ID: 1985-03.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY, DEAN HANSELL, LAW OFFICES OF DONOVAN, LEISURE, NEWTON & IRVINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply.

You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice on Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term "average annual production" refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, "manufactured" means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer's average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-04.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Susan B. House -- House Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan B. House House Enterprises 1450 Woodscliff Drive Anderson, IN 46011

Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8" diameter acrylic dish which is of optical quality and tinted. The second products is a 4" x 4" sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected ny section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 24204.rbm

Mr. Chad Compton
Monaco Coach Corporation
2700 S Nappanee Street
Elkhart, IN 46517

Dear Mr. Compton:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the load requirements for latch systems on the front entry door of a motor home can be reduced if the overall door latch system is composed of two, independently operating latch and striker assemblies. The answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components. Paragraph S4.1.1 applies to all hinged side doors, other than cargo-type doors. The paragraph specifies that each door latch and striker assembly shall be provided with two positions consisting of a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. S4.1.1 then specifies that each assembly meet minimum level of force requirements for longitudinal loads (S4.1.1.1), transverse loads (S4.1.1.2), and inertial loads (S4.1.1.3). Compliance with the first two of these requirements is demonstrated using the test procedure detailed in paragraph 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991 (SAE-J839). Compliance with the third requirement is demonstrated either by agency-approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 6 of SAE-J839.

Nothing in the standard prohibits a door latch system that consists of more than one latch and striker assembly. However, because S4.1.1 applies to each latch and striker assembly rather than to each door latch system, the force requirements for longitudinal, transverse, and inertial loading must be met for each latch and striker assembly provided when the latch is engaged in both its primary and secondary position.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.5/13/02

ID: 86-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1986, asking for our advice on a decorative lighting device for motorcycles.

The general principle remains the same as when I last explained it to you. Please refer to my letter to you dated March 24, 1986 (copy enclosed) on the relationship of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to auxiliary lighting devices for motorcycles. If you conclude that the device would not impair the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 then paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

You may follow this guideline with reference to any future questions you may have about the permissibility of auxiliary motor vehicle lighting devices. The agency does not approve or disapprove of specific items of lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 7, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re.: Instlallation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We would like to ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose an illustration and a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp. Lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. Drawing 1 : The outlines of the device Drawing 2 : The details of the device (Graphics here)

ID: 20061.ztv

Mr. Mark Cronmiller
Project Engineer
VDO North America LLC
2669 Bond Street
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Dear Mr. Cronmiller:

This is in reply to your email of May 14, 1999, with respect to "smart" headlight systems.

You report that these systems adjust headlamp aim vertically and/or horizontally according to driving conditions (e.g., vertically for oncoming traffic, horizontally around curves in the road). You ask whether there are any regulation interpretations relating to these systems, and whether we have plans to regulate or require these types of systems.

We have not issued any interpretations on these new "smart" headlamp systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prescribes headlamp aiming hardware requirements under static conditions only (paragraph S7.8). Once a headlamp is installed on a vehicle, its aim is fixed, but may be adjustable by mechanical means when the vehicle is at rest. A limited ability to adjust vertical aim on some vehicles is also provided by vehicle leveling devices. Our standard does not require that headlamps be aimed at the time the vehicle is manufactured and certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If there is a requirement for correct headlamp aim on new vehicles, it would be that of a State's motor vehicle authority at the time the vehicle is first registered for highway use in that State.

If a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of Standard No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible. We have no specific plans to regulate or require headlamps with dynamic aim features, but we are monitoring them to form an impression as to their suitability for use under American driving conditions, and to learn if there are any problems of maintenance of aiming integrity, or durability, involved in their use. At a minimum, we would be concerned about the need for fail-safe performance to assure that aim would return to nominally correct, straight ahead in the event of a failure.

Because each State is likely to impose aim-location requirements on new motor vehicles and these requirements may differ from State to State, we note that you may have difficulty getting a "smart" headlamp system accepted as capable of being correctly aimed as may be required by the various States. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for determining the legality of the "smart" headlamp system under each State's laws pertaining to correct headlamp aim. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263)

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/21/99

ID: GF007944

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4904

Dear Senator Feingold:

Thank you for your October 7, 2004, letter on behalf of your constituent regarding bumper and lighting regulations. Specifically, your constituent is concerned about vehicle compatibility and the height of bumpers and lamps on certain vehicles. I appreciate the opportunity to address your constituents concerns.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues standards and regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA regulates bumpers on passenger cars (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 581), but not on multipurpose passenger vehicles (sport utility vehicles), because such regulation could significantly reduce their utility. For vehicles subject to our bumper standards, the bumper must be located at the height of not more than 20 inches above ground.

