ID: 77-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel

TEXT: This responds to your August 25, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to buses other than school buses.

Your first state your conclusion that paragraph S5.2 of the standard applies only to buses other than school buses. Your interpretation of S5.2 is correct. Secondly, you state that S5.2.1 applies to all buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds. This assertion is incorrect. See S5.2.3. Paragraph S5.2.1 applies only to buses other than school buses that have GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds.

Your final inquiry pertaining to Standard No. 217 concerns the requirement for unobstructed emergency exits in both school and non-school buses. You first correctly state that paragraphs S5.4 through S5.4.2.1 describe the required size of the unobstructed openings for school buses. You then claim that there is no equivalent description for the size of unobstructed openings required in buses other than school buses. This last statement is not entirely accurate. The amount of unobstructed emergency exit openings required for buses other than school buses is detailed in S5.2. This section establishes requirements for the total area of unobstructed emergency exit openings and for the location of those exits. This section also specifies the extent to which the area of each exit is to be counted in determining compliance with the total unobstructed opening requirement. Therefore, although the standard does not specify minimum size requirements for individual exits in buses other than school buses, the standard does contain other requirements for unobstructed openings in buses other than school buses.

You concluded in your letter that buses other than school buses are not required to use the parallelepiped device in determining whether their rear exits comply with the requirements. This conclusion is accurate. For purposes of clarity, however, you should note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate rear doors in buses other than school buses. Those buses can utilize either rear exits or roof exits. Further, regardless of the fact that you use a rear emergency door in buses other than school buses, you must insure that you also provide the other mandatory exits and the correct area of unobstructed openings as described in paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.2.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 25, 1977

Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Chilton

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 217 regarding the range of it's application, as follows: Para.S.5.2 - Speaks to buses other than schoolbuses and requires "unobstructed" openings for emergency exit . . ." going on to define the area requirements.

Para.S.5.2.1 - Speaks to "Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds". This presumably covers all buses. It further states that ". . . buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. shall meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing . . . one rear exit that conforms to S.5.3 through S.5.5".

Under paragraph S.5.4 thru S.5.4.2.1.(a) as amended May 25, 1976, the unobstructed opening of a school bus is described as "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide and 12 inches deep, keeping . . .". There is no description that pertains to the unobstructed opening of a non-school bus.

We have, therefore, decided that the non-school bus needs only a 12 inch wide clear aisle opening at the rear door to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217. Is this interpretation correct?

We would appreciate an early answer to this query.

Malcolm B. Mathieson, Engineering Manager

ID: nht75-3.27

DATE: 11/20/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Linnell; Choate & Webber

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of October 7, 1975, concerning regulations applicable to vehicles which a client of yours proposes to manufacture. A copy of your letter was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

The NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires the manufacturer to certify that the vehicle as completed complies with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and non-compliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. @@ 1411-1420) is also enclosed.

If you have any questions concerning a specific regulation or standard, please write.

ID: 20240.ztv

Mr. Peter Shaw
Job Co-Ordinator
Road Equipment Service Co., Ltd.
50 Hannant Court
Milton, Ont. L9T SC1
Canada

Dear Mr. Shaw:

This is in reply to your letter concerning the classification of certain portable asphalt storage tanks that you are manufacturing for a United States corporation. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The U.S. corporation will import these tanks and you have been advised by George Entwistle of our agency that they may be imported under Box 8 of Form HS-7 "Declaration" as off-road vehicles. You have asked that we confirm that the tanks may be so imported.

A "motor vehicle" may not be imported into the United States unless it conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the date of its manufacture and is so certified by its manufacturer (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). A "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30103(a)(6)).

You have informed us that:

This tank is designed as construction equipment use only, to be transported from job site to job site with no liquid asphalt in the container. The tanks have incidental use on the road as they are transported to job sites as required. This unit stays on site for a period of time until the job site moves, and then the tank is transported to the new job site empty.

From this description, it appears that the portable asphalt tank has not been manufactured "primarily for use on the public roads," within the meaning of the definition, and that its use of the public roads is infrequent and incidental to the primary purpose for which the tanks have been built. This purpose is the storage of asphalt for use on construction sites (which may or may not be on the public roads). Accordingly, we confirm that you need not manufacture them to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and that the U.S. corporation may import them pursuant to the declaration of Box 8 that they have not been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

We note that, as a matter of law, there is no such thing as "D.O.T. approved parts." We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or equipment items. If you use this term to mean that an equipment item such as a tire or lamp bears a DOT symbol, the symbol means only that the manufacturer is thereby certifying compliance of that product with the appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In no sense can you use the term in connection with parts of an air brake system since the manufacturer of the vehicle certifies to the overall performance of the vehicle's air brake system without reference to any individual part.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/5/00

ID: nht81-1.48

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Leo P. Ziegler, Jr. Manager, Motor Vehicle Safety and Environment Program Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096

Dear Mr. Ziegler

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1979

Mr. Howard H. Magor President Aluminum Body Corporation P.O. Box 40 Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Magor

