ID: nht93-1.44

DATE: February 22, 1993

FROM: A. L. Bragg -- Laboratory Manager, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

COPYEE: R. Kotsi; D. Gerringer; B. VanRiper; T. Kouchi

TITLE: Subject: Letter of Interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi at Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. Re: Grouping of light emitting diodes into three or more lighting sections. Response dated December 30, 1992 from Mr. Paul Jackson Rice

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-24-93 from John Womack to A. L. Bragg (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 12-30-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to T. Kouchi (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-23-92 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8081)

TEXT: We read your response to Mr. Kouchi with interest. While we certainly agree that SAE J1889 is not incorporated into standard 108, we feel that present standards, such as J586 and J588 do allow the manufacturer to include several lighted section of lens area which may be separated by opaque or non -emitting lens areas. There are numerous examples of rear automotive lights where the light emitting area is intentionally divided by decorative strips or sections.

With this in mind, we would see no reason why the three sections shown in the attached drawing of Mr. Kouchi's letter could not act in concert to perform a single photometric function, that is, as a single compartment light. Could you comment further regarding this?

You also noted that "each of the lighted areas would constitute a three section device because it contains three or more LED's." Because of the relatively low output of an individual LED, almost every lighting device would certainly contain several LED's working together to perform a function. Your response seems to equate individual LED's with lighted sections.

If we understand your letter of interpretation correctly, it creates several problems. One of these you have alluded to in the same letter where the comment is made that a three section or compartment device could result in "glare in the eyes of the following driver." Another "problem" which would result would be the increased cost and complexity of lighting devices incorporating diodes.

It is possible that this is a problem in semantics. We would be most appreciative of any comments or clarification you might offer on the above.

ID: 11465JEG

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1501

Dear Senator Grassley:

Thank you for your December 20, 1995, letter, addressed to the Federal Highway Administration, concerning a request from your constituent, Dr. D. Jean Arnold. Dr. Arnold is disabled and would like to have the air bag legally removed from her car. You asked for any information pertaining to this matter. As discussed below, Dr. Arnold previously contacted this agency about this matter and, on December 11, 1995, we sent her a letter which we believe will resolve her concern.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Air bags are installed in cars as a means of complying with this standard.

The removal or deactivation of an air bag by a vehicle dealer or repair business is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The section 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.

However, in certain limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

In our December 11, 1995, letter to Dr. Arnold, we advised that, given her disability, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on her vehicle to accommodate her condition. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. We hope that this letter will resolve Dr. Arnold=s concern.

I hope this information is helpful. If you or Dr. Arnold have any further questions about this matter, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2105.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:208 d:1/25/96

ID: nht72-5.16

DATE: 08/23/72

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: James W. Callison

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1972, and your note of July 31, asking whether the following statement may be placed on an invoice to relieve a final-stage manufacturer making the statement of his responsibilities under the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567):

"Delivery of this unit was accepted by the undersigned with the understanding that the unit DOES NOT meet all requirements of the Nat'l. Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The undersigned assumes full responsibility for compliance."

In a conversation you had with Mike Peskoe of this office on July 31, you elaborated on your question. It appears that such a stamp might be used in either of two situations. First, a final-stage manufacturer might use the statement if he did not wish to certify the vehicle, attempting thereby to pass on the responsibility to the person to whom he delivers it, either a dealer or purchaser. In the second case, an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the responsibility for conformity, and certification, pursuant to sections 567.5(c) or (d), and section 568.7, and the final-stage manufacturer is returning the vehicle to the party for whom he completed it, and wishes to make it clear that he is not responsible for certification.

A final-stage manufacturer whose responsibility for certification has not been assumed by an intermediate or incomplete manufacturer cannot remove himself from this responsibility, or require another to assume it for him. The regulations require such a manufacturer to certify the completed vehicle, and his failure to do so can subject him to civil penalties and other sanctions. The use of a disclaimer such as the stamp you enclose would be of no legal effect, even if signed by the person receiving the vehicle.

In the situation where an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the certification responsibility, the use of such a stamp would be unnecessary. The final-stage manufacturer should obtain written assurance of that fact from the party assuming the responsibility. before beginning work on the vehicle. Also, the assumption of responsibility is reflected in special provisions regarding the certification label, in accordance with @ 567.5(c) and (d) of the Certification regulations. It would be advisable for any statement concerning this arrangement to make reference to the applicable regulations.

ID: nht75-4.5

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The use of new components in combination with used components to assemble a complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used "chassis" that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers have had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used "chassis" which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used "chassis". However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the "main frame".

In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls which constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes the main load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run the length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose of and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.

Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetric capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.

In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulations may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.

ID: FARRTHFT.ETL

The Honorable Sam Farr
United States House of Representatives
100 West Alisal
P. O. Box 145
Salinas, CA 93902

Dear Congressman Farr:

Your letter to the United States Deparment of Transportation ("DOT") requesting information concerning laws and regulations applicable to car alarms has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), an agency within DOT, for response. Your letter refers to a request by your constituent, Ms. Merrill Leffmann of Soquel, California, for information on laws and regulations in this area, particularly those that might govern the volume and duration of the alarms.

NHTSA does not administer any Federal statutes that directly regulate the design or performance of car alarms, nor has it promulgated any regulations that seek to do so. The only regulation promulgated by this agency that refers in any way to the subject of car alarms is 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. The Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541, was promulgated to implement 49 U.S.C. 33102 and 33103. As Congress directed, the theft standard implements this goal by establishing a "performance standard for identifying major parts of new motor vehicles and major replacement parts by inscribing or affixing numbers or symbols on these parts." 49 U.S.C. 33101(11). It does not require the installation of alarm systems in vehicles, nor does it in any way regulate the performance or other characteristics of such systems.

In 49 CFR Part 543, NHTSA implemented the statutory provision authorizing an exemption from the Theft Standard for vehicle lines equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment. 49 U.S.C. 33106. The only requirements Congress specified for antitheft devices to qualify for this exemption were: that the device must be in addition to the theft devices required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (49 CFR 114);

that it must not use a signalling device reserved by state law for use on police, emergency or official vehicles or schoolbuses; and that the vehicle manufacturer must believe that it is capable of reducing or deterring theft. 49 U.S.C. 33106(a)(1).

Likewise, Part 543 does not specify how the antitheft device is to perform or be designed. Instead, it requires a manufacturer applying for an exemption to provide information on how the device is activated and functions in several specified areas: 1) facilitating or encouraging activation by motorists; 2) attracting attention to unauthorized entry; 3) preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; 4) preventing operation of the vehicle which an unauthorized person has entered by means other than a key; and 5) ensuring reliability and durability of the device. 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3). The agency then uses the information provided about these functions to decide whether the system will be sufficiently effective in deterring theft to warrant an exemption from parts marking. The regulation does not specify how many of these functions the system must be able to perform, that the system must be capable of performing all of these functions, or how well it must perform these functions. I have enclosed a copy of the Federal theft prevention statute and regulations should you wish to pass them on to your constituent.

I must emphasize that the term "antitheft device" as used in the above statutes and regulations is not synonymous with the term "car alarm" as used in your constituent's letter. A car alarm as commonly understood is a device that emits audio and/or visual signals designed to attract attention to the fact that a theft might be in progress. On the other hand, an antitheft device qualified for exemption under Part 543 may have an "alarm" as one of its elements but is not required to. Indeed, the agency has granted exemptions under Part 543 for a number of vehicle lines equipped with systems that did not include any audible or visual "alarm" or any other means of calling attention to a possible theft.

Since your constituent's letter expressed a particular interest in the noise and duration of car alarms, you might wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency, the agency responsible for administering Federal noise pollution laws. 42 U.S.C. 4901-4918. Its regulations are found at 40 CFR Chapter I, Parts 201-211. In addition, many localities also have codes or ordinances regulating the loudness and/or duration of noise. Your constituent may wish to contact local jurisdictions for information on their laws and regulations in this area.

I hope this information is responsive to your inquiry. If the agency can be of any further assistance, please contact the Office of Chief Counsel at 202-366-9511, or Mr. L. Robert Shelton, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards at 202-366-1810.

Sincerely

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures(2)

cc: Washington Office (w/Constituent letter only)

ref:580

d:5/19/96

ID: nht90-1.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1990

FROM: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. TO: Stephen Wood, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS Number 107, Reflective Surfaces

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-90 to Delbert N. Pier from Paul Jackson Rice; (A35; Greenbook Std. No. 107) TEXT:

Hyundai requests assistance with an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Number 107 (reflective surfaces).

It is Hyundai's intention to test the surface visible on the windshield wiper blade rail spring. In accordance with ASTM Designation D 523-62T, Hyundai has set up a test specimen for the specular gloss test to accomplish this, see attachment.

Because of the limited amount of area (side "B") allowable for the light source to reflect into the specular reflectance meter, Hyundai is using several rail springs gathered together. As shown in the attachment, this allows for the adequate reflective surface to accomplish the test. Hyundai believes this specimen shows sound engineering judgement and is a satisfactory way to conduct this test.

Hyundai is requesting an interpretation on this specimen as an acceptable means of conducting the test for establishing compliance with FMVSS, Number 107.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should further clarification be needed, do not hesitate to contact me at the telephone number listed above.

ID: 18109.wkm

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice-President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Boulevard
Brantford, Ontario, Canada
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1998 to Mr. Luis Figueroa of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, who referred the letter to this office for response.

You state in your letter that your parent company, Nichirin Company, Ltd. Japan asked you to inquire of this agency whether it is permissible to add optional information to the required labeling of brake hoses. Specifically, you state that your current marking is

DOT NCRN 3/98 1/8 HL

You state that your parent company provides hoses for coupling by another party (Company X). This party requests that Nichirin provide hoses labeled as follows:

DOT NCRN FOR CO. X 3/98 1/8 HL

Assuming from the reference to "HL" in your labeling that the hoses concerned are low expansion hydraulic brake hoses, your current labeling is correct under subsection S5.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses. The standard makes no provision for marking information in addition to the required information. However, this agency has interpreted Standard 106 to permit the labeling of brake hoses with optional information if the optional information does not confuse or obscure the meaning of the required information. Moreover, in order to avoid confusion with the required information, the optional information must appear on the opposite side of the hose. Thus, you are permitted to label your hoses with the optional information your customer requested so long as that optional information appears on the side of the hose opposite from the required labeling.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.7/6/98

ID: nht94-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas L. Wright -- Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/15/94 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO ROBERT HELLMUTH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchas e, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other f eature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no proble m as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to Stat e law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

ID: nht90-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: M. IWASE -- GENERAL MGR., TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED OCTOBER 18, 1989 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE ATTACHED; (OCC-406). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES AND LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE TEXT: This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). I regret the delay in responding.

You have recently made some modifications in the design of a detachable spirit level, and you have asked whether the May 9, 1989, amendments to Standard No. 108 permit this design. Previously we had furnished you an interpretation based upon the VHAD pr oposal.

The rule of May 9 does not permit a separate VHAD such as a spirit level. You will note that S7.7.5.2(c)(3)(vii) (proposed S7.7.5.2(b)(7)) did not adopt the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)". Thi s proposed phrase was the basis of the statement in our letter of September 12, 1988, that a VHAD could be separate from the headlamp assembly.

Although S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule speaks of Ban integral or separate VHAD mechanism", as you noted, we have since clarified that a VHAD that is "separate" does not mean one that is detachable, but simply one that need not be integral with the hea dlamp housing itself. Thus a spirit level VHAD is permissible, but it must be permanently installed on the vehicle, though not necessarily on the headlamp housing. I enclose a copy of the amendments to Standard No. 108 published on February 2, 1990, ad opting definitions of "VHAD", "Direct Reading Indicator" and "Indirect Reading indicator".

ID: nht78-3.23

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1977, letter asking several questions concerning Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

In your first question, you paraphrase the requirements of S5.3.3 concerning emergency exit force requirements and release motion and ask whether your understanding of the section is correct. Your interpretations of the standard's requirements are accurate.

Second, you enclosed photographs of a manufacturer's rear emergency door release mechanism and asked whether it complies with the standard's requirements. The force release mechanism shown in the pictures does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. The release mechanism is not located in the high force access region as required by the standard, and the motion required for release of the exit is not upward as required by paragraph S5.3.3

Finally, you asked whether your enclosed copy of Standard No. 217 which includes paragraph S5.2.3.1 is up-to-date. The answer to your question is yes. You have been confused by paragraph S5.2.3.1 because it states that a bus must have, at a minimum, one rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push-out window. The requirement for one rear emergency door does not preclude a schoolbus with a 10,000 pound GVWR or less from using two (double) rear emergency doors. Paragraph S5.4.2.2 states ". . . the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be . . ." (Emphasis added). The use of the term "doors" in paragraph S5.4.2.2 indicates that double doors are permitted.