ID: nht70-2.16

DATE: 07/15/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Transelex Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 1 you refer to your superflash 1000 as "device which simply extends the power-handling capability of a conventional thermal flasher which must be used in conjunction with it (to provide its timing) in order to operate". You ask whether this device "could be used in OEM vehicles without meeting any SAE or DOT requirements."

This will confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) does not specify requirements for an auxiliary device such as the superflash 1000, and that it can "be used in OEM vehicles without meeting any SAE or DOT requirements, provided that the thermal flasher used with it" meets standard No. 108. The Superflash 1000, however, would be subject to regulation by the States.

ID: nht93-7.30

DATE: October 20, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/26/93 from James Womack from James Z. Peepas (A41; Std. 108) and letter dated 7/9/93 from James Z. Peepas to Taylor Vinson (OCC-8871)

TEXT:

In a recent letter of interpretation on the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, which are effective December 1, 1993, we informed you that "()f you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck." The word "without" is incorrect, and should be replaced with the word "with", in accordance with the requirement of S5.7.1.4.2(a) that conspicuity treatment not be obscured by trailer cargo. We are sorry for any inconvenience that this error may have caused you.

Our letter also informed you that we were considering a petition for reconsideration of the mounting height requirements for the conspicuity treatment. On October 6, 1993, the agency published its response to this petition, modifying the mounting height requirement to a range between 15 and 60 inches (375 to 1525 mm). I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

ID: nht78-4.21

DATE: 08/08/78

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

TO: Euro-Tire, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 1, 1978, letter asking whether it is acceptable for you as a tire distributor to use your own tire registration form as long as it complies with the requirements of Part 574, Tire Identification and Record-keeping.

Part 574.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides that a dealer of tires may supply his own form on which to record information specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), as long as the form contains the required information, conforms in size and is similar in format to the "Universal Format" form set forth in Figure 3 of that part. The form designed by Euro-Tire appears to meet the requirements of Part 574. Accordingly, it is acceptable for use in fulfilling the tire recordkeeping requirements.

SINCERELY,

June 1, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

Gentlemen:

Euro-Tire, Inc. is a retailer of several brands of passenger car tires.

Because of the nature of our operation, the registration of D.O.T. tire identification numbers as required by law has become very time consuming and costly to us.

Since our operation is fully automated, it would be advantageous to us to record the required information for the various brands of tires we sell on one universal form rather than on the several different forms provided by our supplier-manufacturers or their agents.

Attached is a photocopy of the form we designed for this purpose. The sample typewritten information, namely, customer name and address, date of sale and brand name, will be computer printed.

We believe that our form meets all the informational and dimensional requirements of NHTSA's "universal format" and that it complies substantially with the layout of the "universal format".

We would appreciate your reviewing our form and advising us promptly as to whether or not is is an acceptable substitute for the several different forms provided by our suppliers for registration purposes.

EURO-TIRE, INC.

Martin P. Ronsen President

IMPORTANT: Federal law requires registration of all tires purchased for highway use.

SOLD TO

JOHN Q CUSTOMER 1234 MAIN ST APT 34 ANY CITY NJ 07000

SOLD BY

euro-tire

EURO-TIRE, Inc. 1275 Bloomfield Ave. Fairfield, NJ 07006

DATE OF SALE 6/01/78

TIRE BRAND SUPERSLICK QTY D.O.T.TIRE IDENTIFICATION CODE 3 A 7 G X K L M N 3 5 7 1 A 7 G X K L M N 3 9 7

June 29, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

Att.: Nancy Eager, Esquire

Gentlemen:

We are enclosing a copy of our letter dated June 1, 1978 together with a copy of the proposed format we designed for the registration of D.O.T. tire identification numbers.

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

EURO-TIRE, INC.

Martin P. Ronsen

ID: nht94-1.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Gary D. March (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the s afety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must c omply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion correspo nds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in- between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be

delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-8.13

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Gary D. March (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in- between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be

delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-8.18

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Department Of Transportation, Division Of Traffic Safety

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/01/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To Gary D. March (A42; STD. 217; Part 586)

TEXT: On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in-between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Department Of Transportation, Division Of Traffic Safety

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/01/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To Gary D. March (A42; STD. 217; Part 586)

TEXT: On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the s afety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must c omply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion correspo nds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She i ndicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in-between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be delivered and perhaps hav e bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: 86-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Davis Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 86

Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh, WI 54903-2564

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1984, regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.

Standard No. 115. Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.

As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN to be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 9, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Subject: Placement of Vehicle Identification Number

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles of GVWR of over 10,000 lbs. In our effort to find the exact federal requirement of the placement of the vehicle identification number, we scanned through FMVSS 115 for an answer. It specifically addresses in paragraph 4.6. vehicles of GVWR 10,000 lbs or less. Does this requirement apply for us also?

We currently have the certification label of which "VIN" is a part, placed inside the cab per 49 CFR 567 paragraph 4. Does this satisfy the "VIN" placement requirement? Does the regulation require that "VIN" be placed on any other part of the vehicle in addition to that on the certification label placed inside the cab?

We would appreciate your responding in writing to us as soon as possible.

Sincerely, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DT:ks

ID: 1984-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development Inc. --Takeshi Tanuma, Chief Operating Officer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

This responds to your April 4, 19B4 letter regarding the use of two certification labels on motor vehicles, with each label containing a portion of the information specified in 49 CFR Part 567 and the two labels together providing all the specified information.

While the certification regulations specify that "a label" shall be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. In particular, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the information specified in section 567.4(g) of the certification regulations appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While we cannot specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

You also raised the possibility of adding language to one portion of the label to indicate the existence of the other portion and to specify the location of the second portion. While such language is not required, it might be a desirable means of promoting compliance with the considerations discussed above.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 3995 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone (313) 665-2044

April 4, 1984 Ref: W-055-S

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Research & Development, Inc., herewith submits a request for interpretation concerning certain aspects of the certification label requirement as stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 567 -"Certification."

1. If installation of one single label is not practicable due to spacing constraints, can a manufacturer affix two labels instead which, in combination, contain the required information on conformity to federal standards? (Please refer to Diagram 1, attached, for illustration.)

2. If a manufacturer may use two labels, what restrictions would govern the placement of those labels? For example, could one lable be affixed to the door-latch post, and the other to the door edge that meets the door-latch post? Or instead would both labels be required to appear on the same vehicle part? Are there any recommended guidelines for spacing, such as that the labels must appear not less than a specified number of inches apart, if both labels are affixed to the same part? (See Diagram 2.)

3. Contingent on the Agency's approval of the use of two labels, would it be necessary for label #1 to indicate, "Please see label #2 at location ," or something similar?

Thank you for your assistance in helping to evaluate these regulatory guidelines. Any expediency with which you treat this request would be greatly appreciated. If you or your staff require further information, please contact Mr. Shizuo Suzuki in the Washington, D.C. office of Nissan Research & Development, Inc., at (202) 466-5284.

Sincerely,

Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Officer

TT:SS:maz Attachment cc: Mr. Roger Fairchild Room 5219, NHTSA

ID: 86-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RUDY VALDEZ -- PRODUCT MANAGER; GASKET COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/01/86, TO NHTSA, FROM RUDY VALDEZ, OCC- 0618

TEXT: Dear Mr. Valdez:

This is in reply to your letter of May 1, 1986, with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your first question concerns the legality of an aftermarket splash guard installed behind the rear wheels which would incorporate a decorative light; the illustration you enclose shows the word "Ford" illuminated. Although the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 must be located on a rigid part of the vehicle, there is no such requirement for aftermarket equipment such as the device that you propose. If an item of aftermarket equipment is installed before the sale of a new vehicle to its first owner, such an item is permissible under Standard No. 108 provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, but no matter when it is installed, it would be subject to regulation by any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated. We are not familiar with State laws on this subject, and recommend that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in States where you intend to sell your device.

Your second question asks for information on the new center high mounted stop lamp, saying that you have seen some that do not appear to meet Federal requirements. You ask whether we will require retrofitting of vehicles. The new lamp was optional for passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and mandatory for those manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. The coverage of Standard No. 108 also extends to aftermarket items that are manufactured to replace original equipment center high mounted stop lamps, but there are no Federal requirements for

lamps intended for use on cars that were not originally manufactured with them. We encourage manufacturers to meet the Federal specifications as closely as possible, however, and I enclose a copy of the regulation for your information. We have no authority to require retrofitting of vehicles.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,