ID: nht70-2.50

DATE: 05/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R.A. Diaz; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 11,(Illegible Word), in which you asked four questions concerning the application of Standard 206 to your products, with reference to several illustrations and drawings that you enclosed.

1. "It is our opinion that hinge, latch and inside door lock on(Illegible Word) compartment must comply with requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Is this correct?"

Answer: Yes.

2. "Is inside door lock required in this type utility(Illegible Word) compartment?"

Answer: Yes, since it is a "hinged door", and not a "cargo-type door", within the meaning of the standard, on that the requirement of(Illegible Word) applies.

3. "It is our opinion that FMVSS No. 206 does not apply to material compartment door latches illustrated in Exhibit 1. Is this correct?"

Answer: Yes. Material compartment doors are not(Illegible Word)

4. "It is our opinion that hinge, latch and inside door(Illegible Words) illustrated in Exhibit 4 and not done under FMVSS No. 206. Is this correct?"

Answer: Yes. The requirements of the standard apply only to side doors.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: 07-002929drn-2

ID: nht76-2.33

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, to Mr. Dyson, formerly of this office, requesting a confirmation that an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, rendered to the Southern California Rapid Transit District on August 5, 1974, is still valid, and that it can be extended to include identification lamps as well.

In our earlier letter we advised the District that the installation of wiring by a manufacturer enabling a purchaser to connect it to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress, would not violate S4.6(b) which requires clearance lamps to be steady-burning, or S4.1.3 that prohibits installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. This will confirm that that interpretation is still valid.

Your letter, however, raises two additional issues which deserve to be answered for the record. The first is whether the bus manufacturer rather than the purchaser may make the connection, and the second is whether identification lamps may also be included in the warning system. Since it is our opinion that use of the clearance lamps in an emergency mode creates an item of lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 and hence outside its coverage, we have concluded that the manufacturer may connect both clearance and identification lamps to the emergency circuit without any resultant nonconformances with S4.6(b) and S4.1.3.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

THE FLXIBLE COMPANY

September 7, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: R. B. Dyson

Reference: FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Our Company, a manufacturer of urban transit buses, is in receipt of a recent procurement solicitation for transit vehicles from the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), Los Angeles, California, which specifies a requirement for a "crime alarm light" system. This system incorporates appropriate circuits, silent switches, a silent electronic flasher unit and a dual filament bulb, all of which are to be used in conjunction with the clearance lamps. Activation of the switch will cause the clearance lamps to flash signalling a crime-in-progress.

We recognize that Section S4.6(b), FMVSS No. 108, permits the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes. However, the referenced Section does not stipulate that the flashing of clearance lamps (and identification lamps which are normally on the same circuit) is permitted; in fact, S4.6 (b) requires "all other lamps shall be steady-burning...".

Effective January 1, 1976, the California Vehicle Code authorized the flashing of clearance lamps as crime alarm lights. A copy of this amendment is attached for your information. Also attached is a copy of an August 5, 1974, letter from your office to the SCRTD stating that the operation of the clearance lamps as a warning lamp causes the clearance lamps to become an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. We are assuming the same provision would apply to identification lamps.

Since your previous letter was written over two years ago and in order to assure ourselves that, as a vehicle manufacturer our product is not in violation of S4.6, FMVSS No. 108, when we comply with an operator's requirement, we request that a similar letter, addressed to the Flxible Company, indicating that the flashing of clearance lamps and/or identification lamps as a warning lamp system is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 be forwarded for retention in our Part 576, Record Retention, file. It is suggested that perhaps an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 incorporating this information is in order.

We thank you for your effort in providing the above requested letter.

R. L. Ratz

Buses: Crime Alarm Lights

25275.5. Any bus operated either by a public agency or under the authority of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Public Utilities Commission may be equipped with a system of crime alarm lights. The system of crime alarm lights shall consist of the installation of additional lamp sources, not exceeding 32 standard candlepower or 30 watts, in the front and rear clearance lamps required or permitted by Section 25100. Such lamps shall be approved by the department and shall be operated by a flasher unit or units that are not audible inside the bus. When actuated, both rear crime alarm lights shall flash simultaneously and both front crime alarm lights shall flash simultaneously. Crime alarm lights shall be actuated only when a crime is in progress on board the bus or has recently been committed on board the bus.

