ID: aiam4727

Dear Ms Schmock: This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, l990, wit respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and 'CAC Title 13, Article 9'. You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. 108 has been changed. We understand that 'CAC' refers to 'California Administrative Code'. The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustment range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement. We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pierce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1390

Dear Mr. Volberding: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which yo ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the 'lowest seating position' for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to 'lowest seating surface' in proposed 'Fields of Direct View' (Docket No. 70-7, Notice 2, 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.; The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (3 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase 'lowest seating position' to be synonymous with 'lowest seating surface' with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 205 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Darryl M. Burman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Darryl M. Burman, Esq. Messrs. Dotson, Babcock & Scofield 1200 InterFirst Plaza Houston, Texas 77002-5219

Re: Whether market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by Federal law

Dear Mr. Burman:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a "cle ar, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States." The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is "to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking."

Three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by your client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided "about minimum Federal photometric requirements". You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.

A plastic headlamp cover is "motor vehicle equipment", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as "any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...." Its importer is a "manufac turer", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as "any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale". As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Sections 151 et seq of the Act to no tify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers a re not "a regulated safety device" under Standard No. 108. A "defect" under Section 102(11) includes "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials". Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a minimum for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditi ons, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.

Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to their prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headl amps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be su bject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.

Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owner installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law , in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric "warnings" may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under labora tory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 9, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington. DC 20590

Re: Letter ruling to determine if market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by federal law

Dear Ms. Jones:

REQUEST FOR RULING

Our client is in the process of forming a Texas corporation (the "Company") to engage in those activities described below, and, on its behalf, we are requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Ass ociated Equipment ("Standard 108") and other related or applicable rules or regulations of the Department of Transportation. The reason for this request is the lack of specific guidance in determining (i) if the product our client will import, market and sell will be subject to such regulation, or any other federal regulation, and, (ii) if so, the effect and impact of such regulation. The product, which the Company intends to market, sell and distribute and for which the Company seeks approval by the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), is a clear, plastic headlamp cover (the "Headlamp Cover") for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Company proposes to engage in the importation and marketing of the Headlamp Cover, either through direct sales to ultimate consumers or through sales to automobile dealers, distributors and automotive parts distributors. The Headlamp Cover is designe d to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking. The Company, distributors, automotive dealers and others will not physically install the Headlamp Cover on automobiles. However, the Company does intend to provide warnings and instructions i n the packaging so that the owner of the vehicle may purchase the proper Headlamp Cover and safely install it.

The Company, proposes to distribute the Headlamp Cover in one or more of the following manners:

1. Over-the-counter. The Company wishes to market and distribute its Headlamp Cover to auto parts distributor centers for sale to the consumer. These distribution centers will be instructed not to participate in the installation of the Headlamp Cover.

2. Option offered by Dealer. The Company will sell and distribute the Headlamp Cover to automotive distributors and dealers who will offer them as accessories to purchasers of new automobiles. The automotive distributors or dealers will place the Headlam p Cover, in its original packaging, in the trunk of the automobile and will not install it for the consumer. Automotive distributors of imported automobiles will place the Headlamp Cover in trunks of automobiles at the port of arrival and list the Headla mp Cover on the price sticker as well as the invoice to the dealer.

3. Direct to consumer. The Company also desires to sell its Headlamp Cover directly to consumers, again, with no installation services offered.

CHRYSLER RULING

The Company is aware of a fairly recent denial of petition for rulemaking by the NHTSA regarding an attempt by Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") for an amendment to Standard 108 to allow Chrysler to offer removable transparent Headlamp Covers as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured by Chrysler. It is our client's understanding that such petition was denied primarily because Chrysler's Headlamp Covers caused a reduction in light output between 7.2% and 15.5% and it was conceivable that certa in replacement headlamps purchased by consumers would produce an unacceptable light output when used in conjunction with the Chrysler Headlamp Cover.

The Company believes its proposed activities should be differentiated from those of Chrysler and should not be subject to federal regulation. The differences between the Company's proposal and Chrysler's proposal are: (i) the Company intends to market an d sell, but not manufacture and install, the Headlamp Cover, (ii) the Headlamp Cover is not a regulated safety device as defined in Standard No. 108, (iii) the Headlamp Cover will not be original equipment installed on an automobile at the time of purcha se and will not be installed by the Company. the distributor or the dealer, as prohibited by SAE J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly and (iv) the Headlamp Cover will not be marketed as a dealer installed option.

