield wiper motor bracket, as shown in your enclosed drawing number 69028, sheet 2, is approved as an alternative to the specified locations. We note, however, that you intend to use binding-head screws as your method of attachment. This method does not appear to fulfill the requirements of permanency and destruction on removal in section 367.4(b) of the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.

As issued January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1148) the above section reads: "The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without the use of tools and without destroying it." A proposal issued on April 29, 1969 (34 F.R. 7032) would amend the section to read: "The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying it." The requirements of permanency and destruction on removal remain in both versions.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

ID: nht69-1.43

DATE: 06/02/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Parsons Mobile Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter dated March 18, 1969, in which you state, "[We] differ from all other motor-home manufcturers in that we use an existing chassis body combination, which has already been certified by General Motors Corporation. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, all certification and safety requirements are being cut or exceeded at this time."

Your letter and the materials that you enclosed with it indicate that you alter a completed vehicle in a way that affects components necessary for compliance with safety standards, and change the vehicle type from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle within the meaning or regulations issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 CFR @ 371.3). In as doing you the evidently acting as a manufacturer within the(Illegible word) of section 102(5) of the Act, and must comply with the Certification Regulations that apply to motor vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR Part 367. pp. 38-40 of the enclosed pamphlet). Copies of the Act and pertinent regulations are enclosed.

The information requested in our letter to you dated February 14, 1969, is still relevant. Could we please have your response to that inquiry as soon as possible.

We trust this reply will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.

ID: nht69-1.44

DATE: 08/13/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Dowell H. Anders; NHTSA

TO: Great Dame Trailers Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1969, in which you asked whether the name of your company may be placed on the certification label affixed to vehicles manufactured by another company.

The question of "private brand" manufacturing was raised at various stages of rulemaking in respect to the certification regulations. It was decided that the certification label on a vehicle must show the name of the actual manufacturer. This information is important in the enforcement of standards and regulations under the Act. The Vehicle Safety Act, moreover, places primary responsibility for conformity to the standards, and for certification of conformity, on the manufacturer, and the regulations are designed to implement that intent. You should note, however, that as a distributor of the vehicles in question you share the responsibility for compliance with the standards to the extent of your knowledge, and participate in the certification by passing it along to dealers or other distributors.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht69-1.45

DATE: 09/11/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. M. Jackin for W. M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. W. Proxmire - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 27, 1969, to the Director, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation, concerning Mr. Eugene J. Shermeister's comments on headlamps for motor vehicles.

Enclosed for Mr. Shermeister's information is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on lighting requirements for the vehicles specified in the standard. Standard No. 108 is applicable to new vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of January 1, 1969. In accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the initial safety standards were based on existing standards. Headlighting requirements, as specified in Standard No. 108, were therefore based on existing Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, certain State regulations and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standards. On this basis, Standard No. 108 specifies that headlamps for all vehicles except motorcycles conform to SAE Standards J579a and J580a, entitled, respectively, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles" and "Sealed Beam Headlamp." To provide protection from blinding effects to oncoming drivers, SAE Standard J579a specifies a maximum lamp output of 37,500 candlepower. This candlepower value is considerably less than the candlepower output of quartz iodine type headlamps.

As indicated in paragraph S2 of Standard No. 108, the standard is applicable to lighting on new vehicles and not to replacement lighting equipment. Except for vehicles subject to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, the requirements for replacement lighting equipment, as well as lighting requirements for vehicles in use, are those requirements as set by the regulatory agencies of the individual states.

The National Highway Safety Bureau is sponsoring a research contract on improved forward lighting for motor vehicles. Results of this contract will not only provide us with well-founded data for use in amending the standard, but will also assist us in evaluating the relative merits of sealed beam, quartz iodine and other types of headlamps.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht69-1.46

DATE: 09/10/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1969, concerning the operation of red warning lamps on school buses.

Paragraph S3.1.3.2 (b)(2) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 appears to require that the red warning lamps be e-nergized when a school bus door is opened for any purpose. However the intent of the standard is that the red warning lamps be energized only when the bus entrance door is open for the admission or discharge of passengers (i.e. that the red lamps be activated automatically only after manual energization of the amber lamps), and many manufacturers have, in our view, correctly go interpreted S3.1.3.2 (b)(2).

ID: nht69-1.47

DATE: 09/04/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of August 12, 1969, to Dr. Robert Brenner, Acting Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning visibility angles for turn-signal, stop and tall lamps on all vehicles requiring such lamps, and stop lamp operation on motorcycles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that turn signal, stop and tail lamps, upon installation on vehicles subject to the Standard, meet the 45 degree, vicibility requirements specified in SAE Standards J538d, J586c and J585c.

The dual switching of stop lamps, with activation both by foot brake and hand brake on motorcycles, is required by Standard No. 108 in paragraph S3.4.4

ID: nht69-1.48

DATE: 01/16/69

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

TO: State of Iowa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1968, concerning the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With respect to the number and color of lamps in your six-lamp system, I would agree that, when viewed singly from the front or rear, your system would have the same general appearance as a four-or eight-lamp system of other states. However, as mentioned in the third paragraph of your letter, Standard No. 108 also specifies a standard method of energizing the lamps in a four-and eight-lamp system, including the front-and rear-mounted lamps. Therefore, a motorist, who is familiar with the four-or eight-lamp system in other states, could be easily confused when viewing alternately the front and rear of a six-lamp system, since on a system basis it would not conform to either the four-or eight-lamp system.

As stated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, any person adversely affected by the safety standards may, under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, petition the Administrator under Part 206, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is again enclosed for your convenience. Your attention is particularly invited to paragraph (d) of Section 216.35 which reads, "Unless the Administrator otherwise provides, the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the rule."

With respect to the questions raised in Mr. Arthur Roberts' letter of February 22, 1968, to Mr. David A. Fay of this Bureau, and also relating to your preparation of proposals for new school buses, I would call your attention to Section 103 (d) of Public Law 89-563, a copy of which is enclosed.

In part, this section reads, "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." It would appear therefore that preparation of your proposals for new school buses could be initiated on the basis of Standard No. 103 requirements and prior to the next meeting of your legislature in January, 1969.

Again, as indicated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision of Standard No. 103 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. A consideration of the information presented in your letter has not altered this position. Therefore, we still do not believe that a change in the provision of Standard No. 108 to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht69-1.49

DATE: 04/10/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 24, 1969, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., former Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the installation of front identification lamps on various vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, truck tractors, and buses of 80 inches or more in overall width shall be equipped with three identification lamps on the front of the completed vehicle. This standard is applicable to the completed vehicle and it is the responsibility of the final assembler to certify that such vehicle conforms to the standard. A manufacturer of a chassis-cab is not required to mount identification lamps on the chassis-cab. However, if he does so, the manufacturer who adds a body to the chassis-cab is not required to add identification lamps to the front of the body.