Added Ch 777. Stats. 1975. Effective January 1, 1976.

ID: 86-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. Vice President and General Counsel Hyundai Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea (HMC)' requesting clarification of how the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would affect a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You explained that vehicles manufactured by HMC are currently imported and distributed i the United States by Hyundai Motor America. However, in February 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (Mitsubishi) to be sold under the Mitsubishi trademark. You asked if the vehicles sold by HMC to Hyumdai Motor America and Mitsubishi must separately comply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208.

During the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirement, each manufacturer is required to certify that a certain percentage of its vehicles meet thy automatic restraint requirement. For example, for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987, a manufacturer must equip 10 percent of its vehicles with automatic restraints. On March 21, 1986, NHTSA adopted a final rule which affects how a vehicle manufactured by one company and sold by another is to be counted for the purposes of the phase-in. The rule permits manufacturers to determine by contract in whose fleet the vehicle would be counted. Thus, for example, HMC could provide by contract with Mitsubishi America that all of the vehicles HMC manufactures for Mitsubishi are to be counted as a part of HMC's fleet. Thus, under that contract, HMC would have to count all the vehicles it manufactures for sale to Hyundai Motor America and to Mitsubishi and ensure that 10 percent of that total are equipped with automatic restraints during the first year of the phase-in.

In the absence of a contract, NHTSA's final rule of March 21, 1986, adopted several rules of attribution. The one relevant to your situation is that a vehicle imported into the United States is attribute to its importer. Thus, in the absence of a contract between HMC and Mitsubishi, the vehicles imported by Mitsubishi from HMC would be counted in Mitsubishi's fleet and 10 percent of Mitsubishi's total fleet would have to have automatic restraints.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 26, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea ("HMC"). We request clarification of 49 CFR Section 571.208 as it relates to a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities.

At present, motor vehicles manufactured by HMC are imported and distributed in the United States by Hyundai Motor America, a wholly owned subsidiary of HMC. Commencing in February, 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 motor vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. ("Mitsubishi America") under the Mitsubishi trademark. The vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America, however, will be substantially identical to the Hyundai Excel already being sold by Hyundai Motor America, except for some cosmetic differences, and will have HMC's own certification of compliance affixed to vehicles.

HMC requests your interpretation of FMVSS 208 as applies to Hyundai vehicles sold by both Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America. Based on our own analysis, and after some informal preliminary discussions with NHTSA's Legal Department, HMC believes that Hyundai vehicles sold by HMC to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America must separately con- form to FMVSS 208. Thus, for example, HMC believes that FMVSS 208 requires that 10% of 1987 model Hyundai vehicles sold by Hyundai Motor America and 10% of 1987 model Hyunlai vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America must each contain passive restraint systems.

Please advise to the proper interpretation of FMVSS 208 as it applies to Hyundai vehicles sold to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America.

Very truly yours,

Finbarr J. O'Niell Vice President and General Counsel

FJO'N/dd

ID: 77-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meyer Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 18 1977 N40-30

Mr. D. J. Henry Executive Vice President Meyer Products, Inc. 18513 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44112

Dear Mr. Henry:

This is in response to your November 16, 1976, letter concerning the removal of snow below assemblies prior to testing motor vehicles for conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

You have pointed out that a snow plow assembly includes components other than the part that actually contacts and moves the snow. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that "no part of the snow plow assembly, including mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of (compliance testing ..."

That interpretation is incorrect. The presence or absence of snow plow components on a vehicle during compliance testing depends on whether the components are included in the vehicle's "unloaded vehicle weight". As the July 16, 1976, letter from Mr. Robert Carter of this agency to the jeep Corporation indicates, unloaded vehicle weight includes the weight of accessories that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. The statement in that letter that "snow plows" would be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing can be amplified as follows: 1) A snow plow, i.e., the component of a snow plow assembly that actually contacts and moves the snow, will be removed. 2) Those other components of a snow plow assembly that, like the snow plow itself, are ordinarily removed when not in use will also be removed. 3) Those components which are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle when not in use will not be removed by the NHTSA prior to compliance testing. The agency will abide by a manufacturer's good faith categorization of accessories and components of accessories.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Acting Chief Counsel

November 16, 1976

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Recently, our Sales Manager, Mr. Michael Groff, had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Robrt N. Williams of your organization in regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, and Mr. Williams suggested that we address this letter to you.