Additionally, the Chrysler ruling dealt specifically with the sealed beam headlamp assembly while the Company proposes to initially sell Headlamp Covers for the bulb and reflector type headlamp assembly found on many makes of cars sold in the United Stat es today.

However, similar to Chrysler, the Headlamp Cover, when used with original headlamps furnished by the manufacturers of the automobiles, will satisfy minimum federal photometric requirements.

CONCLUSION

The Company believes its activities should not be compared to those of Chrysler. It is aware that there may exist circumstances or possibilities where the Headlamp Cover may be misused, but intends to make information available to all parties who sell th e Headlamp Cover directly to consumers regarding photometric warnings. The product will also be packaged so that warnings are found on the exterior of the package to warn consumers about minimum federal photometric requirements. The interior of the packa ge will contain complete and accurate instructions for consumer installation of the Headlamp Cover.

The Company questions whether the Headlamp Cover or the contemplated activities of the Company, the distributors and dealers who will sell the Headlamp Cover, fall within federal regulated guidelines. Therefore,the Company hereby requests a ruling differ entiating its sale of the Headlamp Cover from Chrysler and permitting the Company. and the distributors and dealers to whom it sells the Headlamp Cover, to market and sell this product in accordance with the procedures discussed above.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and would be grateful for your prompt response.

If we can provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Darryl M. Burman

ID: nht80-3.44

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have in hand your letter of July 31, 1980, and regret to inform you that the vehicle identification number (VIN) scheme which you propose is apparently not in compliance with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

S4.5.2 and Table 1 of Standard No. 115 provide that the following information shall be decipherable from the five characters comprising the second section of the VIN for passenger cars: Line, Series, Body Type, Engine Type, Restraint System Type. A review of your Engineering Instructions and the accompanying drawings do not provide information concerning either the engine type or the restraint system type. Likewise, it is not clear whether your model designation is more appropriately characterized as line and/or series.

If the information omitted remains constant throughout a particular model, it will only be necessary for you to so state when deciphering your model code. For example, the following would be permissible:

Position 5 and 6: "V8" means V8 Volante model LHD, seat belt manual restraint system, V-8 engine with a displacement of 5.3 liters/326 cubic inches, a compression ratio of 8.3 and a net brake horsepower of .

We would also call to your attention that gross vehicle weight class is not required to be encoded in the VIN, although you are free to do so if you so choose.

Amongst the material furnished to the agency were drawings indicating the location of your confidential chassis identification number. As these are not required to be forwarded to the agency, I have taken the liberty of destroying them.

SINCERELY,

ENCLS.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA (1975) LIMITED

Frederic Schwartz Officer of the Chief Counsel, N.T.S.A.,

JULY 31, 1980

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

Vehicle Identification Numbering (17 characters)

Please find enclosed details upon which the Aston Martin Lagonda (1975) Ltd.

company has based its vehicle identification number (VIN) system, to be introduced with our 1981 model year cars.

The following documents have been enclosed to help clarify and explain the construction of the VIN system in detail:

(a) Construction drawings B97-16204/5/6 apply to Aston Martin V8 Saloon, Volante and Vantage (LHD) models respectively, B97-16224 applies to the Lagonda (LHD) (not currently certified in USA).

(b) Engineering Instruction number 205 gives a detailed explanation of the VIN construction. Engineering Instructions are sent to various departments within the Aston Martin organization and act as a reference and guide upon which work is carried out.

(c) Drawings A97-16226 and A97-16544 show the VIN plate designs and locations on the vehicle. The VIN is also stamped on the chassis member in characters with a minimum height of 7 mm (0.28 inches), Figures 1 and 2 in Engineering Instruction 205 show the location.

We have not sent details of our VIN system to anyone else, therefore we would appreciate your forwarding this letter and its contents to the relevant U.S. department, or advising accordingly.

KINDEST REGARDS,

R. Goldsmith Certification Engineer Safety and Emissions Department

ENGINEERING INSTRUCTION no. 205

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Systems

1. INTRODUCTION

AML will soon be operating two distinct Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) systems, one system applying to cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada and the other system applying to cars sold elsewhere in the world.

2. U.S.A. AND CANADA VIN SYSTEM (NHTSA)

1981 and subsequent model year cars sold to U.S.A. and Canada are required to have a 17 (seventeen) character vehicle identification number assigned. This means a series of arabic numbers and roman letters assigned to each motor vehicle for identification purposes and shall be sans sarif type face with a minimum height of 4 mm.

The VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly (i.e. stamped) on:

(a) the vehicle certification label (i.e. the brass plate, part number A97-13074, fixed to left hand 'B' post), and

(b) the VIN label part number A97-16226 and fixed in the same manner and position as the superceded label, part number 071-50-0160, on the dashboard.

2.1 VIN Content and Structure The VIN content and structure is as follows:

STRUCTURE

RACTER POSITION

1)

2) Assigned by BSI

3)

4) Gross vehicle weight class. 'C' = 4001 to 5000 lbf 'D' = 5001 to 6000 lbf

5)

6) Model

7 Not used

8 Model variant

9 Check digit (see R.G.'s memo for detailed explanation)

10 Model Year. 'A' = 1980

11 Plant of manufacture. 'T' = Tickfords

12 Driving position. 'T' = (Illegible Words) A = 1 J = 1 T = 3 B = 2 K = 2 U = 4 C = 3 L = 3 V = 5 D = 4 M = 4 W = 6 E = 5 N = 5 X = 7 F = 6 P = 7 Y = 8 G = 7 R = 9 Z = 9 H = 8 S = 2

VIN: S C F C V 8 0 S A Assigned value: 2 3 6 3 5 8 0 2 0 1 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 0 9 Product: 16 21 36 15 20 24 0 20 0 9

2.1.1 World Manufacturers Identifier (WMI) Section

The WMI section is located in character positions 1 to 3 inclusive and is assigned by B.S.I. The code for all our models is SCF.

2.1.2 Vehicle Description Section (VDS)

The VDS is located in character positions 4 to 8 and is assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints laid down in the USA Federal Register, volume 44, number 57.

2.1.3 Vehicle Indicator Section (VIS)

The VIS is located in character positions 10 to 17 inclusive and is also assigned by the manufacturer within the constraints in the Federal Register.

2.1.4 The Check Digit

The check digit shall be determined and included in the VIN for each car sold to North America and Canada. It is determined by carrying out a mathematical computation that utilises each of the VIN characters according to the following formula:

(a) Each alphabetic character is assigned a numeric value according to the following table:

(b) The assigned value for each character is then multiplied by a weight factor that is dependent on VIN character position, see worked example below.

(c) The products are then added together and the sum divided by 11.

(d) The check digit is the remainder of the division, when this is 10 the check digit is X; when zero the check digit remains zero.

Worked example

VS Saloon (LHD) with assumed chassis number 12456 VIN: T L 1 2 4 5 6 Assigned value: 3 3 1 2 4 5 6 Weight factor: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Product: 24 21 6 10 16 15 12

Sum of products = 265, divide by 11 = 24 1/11

*Thus the check digit = 1 (to be inserted in ninth character of VIN)

2.1.4.1 Check Digit - Simplification

Because many of the VIN characters are common to each model the check digit

The scheme works thus:

(a) The Intermediate Check Digit remains constant for each model variant.

(b) Having allocated the sequential chassis number, multiply each digit by its weight factor and add these products to find the sum.

(c) Referring to Table 1(a), line-up the appropriate Sum and read across to the next column for the Sequential Number Check Digit (SCD).

(d) Next, refer to Table 1(b), and in the first column line-up the Sequential Number Check Digit, then line-up the Intermediate Check Digit; the point where the column and rows intercept is the corresponding VIN Check Digit.

(e) A worked example of the simplified Check Digit determination is shown below.

V8 SALOON APPROX. LHD

VIN Prefix Sequential Chassis No.

SCFCV80S ATL12678

4 3 2

Sum = 61 = 24+21+16

Sequential No. Check Digit = 6 [From Table 1(a)]

Intermediate Check Digit = 2

VIN Check Digit = 8 (Illegible Words)

(f) A summary of the Intermediate Check Digits for our model range is listed below: Model Driving Intermediate Instruction Drawing position Check Digit Number V8 Saloon Left HD 2 B97-16204 " Right HD 0 B97-16211 V8 Volante Left HD 5 B97-16205 " Right HD 3 B97-16212 V8 Vantage Left HD - B97-16206 " Right HD 8 B97-16213 Lagonda Left HD 4 B97-16224 " Right HD 2 B97-16225

* APPLICABLE (Illegible Words) VIZ (Illegible Words)

3. VIN SYSTEM - BEST OF THE WORLD (i.e. not applicable to USA or Canada)

The vehicle identification number (VIN) section on the brass plate, part numbers A97-15564/5 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively, will be completed by AML using the current sequential chassis numbering system. The plates will be embossed using stamps with a character of 4 mm minimum height. There will be no gaps or marks between the characters. The number will be finished with a dash, again without a gap, similar to the start of the number as shown in drawing A97-15564/5.