I am in receipt of a copy of your November 30, 1979 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with regard to the assignment of a World Manufacturer (Maker) Identifier (WMI) Code for Aluminum Body Corporation. I am therefore, as the USA national authority, making the following assignments:

Aluminum Body Corporation ? W. Washington Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640 UNITED STATES

1 & 9 (With the 3rd, 4th, & 5th characters of the Vehicle Identifier Section to be: 0 0 8)

Commercial Trailer

If you have any questions regarding the above assignment, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Leo. P. Ziegler, Jr. Manager, Motor Vehicle Safety and Environment Program

jeh

cc: M. W. Dixon K. F. Erickson, NHTSA R. P. Hickey

ID: 6320.jeg

Mr. John Lovstedt
Highway Safety Manager
DOT/HWY-V, Room 511
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Dear Mr. Lovstedt:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between Federal and State laws relating to kit cars. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

In your letter, you cited the example of a kit car in which everything except the engine and transmission is new. As you suggest in your letter, this would be considered a new motor vehicle under Federal law. The assembler would be the "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle. The manufacturer would also have to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

You stated, however, that Hawaii State law allows a person to build, register, use, and sell for use on the public roads such a vehicle without certifying compliance with the FMVSS, and asked whether this portion of the law would be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30103. You also stated that you do not see how a person could ever "legally register" a car like this, yet people seem to be registering them in other states.

While we decline to provide an opinion about the Hawaii law you cite, I will note that the issue of whether a kit car is considered to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Thus, a person who manufactured a kit car that did not comply with the FMVSS and sold it, offered it for sale, or introduced it into interstate commerce would be in violation of Federal law, regardless of any State laws.

The issue of whether the person could legally register the vehicle would be a matter of State law. However, even if the State law did permit such registration, the person would still be in violation of Federal law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.10/29/03

ID: nht90-1.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1990

FROM: Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency.,Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Attorney-at-Law.,NHTSA

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 25, 1990 To Richard L. Martinez and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Part 592)

TEXT:

Thank you very much for talking with me earlier in the week about Europa's interest in importing the Mercedes-Benz G - Wagon. As I understand from the principal of Europa, they intend to apply for an independent commercial importer's license under the EPA, and also as a registered importer under the Department of Transportation. I wanted to find out if you could provide me with a little more information about the $2,000 liability policy that we spoke about. I've been making some inquiries with property and casualty insurance companies, and they are completely befuddled by the matter; so I've now gone to some of the specialty markets that provide warranty coverages. Since I've only sent out the inquiries today, it will probably be a while before I hear back from them. In the interim, here are some questions I would appreciate your reviewing: 1) Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale? 2) The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000. 3)You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas specifically to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.? 4) Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. This present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit? Some of these questions might appear to be somewhat naive, but since this is fairly new ground for ourselves and Europa, please March 9, 1990 Richard L. Martinez -- Santa Fe Insurance Agency.,Inc.

bear with us. Any further information you can provide us with would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: 1985-02.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Herbert Kramer -- Acting Supreme Court Justice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Herbert Kramer Acting Supreme Court Justice Justices' Chambers 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 11201

Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1985, concerning a case pending before you that involves tinted side windows in a 1980 BMW. You asked us to provide you with information concerning the marking that appeared on the windows. I hope the following discussion of our glazing standard and the significance of the window markings is of assistance to you.

NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and other requirements for different items of glazing used in new motor vehicles. (I have enclosed a copy of the standard that was in effect for 1980 model year cars. Also enclosed is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard No. Z-26 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205).

The standard requires that glazing used in locations requisite for driving visibility have a luminous transmittance of 70 percent. The agency has considered all windows in a passenger car requisite for driving visibility. Thus, the side windows of a new 1980 BMW imported into the U.S. would have had to comply with the 70 percent luminous transmittance requirement.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 requires glazing to have four items of identifying information on it. The four items are: a manufacturer's identification code assigned by our agency, the model number of the glazing assigned by the glazing manufacturer, the manufacturer's trademark or distinctive designation and an "AS" number indicating that it meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number.

The markings you provided us from the aide windows of a 1980 BMW indicate the following. The marking "DOT 25" and "DOT 28 are code numbers assigned by this agency to prime glazing manufacturers. DOT 25 is the code number assigned to Flachglas AG of Bayern, Federal Republic of Germany. DOT 28 is the code number assigned to Vereinigte Glaswerke of Porz, Federal Republic of Germany. The markings "M202" and "MIOZ" (based on our experience with manufacturer's model number, we believe that "MIOZ" is a transcription error and should read "M012") are model numbers assigned by the glazing manufacturers. The markings "AS 2" signify that the glazing meets the requirement set in ANSI Z-26 for AS 2 glazing materials. The requirements for AS 2 glazing materials include a requirement in section 4.2 of ANSI Z-26 that AS 2 glazing meet the 70 percent luminous transmittance test of section 5.2. we believe the marking "Delodur - 1F Liz Sekurit" and "Duro-Glas 1F Liz Sekurit" are the trademarks or other distinctive designations assigned by the manufacturers. We do not know what the markings "BS 5282T", "0-295" and MD-291" represent, but we believe the latter two represent European manufacturer identification codes.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 14, 1985

Department of Transportation 400-7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

There is a case presently before me concerning tinted side windows on a BMW 1980 automobile. Certain information was gathered from these windows and it is necessary for me to determine its significance, if any, with respect to the transmittance of light in accordance with the Vehicle & Traffic Law, section 375.