Meyer Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of snow plows and salt spreaders for installation on or use in conjunction with motor vehicles, and we have been concerned about the effect of FMVSS 301-75 upon our business and that of our distributors.

In attempting to determine what, if any, action we should be taking with respect to FMVSS 301-75, we have examined a letter dated July 16, 1976, from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to Jeep Corporation, which states that snow plows "would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75." As you will appreciate, a snow plow assembly consists of many components other than the moldboard that actually contacts and moves the snow. It has been our interpretation that no part of the snow plow assembly, including mounting components, was to be attached to a vehicle for purposes of teting the vehicle for compliance with FMVSS 301-75, and Mr. Groff has reported to us that our interpretation was orally confirmed by Mr. Williams.

In order to better asdsure our distributors that the installation of Meyer Products snow plows by them will not require them to retest the vehicles and will not result in their violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, or the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, we would appreciate your sending us a leter confirming our understanding as recited above.

Since winter and the snow season have already arrived, it is imperative that we advise our distributors with respect to FMVSS 301-75 immediately, and we, therefore, request and thank you for your prompt response to this letter.

Sincerely yours,

MEYER PRODUCTS, INC.

D. J. Henry Executive Vice President

DJH/lt

cc: Marc W. Freimuth, Esq. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

cc: Mark Schwimmer, Esq. National Highway Traffice Safety Administration

cc: Robin N. Williams National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ID: nht75-3.9

DATE: 11/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 24, 1975, in which you ask whether it is permissible to test certain 1978 vehicles for compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, with open vapor vent tube pressure relief valves.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not specify the tests which you must perform. They do specify the conditions and procedures under which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will conduct its compliance testing. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 of Standard No. 301 specify that the vehicle's fuel system shall contain Stoddard solvent rather than fuel and, by implication, that the engine shall not be running. If, as you indicate, one consequence of the engine's not running is that a certain pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube is closed, then that valve must remain closed during the NHTSA's compliance testing; the existing standard could not be interpreted otherwise. Although in an actual collision any rollover would probably occur immediately after the initial impact, in some accidents vehicle occupants would be trapped for some period of time after rollover. Therefore, we do not consider that this interpretation creates, as you suggest, an artificial condition by subjecting the fuel tank to a potential vapor pressure build-up during preparation for the rollover test.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 24, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Re: Request for Interpretation in Relation to Conducting FMVSS 301-75 Tests with Proposed 1978 Evaporative Emission System

In preparing for compliance with 1978 California SHED evaporative emission requirements (presently under consideration by EPA for application in all areas), Ford Motor Company (Ford) is considering modifications to the fuel tank vapor venting system. At this time, Ford's primary design direction for certain of its 1978 vehicles is to incorporate a pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube between the fuel tank vapor separator/rollover valve and the carbon canister (see Attachment).

When the engine is operating, this pressure relief valve will be open and the fuel tank will vent in a normal manner through the carbon canister. When testing according to the procedure set forth in FMVSS 301-75, the pressure relief valve would be closed, contrary to its normal open position when the engine is operating, and such closure would prevent venting of vapor from the fuel tank into the carbon canister. As a result, vapor pressure could build up within the fuel tank during FMVSS 301-75 testing, and indeed would do so if the fuel tank were exposed to elevated ambient temperatures during the substantial time period (in some instances several hours) required to ready the test vehicle for the rollover test following an impact test. If such pressure built up, it (taken together with the hydrostatic pressure of the Stoddard solvent in the tank) might force open the vacuum/pressure valve in the fuel tank cap and permit leakage through that valve (cap).

Such leakage would not occur in an accident involving a rollover because, in such a situation, vapor pressure would not build up in the fuel tank, and therefore, the vacuum/pressure valve in the cap would not open. Any rollover of the vehicle that may occur would happen immediately after the collision, before vapor pressure build-up. Hence the vacuum/pressure valve (cap) would remain closed after rollover. More particularly, just before the accident, the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve would be open, preventing vapor pressure build-up.

Accordingly, Ford proposes to perform tests relating to compliance with FMVSS 301-75 with the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve open, the better to simulate actual usage conditions. Before testing in this manner, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance from the Administration that it regards as appropriate the maintaining open of this pressure relief valve during rollover tests, and would conduct in that manner its rollover tests of those Ford vehicles equipped with such a valve.

