ID: aiam3312

Dear Mr. Packard: This is in response to your letter of May 28, 1980, in which yo requested approval to use Indiana's Certificate of Title as a substitute for the Federal Odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.; Because the Federal odometer requirements that became effective as o January 1, 1978, contain a good deal of wish to include odometer information on their titles to use a shortened form that was adopted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). We consider the AAMVA form to include the minimum amount of information necessary for an adequate disclosure. In addition to the information included on the Certificate of Title which you submitted to our office, the following information is also required:; >>>(1) a reference to State or Federal law, (2) a statement that the odometer reading reflects the amount o mileage over 99,999 miles,; (3) a statement that the odometer mileage is not actual, (4) the signature of the buyer.<<< Without these four items the title cannot be used in lieu of a separat Federal form. If this information is included, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will approve the title for use in lieu of the Federal form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1928

Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about th existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has th responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids* (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR Part 571.121)).; There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by state law.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

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: 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