The chassis numbering (VIN) system is as follows:

(a) Lagonda : -LOOR13XXX-

(b) V8 Saloon : -V8SOR12XXX-

(c) V8 Volante : -V8COR15XXX- and (d) V8 Vantage : -V8VOR12XXX-

3.1 Lagonda VIN Structure Lagonda VIN Structure CHARACTER POSITION 1 -L Model 2 0 Not yet designated 3 0 Not yet designated, but J to be used for cars sold to Japan 4 R R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 5 1) Chassis number model variant prefix 6 3) 7 X) 8 X) Sequential chassis number 9 X-

3.2 V8 VIN Structure V8 VIN STRUCTURE CHARACTER POSITION 1 -V) Model 2 8) 3 S,C or V Variant, i.e. S = Saloon; C = Convertible & V = Vantage 4 0 Not yet designated, but 'J' to be used for care sold to Japan 5 R or L R = Right hand drive; L = Left hand drive 6 I) Chassis number model variant prefix 7 2 or 5) 8 X) 9 X) Sequential chassis number 10 X-

3.3 Location of VIN Chassis Stamping

Bearing in mind the points outlined in 3. above, the VIN will also be stamped in the RHS of the chassis in the locations indicated in Figures 1 and 2 applicable to the Lagonda and V8 models respectively. The character heights shall be a minimum 7 mm high, and the number shall be legible when the car is completed and ready for sale, i.e. not covered by underseal.

APPROVED BY: S. COUGHLIN

PREPARED BY: A. GOLDSMITH

SAFETY & EMISSIONS: J. D. ORCHARD

Table 1

(a) Sequential No. Check Digit (SCD) Sum SCD Sum SCD Sum SCD 1 1 36 3 71 5 2 2 37 4 72 5 3 3 38 5 73 7 4 4 39 6 74 8 5 5 40 7 75 9 6 6 41 8 76 10 7 7 42 9 77 0 8 8 43 10 78 1 9 9 44 0 79 2 10 10 45 1 80 3 11 0 46 2 81 4 12 1 47 3 13 2 48 4 14 3 49 5 15 4 50 6 16 5 51 7 17 6 52 8 18 7 53 9 19 8 54 10 20 9 55 0 21 10 56 1 22 0 57 2 23 1 58 3 24 2 59 4 25 3 60 5 26 4 61 6 27 5 62 7 28 6 63 8 29 7 64 9 30 8 65 10 31 9 66 0 32 10 67 1 33 0 68 2 34 1 69 3 35 2 70 4

(b) VIN Check Digit

Intermediate Check Digit (Illegible Table)

ID: 10948

Mr. John C. Golden
Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical
Federal Mogul Corporation
P.O. Box 1966
Detroit, MI 48235

Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices...take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously- certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in

FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

bcc: Mr. Larry Minor Office of Motor Carrier Research & Standards FHWA, Rm. 3107

ref:vsa(a)(2)(A)#125 d:10/16/95

ID: 19437-1.pja

Mr. Robert Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P.O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter to James Jones of our Safety Assurance Office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Your letter was forwarded to my office because the Office of the Chief Counsel responds to requests for interpretation. AmTran manufactures a school bus with a rear push out window, and you want to know whether the window is large enough to meet the specifications in Standard No. 217. As explained below, your window is not big enough.

From the drawing you enclosed, it appears that the height of the window opening on the interior wall of the bus is about 41.9 centimeters (cm) high. The window is hinged at the top, and when opened the bottom edge swings upward and outward with the assistance of "gas springs." When fully opened, the plane of the window inclines at its outward edge toward the ground at approximately 15 degrees. At the top and bottom of the window, there is a frame that projects toward the interior of the bus, perpendicular to the window surface. As the window rotates open, the interior edge of the frame rotates outward and downward, reducing the window opening by 3.1 cm, to 38.8 cm.