Please give me any pertinent information regarding the following data:

DOT 25 M202 AS 2 DELODUR - IF BS 5282T LIZ SEKURIT D-295

DOT 28 MIOZ AS 2 DURO-GLAS - IF LIZ SEKURIT MD 291 Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Very truly yours,

ID: 18369.ztv

Masao Muraoka, Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Department
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Re: Interpretation of Replaceable Bulb Headlamp

Dear Mr. Muraoka:

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1998, to the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In the future, please address requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel.

You have called our attention to Standard No. 108's definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp," which means

"a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S7.8.5.2 or paragraph S7.8.5.3 may have a lens designed to be replaceable."

According to your letter, Koito is considering manufacturing a replaceable bulb headlamp "whose lens is bonded not with one adhesive agent, but with using some screws or clamps." The lens is separable from the lamp body for purposes of recycling, and Koito has no intention of providing a replacement lens. The chemical resistance test (S8.10.1) and the corrosion test (S8.10.2) apply to replaceable bulb headlamps with replaceable lens. You ask for an interpretation that the headlamp design Koito contemplates is not required to meet these two tests.

Although Standard No. 108 does not define a "bonded lens and reflector assembly," we use that term to denote a connection which is indivisible and permanent, such as provided by adhesives, rather than a connection that is divisible and impermanent such as provided by screws and clamps. I enclose a copy of an interpretation from the Chief Counsel, dated January 13, 1987, to Dr. Ernst of Hella KG Hueck & Co. explaining the agency's views.

Because the lens/reflector assembly is not bonded, and the lens is separable from the reflector, we regard this as a headlamp with a replaceable lens. Unless the headlamp complies with S7.8.5.2 or S7.8.5.3, it would be neither a "replaceable bulb headlamp" nor an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by Standard No. 108. This means that the headlamp could not be used in applications where certification of conformance to Standard No. 108 is required.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d..9/11/98

ID: 20837.ztv

Mr. Tadzio Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Regulation & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Headlamp Optical Axis Marking

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1999, asking whether the marking intended to designate the optical axis on a new headlamp complies with S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This section requires the optical axis of visually/optically aimable headlamps to be designated by a mark.

The headlamp assembly will be used on cars intended both for Japan/Europe and the United States and has a common lens, though the light sources will differ. The headlamp intended for Japan/Europe will contain two light sources, each with its own reflector, whereas the U.S. version will be equipped with a single HB5 bulb and a single reflector. The optical axes will be marked on the lens, the U.S. version with a single circle, and the other version with two small diamonds. You relate that the lens is a clear one so that the light sources can be seen easily from outside the lens, and do not believe that multiple markings will create confusion.

The lens is properly marked as required by S7.8.1(b). The two non-required optical axis markings are permissible so long as they do not cause confusion with respect to the required marking. You indicate that the HB5 light source can be clearly seen behind the transparent lens. Therefore, we agree with you that there should be no confusion about the location of the optical axis of the U.S. version headlamp when it is necessary to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/27/00

ID: 11625DRN

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan
United States Senate
312 Federal Building
Third and Rosser Avenue
P. O. Box 2579
Bismarck, N.D. 58502

Dear Senator Dorgan:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Officer Rick Koropatnicki of Bowbells, asking how Federal regulations apply to a product ("The Plate") Officer Koropatnicki designed. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, as NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

According to the product literature and other material you enclosed, The Plate is a type of signal that a motorist could use to alert other motorists of his or her need for help in an emergency. The Plate is made of highly reflective material and attaches to a license plate. When activated from a wireless key chain transmitter, The Plate displays a message: "I need help. Call Police." The Plate apparently is sold separately from the motor vehicle, but it is unclear whether The Plate is attached to the vehicle by the individual user or a business.

The Plate is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," and thus subject to this agency=s rulemaking and enforcement authority under Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.). NHTSA has not issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly regulates the performance of products such as The Plate.

Nevertheless, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of The Plate is subject to the requirements in Title 49 U.S.C. sections 30118 - 30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Further, a commercial business that installs The Plate is subject to provisions of Title 49 U.S.C. that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter . . . .

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install The Plate if such installation should make inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the agency=s safety standards. The following example illustrates the applicability of this provision: Standard No. 108, ALamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,@ specifies that motor vehicles must have a rear license plate lamp, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides. If any of the above named businesses should install The Plate, that business must ensure that the installation does not "make inoperative" the compliance of the motor vehicle with Standard No. 108. Any violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the Amake inoperative@ prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply when individual vehicle owners install The Plate in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the standards.

Individual States do have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners make to their vehicles. Your constituent may wish to consult State requirements to see whether The Plate would be permitted under State law.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA102(4) d:3/13/96