As you are undoubtedly aware, in addition to design and development work, a test program required to obtain emission certification covers a period of many months. Therefore, since Ford has only a limited time in which to develop a 1978 evaporative emission system complying with the SHED requirements, an early response to this letter is urgently requested.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

ATTACH.

PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM

(Graphics omitted)

Automotive Safety Office September 22, 1975

ID: aiam5613

Dear Mr. Moore: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, wit respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses. You believe that 'by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, 'If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a `Petition for Change of FMVSS; "108 Request''. Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, on applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation. The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation. We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht90-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 3, 1990

FROM: MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO MARGARET SCHMOCK FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; VSA 103(d)) TEXT:

Could you please be so kind and answer me some questions about the FVMSS 108 and the CAC Title 13, Article 9.

The amended FMVSS 108 says: S7.7.3 When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall not be less than +/- 4 degrees ... S7.7.4 When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall not be less than +/- 2.5 degrees ... CAC says: The range of adjustment from the specified aim the lamp shall be at least +/- 4 degrees in both the vertical and horizontal directions. So my questions are: Does this mean that our headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/- 4 degrees in horizontal direction, although the FMVSS 108 has been changed? Is it possible that the CAC meanwhile has been amended according to the FMVSS 108? Is it true that the CAC doesn't differ between auxiliary lamps and headlamps (in opposite to the FMVSS 108 that is only valid for headlamps)? Thanking you very much in advance for your actions.

ID: nht93-9.12

DATE: December 14, 1993

FROM: J. Hulshof -- NEDAP N.V.

TO: Patrick Boyd -- Office for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Standard FMVSS 118

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to J. Hulshof (A42; Std. 118)

TEXT:

Referring to our recent telecons we wish to inform you about the following.

We have designed a SCU (Sunroof Control Unit) for a power operated roof panel system where the roof panel can be closed only in the following circumstances:

1. Ignition key activated AND continuous activation of close button 2. Ignition key activated AND short touch of close button (one shot close, close button is released and roof panel moves to closed position) 3. Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle. 4. Ignition key activated AND continuous operation of a PANIC button

Note: System has no reversal mechanism acc. to the FMVSS 118

Referring to the above mentioned: Does the sunroof comply with the rules as stated in FMVSS 118?

Are there any amendments to the FMVSS 188 in progress?

We look forward to your answer.

Note: For any reactions, our fax nr. in the USA: 815 633 6089 Attn. Bob Cooper, LMS

ID: nht92-4.35

DATE: August 17, 1992

FROM: Spencer A. Darby -- Vice President - Engineering, Sate-lite Mfg. Co.

TO: Legal Counsel - FMVSS 125 -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Larry Michelson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Spencer A. Darby (A40; Std. 125)

TEXT:

IN THE "S1. SCOPE" AND "S3. APPLICATION" SECTIONS OF FMVSS 125, REFERENCE IS MADE TO "...DEVICES, WITHOUT SELF-CONTAINED ENERGY SOURCES,...".

I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING AN AGENCY INTERPRETATION OF THIS PHRASEOLOGY IN REGARDS TO ONE PUTTING FLASHING, BATTERY OPERATED LIGHT SOURCES BETWEEN THE REFLEX REFLECTORS PORTION OF AN OTHERWISE COMPLYING WARNING DEVICE. WOULD THIS ALTERED DEVICE BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FMVSS 125 STANDARD IF THE LIGHT SOURCES WERE OPERATED AFTER DARK? OR, PHRASED ANOTHER WAY, DOES FMVSS 125 APPLY TO AN OTHERWISE COMPLYING DEVICE THAT HAS FLASHING LIGHTS IN IT, AND, IF NOT, WOULD A VEHICLE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE THREE 125 WARNING TRIANGLES HAVE TO HAVE THREE NON-LIGHTED COMPLYING TRIANGLES SET OUT AS WELL?

IT IS OUR OPINION THAT FLASHING LIGHTS IN AN OTHERWISE COMPLYING EMERGENCY WARNING TRIANGLE ENHANCES THE ATTENTION GRABBING CAPABILITY OF THE DEVICE AFTER DARK.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TELEPHONE THE WRITER AT ANY TIME, IF HE COULD BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE IN CLARIFYING THIS REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETATION.