ID: nht80-1.19

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1980, asking whether a partial vehicle identification number (VIN) may be stamped into the frame of the Suzuki motorcycles under the certification label.

The answer is yes. The use of identifying numbers other than the VIN is allowed if the numbers cannot be confused with the VIN. In the situation you described, the identifying number would be hidden from view by the certification label. Since the label is required to be riveted or permanently affixed to the vehicle (Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations), the hidden identifying number is not likely to become visible during the life of the vehicle. Therefore, there appears to be no chance that the number would be confused with the VIN.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 7, 1980

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS No. 115 - Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request an interpretation by your Agency regarding Section S4.3 of the Standard.

Suzuki as required by Part - 567 Certification (@ 567.4(g)(6) ) will place the Vehicle Identification Number on the Motorcycle Certification Label.

Suzuki wishes to also stamp, using 5mm Sans Serif characters, the Vehicle Identification Number minus the check digit onto the headpipe of the motorcycle (at the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars). This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be for internal use by the Company prior to the Certification label being affixed on the headpipe of the motorcycle.

This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be entirely covered by the Certification label when it is affixed to the motorcycle.

We wish to obtain your interpretation if such a plan would be permissible under the standard, by not including the check digit in the second application of the Vehicle Identification number, whereas it would not be visible to either the consumer or Law Enforcement Personnel unless the label had been removed from a motorcycle. We believe that this number, even though it was missing the check digit, would be helpful in identifying such a motorcycle.

We would appreciate being advised of your opinion at the earliest possible date regarding this request.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.;

F. Michael Petler -- Manager, Government Relations Department

ID: 77-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1977

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Warren M. Heath -- Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Curtis J. Crist (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 12/10/92 from Curtis J. Crist to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8136); Also attached to letter dated 10/8/76 from Frank Berndt (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Donald I. Reed

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1977 asking whether section S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 precludes installation of front side marker reflectors and lamps on the trailer tongue.

The answer is no. S4.3.1.3 is an interpretation that such devices need not be mounted on the trailer tongue in order to comply with Standard No. 108's requirements that they be located "as a forward as practicable." Thus, alternate location 4 shown on Supplement 1 REQ BUL - 3A that you enclosed would meet Standard No. 108.

Supplement 1

Fig. 1 Boat trailer equipped with single function clearance and sidemarker lamps front and rear. Complies with Section 25100(b)(7) VC.

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 25, 1994 Est

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John A. Boehner -- Member, United State House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 3/25/94 from James Ackley, Carol Baumhauer and Krista D. Subler to John A. Boehner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 7, 1994, to the, Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton.

Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT "approval and color code designation" for their "Life Lites" system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the fron t of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is b raking. It "could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to "approve" or disapprove safety in ventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be in terpreted as our approval or endorsement of it.

The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite in operation; its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effe ctiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appear s clearly erroneous.

Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "knowingly renders

inoperative, in whole or part" the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same consid erations would apply.

However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in w hich the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 2220 3.

ID: 15079.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
Technical Department
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps.

Your first question is:

"S7.8.2.1(c) prescribes that a visually/optically aimable lower beam headlamp shall not have horizontal adjustment mechanism other than VHAD. We consider that some kind of horizontal adjustment mechanism are necessary to align lamp axis with vehicle axis at lamp installation on the vehicle. Does horizontal adjustment mechanism that uses only at installation and can not be adjusted by vehicle owner or driver conform to requirement of S7.8.2.1(c)?"

We understand that it is necessary to align properly the horizontal aim at the time the headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle. We do not understand why a horizontal adjustment mechanism has to be a permanent part of the headlamp or vehicle. However, if its design is such that it can never be used again, even with special tools, we would not consider that the installation of a horizontal adjustment mechanism of this type creates a noncompliance with paragraph S7.8.2.1(c).

"S7.8.5.2(c) require permanent fixation of VHAD device calibration on or after September 1, 1998. Does calibration method that vehicle owner or driver can not calibrate using ordinary tools conform to this requirement?"

Your question implies that the calibration can be adjusted by tools that are not "ordinary tools." If the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means, it is not "permanent" within the meaning of the requirement. If the calibration cannot be adjusted, by ordinary tools or otherwise, then it is permanent within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2(c).

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/11/97

ID: 1984-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Orient Glass Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Y. Higuchi Executive Vice President Orient Glass, Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2430 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your letter of July 19, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You specifically asked whether a temporary haze which develops on a test specimen of glass-plastic glazing during Test No. 4, Boil test, constitutes a failure of that test. As explained below, the temporary haze would not be considered a failure of the boil test requirement.

As you correctly noted, Standard No. 205 requires glass-plastic glazing to pass the Test 4 boil test, of American National Standards Institute Z-26, which is incorporated by reference in our standard. As explained in the preamble to the November 16, 1983, final rule setting performance requirements for glass-plastic glazing, the purpose of the boil test is to ensure that the plastic layer of glass-plastic glazing does not delaminate when exposed to high temperatures and humidity.

You explained that during your test of a piece of glass-plastic glazing, a "haze developed all over the plastic side at the end of the test." You further stated that the "haze totally disappears in 24-36 hours" when the specimen is returned to "ordinary room temperature." Since the temporary haze does not result in a permanent change in the structure of the glazing, which would occur if the glazing delaminated, we do not consider the temporary haze to be a failure of the boil test. The glazing must, of course, comply with Test No. 17, Abrasion resistance, which is directly meant to limit haze.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JULY 19, 1984

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Attn: Mr. Edward Jettner)

Re: Glass-Plastic Glazing Materials

Dear Mr. Jettner:

The undersigned is writing this letter on behalf of Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd. (Herein after referred as NSG) a potential manufacturer of "Glass-Plastic Glazing Materials" defined in Safety Standard NO. 205 Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

With reference to the amendment of Safety Standard NO. 205 Docket NO. 81-04: Notice 4 NSG understands that " Glass-Plastic Glazing " have to pass the Test N0.4 (Boil Test) provided in ANS Z 26. In regard of Test NO. 4 on "Glass-Plastic" NSG wants to confirm that the following interpretation is correct.

When NSG conducted the Test N0.4 on Securiflex, which was made by Saint Gobain Vitrage of France, haze developed all over the plastic side at the end of the test. NSG believes that this haze comes out due to the direct contact with boiling water for as long as two hours. NSG observed this haze totally disappeared in 24 - 36 hours when the said Glass-plastic specimens were kept at ordinary room temperature. NSG, accordingly, interprets this temporary haze shall not be considered as "Other defects" provided in ANS Z 26.

Your competent comments on NSG's observation and interpretation would be highly appreciated.

Truly yours,

Y. Higuchi Executive Vice President

cc: Mr. Mizutani (NSG) Mr. Todoroki (NSG)

ID: 1732y

Peter J. Yanowitch, Esq.
Messrs. Davis, Markel, & Edwards
66 West Flagler Street, SUite 608
Miami, FL 33130
Re: Importation of Porsche 959

Dear Mr. Yanowitch:

This is in reply to your letter of February 27, l989, requesting a response by March l0 as to whether the Department would permit the importation of a Porsche 959 pursuant to l9 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v).

Specifically, you represent a non-resident of the United States who wishes to import such a vehicle, and operate it on the public roads of this country during the l-year period. You have asked for confirmation in writing that if the vehicle is imported on this basis that "the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions" of 12.80(b)(l)(v), and, further, that the Department "would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road" while it is in the United States. You also state that your client is prepared to submit "sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations."

Under l9 CFR 12.80(b)(l), each vehicle offered for introduction into the Customs territory of the United States shall be denied entry unless the importer files a declaration which declares that "(v) The importer...is a non-resident of the United States, is importing the vehicle...primarily for personal use for a period not exceeding l year from the date of entry, will not sell it in the United States during that period, and has stated his passport number and country of issue...in the declaration." This provision was adopted in recognition of international treaties to which the United States is a party, which are intended to assure the free flow of international road traffic. However, this agency does not construe either the regulation or the treaties as conferring an absolute right upon any non-resident to import a non-conforming vehicle if considerations of policy dictate a determination that such entry would not be in the interests of the United States. Chief among these considerations is whether the importer has previously imported a motor vehicle in violation of the importation regulations. Accordingly, we wish to review your client's declaration before the time the vehicle arrives at the port of entry. I enclose a copy of our Form HS-7 for its completion and return to us. We request that a photocopy of the title or other certificate of ownership be enclosed as well. We also ask that a statement be attached to the declaration, so that it becomes a part of it and subject to penalties in the event that it is false or misleading, in which your client discloses whether he has ever imported into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January l, l968, and, if the answer is affirmative, to provide the make, model, and port and approximate date of entry, and the name of the importer or consignee as it appeared on the declaration. Finally, we also request an affirmation from your client that he will not sell the vehicle, or offer it for sale, either before or during its stay in the United States, and that he will export it at the end of the l-year period.

When we have received and reviewed the declaration and statement we shall be pleased to consider this matter further, and we shall answer your questions at that time.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:MIS d:3/20/89

ID: nht89-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PETER J. YANOWITCH -- DAVIS, MARKEL, & EDWARDS

TITLE: IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE 959

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/27/89 FROM PETER J. YANOWITCH TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, RE IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE MODEL 959,0CC 3188

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yanowitch:

This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1989, requesting a response by March 10 as to whether the Department would permit the importation of a Porsche 959 pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v).

Specifically, you represent a non-resident of the United States who wishes to import such a vehicle, and operate it on the public roads of this country during the 1-year period. You have asked for confirmation in writing that if the vehicle is imported on this basis that "the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions" of 12.80(b)(1)(v), and, further, that the Department "would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road" while it is the United States. You also state that your client is prepared to submit "sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations."

Under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1), each vehicle offered for introduction into the Customs territory of the United States shall be denied entry unless the importer files a declaration which declares that "(v) The importer . . . is a non-resident of the United Stat es, is importing the vehicle . . . primarily for personal use for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of entry, will not sell it in the United States during that period, and has stated his passport number and country of issue . . . in the declara tion." This provision was adopted in recognition of international treaties to which the United States is a party, which intended to assure the free flow of international road traffic. However, this agency does not construe either the regulation or the t reaties as conferring an absolute right upon any non-resident to import a non-conforming vehicle if considerations of policy dictate a determination that such entry would not be in the interests of the United States. Chief among these considerations is whether the importer has previously imported a motor vehicle in violation of the importation regulations.

Accordingly, we wish to review your client's declaration before the time the vehicle arrives at the port of entry. I enclose a copy of our Form HS-7 for its completion and return to us. We request that a photocopy of the title or other certificate of o wnership be enclosed as well. We also ask that a statement be attached to the declaration, so that it becomes a part of it and subject to penalties in the event that it is false or misleading, in which your client discloses whether he has ever imported into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and, if the answer is affirmative, to provide the make, model, and port and approximate date of entry, and the name of the importer or cosignee as it appeared on the decla ration. Finally, we also request an affirmation from your client that he will not sell the vehicle, or offer it for sale, either before or during the stay in the United States, and that he will export it at the end of the 1-year period.

We have received and reviewed the declaration and statement we shall be pleased to consider this matter further, and we shall answer your questions at that time.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht80-2.26

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Missouri

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Woody Fitzmaurice Supervisor, Pupil Transportation State of Missouri P.O. Box 480 Jefferson City Missouri 65102

Dear Mr. Fitzmaurice:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the State of Missouri has authority under Federal law to specify location requirements for fuel tanks on school buses.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) preempts, with one exception, State motor vehicle safety standards of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal safety standard governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance. Thus, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), would preempt State requirements of general applicability governing the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 301. The specification of tank location in the Missouri requirements is intended to insure the integrity of the vehicle fuel system and, therefore, would be regarded by the agency as relating to the same aspect of performance as the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate the location of fuel tanks.

The second sentence of section 103(d) of the Act clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, the State of Missouri or its political subdivisions such as the Board of Education could specify additional fuel system requirements, such as tank location, in the case of public school buses, but not in the case of commercial buses. The State requirements are not permitted, however, to prevent the school bus or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. Therefore, the school bus manufacturer would have to comply with Safety Standard No. 301 regardless of the State requirements.

I hope this has answered all of your questions. However, if you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992)

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 2, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ATTENTION: Mr. Hugh Oates NOA-30 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

The State Board of Education has statutory authority, in Missouri, to make manufacturing specifications for school buses. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the administrative arm of the State Board of Education, has always required that fuel tanks be placed on the right outside frame rail of the chassis. In our review of Federal Safety Standard 301 we found no mention of placement; however, we did find, in one preamble, that it might be construed that states would not have the authority to require placement of the fuel tanks in a specific location.

We would appreciate a more detailed and thorough explanation as to where the authority lies. You may or may not be aware that during the first week of May the National Conference on School Bus Specifications will be held and your reply will be used at this meeting.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely,

Woody Fitzmaurice, Supervisor Pupil Transportation

WF:pc

cc: Bruce McGuire National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Bob Burgess Missouri Division of Highway Safety

ID: 18558.ztv

Mr. Jim Ashdown
E & D Manager
Magnetti Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire WS11 3LP
England

FAX 9-0111543466325

Dear Mr. Ashdown:

This is in reply to your fax of August 6, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Because of the need to coordinate interpretations of Federal motor vehicle safety standards with other Offices of this agency, we were unable to respond by "return fax" before now.

You have two questions and they relate to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You ask for confirmation that "paragraph S.7.8.5.2.C is the correct section for tamper proof V HAD systems." We confirm your understanding. Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) requires that headlamps with VHADs manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with their calibration permanently fixed by the headlamp manufacturer.

Your second questions is whether there is "a requirement now for optical centre markings on rearlamps similar to S.7.8.5.3.f on headlamps." There is no such requirement. Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f) requires such markings only on headlamps. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that the optical center be marked on any lamp other than a headlamp.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/22/98

ID: nht90-1.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 20, 1990

FROM: H. Reese Chappell -- Engineer, Auto Ventshade Company

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rule Making, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to R. Chappell from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 205 VSA S108(a)(1)(A); and photos (text omitted)

TEXT:

Auto Ventshade Company is a manufacturer in the automotive aftermarket business. As per my telephone conversation with your secretary, I am sending you a brochure which shows the application of our product, the Ventvisor.

We would like to know if there are any federal regulations on light transmission or otherwise which govern our product. The smoke-grey tinted Ventvisor has 47.5% light transmission which, as far as we have been able to determine, complies with state-to- state laws. We also manufacture a clear non-tinted part which we sell in California, New Jersey and West Virginia. These states do not allow any tinted products on automobiles at all.

Please send me written notice of any regulations that may exist so that we can be sure that our product complies completely with federal laws.

Thank you very much for your time. Your reply will be greatly appreciated.