The pertinent part of S5.2.3.1(b)⁽¹⁾ specifies "a push out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance of 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide  . . .." (emphasis added). We cannot agree with your suggestion that the window opening constitutes the "hole in the body with trim." The words "opening clearance" mean that the exit must meet the clearance specification when the emergency exit window is open. We would measure the exit with the window open during compliance testing because that is the actual opening that would be provided to the passengers in an emergency. The opening needed to comply with the standard must be at least a 41 cm by 122 cm rectangle extending from the interior wall of the bus all the way through to the exterior when the window is opened.

The opening on the rear emergency exit window of your bus is only 38.8 cm high when the window is open, 2.2 cm less than the specified minimum height. Thus, we conclude that your emergency exit window design does not comply with S5.2.3.1(b) of Standard No. 217. The additional fact that you mention, that the window may satisfy the separate requirement of S5.4.2.1(c) involving the passage of the ellipsoid, does not have any bearing on its compliance with S5.2.3.1(b).

I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/1/99

1. Although your letter referred to S5.2.2.2(b), we assume you meant S5.2.3.1(b), which corresponds to the quotation you included.

ID: 8626

St. F. Steiner
Consultant
AET Network
2190 3rd Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have received your "Dear Mr. Van Orden" letter of May 4, 1993, which was addressed to me. You wish to import 3- and 4- wheeled vehicles from Europe "for research and exploration", and have asked several questions relating to U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements.

Your first question is: "Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?"

The answer is yes. All 3-wheeled motor vehicles are considered "motorcycles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Depending upon their configuration, but not upon their weight, 4-wheeled vehicles are either "passenger cars", "multipurpose passenger vehicles", "trucks", or "buses" for purposes of the safety standards.

However, motor vehicles intended solely for purposes of research may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the safety standards under the terms and conditions that the agency has set out in 49 CFR Part 591.

Your second and third questions are whether there is a minimum speed standard regulation or weight limitations for the vehicles you wish to import. The answer is no. However, a motorcycle with 5-horsepower or less is considered a "motor- driven cycle", and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in l mile is 30 mph or less.

Your fourth question relates to the conversions required to meet U.S. specifications and standards. As indicated previously, no conversion is required when the importation is solely for the purpose of research. If you wish to import vehicles that have been originally manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, the manufacturer will find those standards at 49 CFR Parts 571, 581, and 541, respectively. If you wish to import nonconforming vehicles for conversion after importation, then the agency must determine that the vehicles are eligible for entry pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593, and importation and conversion accomplished through a Registered Importer pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592.

Your final question is whether the vehicles will be permitted on highways. This is a question that is not answerable under Federal law. Each State determines the criteria for licensing motor vehicles for use on the roads under its jurisdiction. If a State does not license a vehicle for on-road use (all terrain vehicles, minibikes, golf carts are examples), a basis exists for a manufacturer to determine that its vehicles are not "motor vehicles." If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, i.e. one manufactured primarily for on-road use, then no Federal safety standards apply to it.

If you have any further questions about the importation process, you should refer them to Mr. Van Orden at our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:5/17/93

ID: nht88-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-10-88 TO NHTSA FROM SCOTT A. SNYDER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we aske d the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still co ntinues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by incr easing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, o r any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This cou ld happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devi ces not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht90-4.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-90 from D.T. Johnston to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that ther efore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR S5 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as par ts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the tr unk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understand ing that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated. Aft er reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relie s on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to S 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

ID: 86-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Chikada;

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, asking for an opinion regarding a "decorative extra lighting device." It appears from the drawing that you enclosed that the device would be a part of a three-compartment housing incorporating also a rear turn signal lamp, and one that performs that tail and stop functions. It would be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. You have informed us that the lens color of the device would be red and its maximum luminous intensity lower than the minimum of the adjacent taillamp.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard if such a device would impair the effectiveness of the equipment that is required. It is our impression that your device performs the function of a rear side marker lamp, required to be installed on all motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, you have not told us any of the operational characteristics of the lamp, such as whether it would be steady burning in use and activated simultaneously with the headlamp and taillamp, or whether it would flash with the rear turn signal lamp. Nevertheless, it would appear to be acceptable as a supplemental taillamp or turn signal lamp, or as a side marker lamp, either with or without the decorative trim.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel February 5, 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. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

According to your letter of Nov. 4, 1985, we would 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 a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp and a rear turn signal lamp. A lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp. There is a possibility of attaching an ornament on this accessory lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

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

Enc. The details of the device