We note that the agency is very concerned with vehicle compatibility in multi-vehicle crashes. Bumper height is one of the factors affecting vehicle compatibility. In June of 2003, NHTSA published a report describing the scope of the safety problem represented by vehicle incompatibility and outlined strategies the agency plans to pursue in improving vehicle compatibility. See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/IPTVehicleCompatibilityReport/. We have enclosed a copy of the report for your information. Currently, NHTSA and its global partners are conducting research to determine the best regulatory approaches in the area of vehicle compatibility. NHTSA is also working with vehicle manufacturers to minimize the effects of vehicle incompatibility and to develop consumer information related to this issue.

With respect to headlamp location, the Federal lighting standard (49 CFR 571.108) requires that the headlamps for all new vehicles be located between 22 inches and 54 inches above the road surface. Subsequent reinstallation of headlamps at a different height by a dealer or a repair business is also prohibited.

We note that the bumper and headlamp height issues raised by your constituent may not be the product of improper installation of those items, but instead may stem from raising or otherwise altering the vehicle suspension system. While this agency does not regulate suspension alterations, some states may do so. Accordingly, we suggest that your constituent contact the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of General Counsel at (608) 266-8810 or ogc.exec@dot.state.wi.us to ascertain Wisconsin regulations pertaining to vehicles suspension systems, bumper height, and lighting.

If you or your constituent have any further questions regarding this issue, you may contact Scott Brenner, Associate Administrator for External Affairs, at (202) 366-2566.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:581#108
d.11/19/04

ID: GF007988

Ms. Amy Homan
Crown Energy Technologies, Inc.
3111 Shepard Place S.E.,
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA T2C 4P1

Dear Ms. Homan:

This responds to your October 21, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether two oilfield equipment rigs manufactured by your company would be classified as "motor vehicles" and subject to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, the information you have provided describes two oilfield equipment rigs designed to service oil and gas wells. One is a tandem/tandem, which has four axles; the front two axles are steer axles. This units GVWR is 95,600 pounds. The second is a tandem/tridem, which has five axles; the front two axles are steer axles. This units GVWR is 120,600 pounds. Your letter indicates that these rigs travel on local roads and interstate highways between well locations. The period of time a rig spends at a single location varies depending on the end-user. You indicated that the rigs may be required to stay on a lease for a day, a week or a month at a time.

The vehicles you ask about appear similar to items of mobile construction equipment which are not considered motor vehicles. Given this similarity and the limited usage you describe, we believe that the vehicles are not "motor vehicles" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:571
d.2/2/05

ID: 21937.drn

Jiri Misik, Chief
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869

293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk Republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misik:

This responds to your request for information about "US field of vision" requirements for motor vehicle windshields for passenger cars and light duty vehicles. As explained below, the United States has no forward field of view standard for these vehicles.

In your letter, you noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, describes Areas "A," "B" and "C" to be cleared in motor vehicle windshields. In contrast you noted that in Europe:

In our case the edge of area "A" and "B" ... is not placed on the windshield but on the steel structure or even on the side window. This case is not mentioned in any US legislation which is related directly to wipe, wash and forward vision, anyway. Forward field of vision is only clearly defined in European Directive 77/649 and Australian ADR 8, clause 8.3.

With this background, you ask whether "there is a mandatory US provision to place the edge of 'A' area on the windscreen with regard to forward field of vision."

In response to your question, no provision in the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specifies forward field of view requirements for vehicles other than school buses. As you note, we have Standard No. 104, which establishes requirements for motor vehicle windshield wiping and washing systems. Since Standard No. 104 regulates windshield wiper performance, it defines each of Areas "A," "B" and "C" so that only the part of each Area that is within the glazing 25 millimeters inboard of the daylight opening is counted for the computation of the minimum cleared percentage. Please note that these are requirements for areas of the motor vehicle windshield to be cleared of water or other liquids. We have no standard analogous to EU Directive 77/649 which would use Areas "A," "B" and "C" to specify areas of mandatory forward fields of view.

Another indication that Standard No. 104 does not specify forward fields of vision is seen in the fact that there is no requirement that Area "A," as bounded by the angles specified in Tables I, II, III or IV, must be completely included on the windshield glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.10/5/00

ID: 2853o

Mr. Leon Steenbock
Administrative Manager, Engineering
FWD Corporation
Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle lever. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the throttle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicle acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood you to be referring to this type of design.

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:124#571 d:3/17/88

ID: 2856o

Mr. Wayne Apple
14738 Bronson Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987, in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. l08 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. l08. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

ref:108 d:4/18/88