ID: 18569.ztv

M. J. Shaw
379 E. Main St.
Peru, IN 46970-2522

Dear Mr. or Ms. Shaw:

This is in reply to your postcard of August 4, 1998, to Philip Recht, the Deputy Administrator of this agency, about the recent final rule on low-speed vehicles.

Your first question is whether "the Canadian Bombardier neighborhood vehicle (electric mini-car) [is] now street legal in the USA." Your second question is whether "all states, including [Indiana, are] registering the NV for legal operation."

The Federal government has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as it did recently with Standard No. 500 Low-Speed Vehicles. Thus, if a motor vehicle that meets the definition of "low-speed vehicle" is manufactured and certified by its manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 500, it is legal to import and sell that vehicle in the United States. Thus, Bombardier may import its Neighborhood Vehicle (NV) from Canada by certifying compliance with Standard No. 500. We do not know, however, whether Bombardier has begun to do so. Although the sale of a certified low-speed vehicle would not violate Federal law, the requirements for registration of vehicles and conditions of their use on the public roads are matters under the authority of the states. This means that a vehicle could be "street legal," to use your term, for Federal purposes but not under state law.

This brings us to your second question. We have no information whether states are or are not registering NVs or other types of low-speed vehicles. Some states, at this point, may be reviewing Standard No. 500 to determine how it affects the laws currently existing in that state. We do not know the views of Indiana on this issue. However, if you wish to ask the Indiana Department of Motor Vehicles for its opinion, you should identify the vehicle as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose maximum speed is more than 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour.

If you have any further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:500
d.9/29/98

ID: 15215.wkm

Mr. Carlos Fracaroli
Pirelli
Av. Alexandre de Gusmâo
487-09110-900
Santo André, SP Brasil

Dear Mr. Fracaroli:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter in which you inquired about tolerances in the ambient temperature requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119), and 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. You stated that you found no such tolerances in the standards and asked how you should calibrate your laboratory if none exist, since ambient temperatures can oscillate 5 degrees Fahrenheit (F).

You are correct that the above standards do not provide for tolerances with respect to the testing temperatures of tires. All of our FMVSSs specify minimum performance requirements. Thus, manufacturers must design and build the products to meet or exceed the specified performance. Since increased temperature is generally detrimental to tire performance, manufacturers must ensure that each tire meets the required performance at the temperature specified in the standard, in this case, 95 degrees F. Given the variability in laboratory equipment as you correctly noted, however, the agency allows an ambient temperature tolerance in our compliance testing of +0F-10F. The +0F ensures that the actual temperature will never oscillate above 95F. That upper limit ensures that we do not exceed the requirements of the standard, which would invalidate the test. For your information, please find enclosed extracts from this agency's Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing and Data Reporting, DOT publication No. TP-119-04, May, 1988, applicable to FMVSS No. 119, and Laboratory Procedures for Tire Temperature Resistance Testing, DOT publication No. TP-UTQG-H-01, May 25, 1979, applicable to the UTQGS. Both publications are available from this agency, ATTN: NAD-40.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or by Fax at 011-202- 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:119#575
d.10/8/97

ID: 15302.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1997, to Samuel J. Dubbin, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You ask for a "reconsideration" of his interpretation letter to you of July 29, 1996.

That letter informed you that we saw no conflict between California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requiring clearance lamps to be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front and rear of the vehicle, and paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 providing that clearance lamps located other than on the front and rear need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard. In our opinion, S5.3.1.1.1 did not relieve clearance lamps of the requirement that they be visible and meet minimum photometric requirements "directly to the rear" and at 45 degrees outboard.

You disagree with this interpretation, commenting that "perhaps one could see at least one of the so-called Clearance lights 'to the rear' if one were in the left or right lane directly adjacent to the lane" in which the vehicle carrying the clearance lamps were traveling. We do not think that our interpretation was mistaken. It remains our belief that a clearance lamp located other than on the rear of a vehicle, such as on a fender, but which is visible directly to the rear, will be visible without reference to an adjacent lane, and will be visible from 50 to 500 feet directly to the rear of the vehicle as specified by CVC Sec. 25100(e). The issue of whether a particular manufacturer may have violated the standard by recessing its clearance lamps on the side of a vehicle so that they are not visible and do not meet applicable photometric requirements from the rear is a different issue, and does not call into question our prior interpretations.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/17/97

ID: 1985-01.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Horiyoshi Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Horiyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Horiyoshi:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it would apply to a contemplated parking lamp system.

Usually passenger cars are designed with two parking lamps, one on each side of the vehicle front. Mazda would have two such lamps on each vehicle side, each of the two lamps flanking the headlamp. You have asked whether, in determining the H-V axis, one takes the axis as the center of each lamp, or should one consider the pair a single device and place the H-V axis at the midpoint between them.

Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be equipped with a minimum of two parking lamps, located "as far apart as practicable." Therefore, the outermost parking lamp, (the one located between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp) is the lamp that must meet the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, and the H-V axis for purposes of compliance would be determined at the center of the lens of that lamp. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 and does not have to meet the standard's requirements, but it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Because of the difference in candela between parking lamps and headlamps, information available to us does not indicate that your supplementary parking lamp would have this effect, and consequently, the design would be permitted.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gordon Bonvallet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordon Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, NY 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1985, to this Office asking whether the agency intended to eliminate the maximum allowable value for parking lamp candlepower in the amendments of November 26, 1984 which established Figure 1b.

Thank you for calling this matter to our attention. The amendment appears to have the effect you ascribe to it, though it was not the agency's intention that it do so. The maximum values of SAE J222 December 1970 are those that should apply, and we shall reinstate them in the near future.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 13, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Rule Making 49CFR Part 571 (Docket No. 83-12: Notice 2)

Figure 1b in the reference Docket shows a minimum allowable candlepower value of 4.0 for a one section "Parking" lamp. No maximum is indicated.

Is the intent to eliminate the allowable maximum candlepower for parking lamps or should the maximum values as listed in SAE J222 Dec. 70, referenced in FMVSS 108, be used? (SAE J222 JAN77 eliminated the maximum values.)

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm

ID: 22705.drn

Mr. Bob Douglas
American Transportation Corporation
751 S. Harkrider
Conway, AR 72032





Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request that we write a letter to the Government of Israel's Minister of Transportation. You wrote that you needed this letter because you are:

working to secure a bid for commercial buses to be built here in Conway Arkansas and to be exported to Israel. They have requested that we provide them a letter that states that FMVSS 220 is an official regulation and that the regulation only pertains to school buses. They require that this letter come from NHTSA.

The following provides the information you request.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted on September 9, 1966,

(P.L. 85-563), in order to reduce traffic accidents, deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. This law, now codified as chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, directs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), to which motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must conform and to which the manufacturers of such vehicles or equipment must certify compliance. The responsibility to establish FMVSSs has been delegated (by regulation) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

It is my understanding that the Israeli Government wishes to procure buses that are not school buses. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards on rollover protection that apply to non-school buses. NHTSA has issued FMVSS 220 (49 CFR Section 571.220), School bus rollover protection to establish performance requirements for school bus rollover protection, but does not apply this standard to non-school buses.

If you wish further information, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at: (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:220
d.3/6/01

ID: 1992y

Commander
U.S. Army Missile Command
(Mr. Bob Bergman)
ATTN: AMCPM-FM-TM
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898-5793

Dear Commander:

This is in reply to a letter of August 7, l989, from Jerry L. Dooley, Deputy Project Manager, Non-Line of Sight, with respect to "safety standards of the military nature", in particular those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV), as well as the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS).

This agency has jurisdiction over all motor vehicles, defined as vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical power which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Our principal role is the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the monitoring of the notification and remedial campaigns of manufacturers upon the occurrence of noncompliances with the standards, or safety related defects in vehicles. We have never issued safety standards for military vehicles. Quite the opposite; although we interpret our authority as covering military vehicles, the agency has always specifically exempted from compliance with the standards any motor vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications.

Frequently, military contracts for procurement of vehicles will call for their conformance with the Federal safety standards, when the nature of the vehicle is such (e.g. passenger car, bus) that conformance with the standards is not inconsistent with the configuration required to accomplish their mission. None of our safety standards for civilian vehicles cover driver field of view, basic visibility requirements, or ingress/egress. Our glazing standard does specify minimum levels of light transmittance, and our rearview mirror standard covers rear view mirror placement and rearward field of view. I am enclosing copies of these standards for your information.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures - Standards Nos. lll, 205

ref: 571.7 d:9/7/89

ID: GF004197

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108




Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your letter regarding applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to items attached to a floor-mounted console. You specifically ask about a foldable video monitor that is attached to the console. Our answer is the monitor you depict would be excluded.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. Specifically, certain areas within the vehicle must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Head impact protection performance is determined, in part, by testing specific targets on the vehicle interior.

S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 201 excludes console assemblies from the head impact protection requirements of the standard. Although console assemblies are not defined in FMVSS No. 201, they commonly refer to low-lying structures mounted on the vehicle floor between the front seats. You ask if the exclusion in S5.1.1(a) would apply to a foldable video monitor attached to the console.

The height of a console assembly is not limited by our standards. If the monitor were permanently incorporated into the console in the protruded position, it would be considered part of the console and excluded from the standard even though the height of the console would be unusually high. The fact that the monitor you are considering can fold to a "stored" position does not have a bearing on whether the monitor is part of the console. We consider a video monitor attached to the console to be part of the console even when it is foldable.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.7/7/05

ID: 2809o

Mr. Paul Scully
Vice President
Peterson Manufacturing Co.
4200 East 135th St.
Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, l988, asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term "effective projected luminous area."

Wesbar had asked whether it could include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the l2 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1.1.7 of Safety Standard No. l08. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light from an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology.

We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a "reflex reflector" is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definition (paragraph 2, SAE J594f, January l977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/l9/88

ID: 2976yy

Ms. Vicki Haudler
4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Dear Ms. Haudler:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/l0/9l