ID: nht91-2.39

DATE: March 19, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leonard M. Anderson -- Vice President, Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-84 from Erika Z. Jones to Richard E. Bond (A29; Part 565); Also attached to letter dated 11-30-90 from Leonard M. Anderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5516); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-86 to Administrator, Attention VIN-Coordinator NHTSA, from Richard E. Bond (OCC 769)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) that was assigned to one manufacturer may continue to be used by a different manufacturer when it purchases the assets of the manufacturer to which the WMI was assigned. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Your letter set forth the following information. Miller Trailer, Inc. (Miller) is a trailer manufacturer that has been assigned a unique WMI, in accordance with 49 CFR S565.5(c). Oshkosh Truck Corporation (Oshkosh) is a manufacturer of primarily trucks and some specialized trailers. Oshkosh has also been assigned a unique WMI in accordance with 49 CFR S565.5(c). Oshkosh is purchasing Miller. Your question is whether Oshkosh can continue to use Miller's WMI to identify trailers Oshkosh produces at the facilities that were formerly used by Miller.

To answer this question, we must apply the regulatory provision of 49 CFR S565.4(a). That section provides that the WMI "shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement that the WMI "uniquely identify the manufacturer as precluding the use of a WMI assigned to one manufacturer by any other manufacturer. For your information, I have enclosed a December 24, 1984 letter to Mr. Richard Bond, in which the agency explained that a newly-formed, wholly-owned subsidiary could not use the parent corporation's WMI to identify trailers formerly manufactured by the parent corporation.

With respect to your situation, this regulatory requirement means that the VIN assigned to each trailer manufactured by Oshkosh must identify Oshkosh as the manufacturer. This identification will facilitate the quick and accurate identification of the actual vehicle manufacturer in the event there is a need to do so.

Please note also that Oshkosh, upon manufacturing trailers that formerly were manufactured by Miller, has a responsibility to report any new types of motor vehicles that it produces. 49 CFR Part 566 requires manufacturers that have previously submitted identification information to keep their entries current by submitting revised information not later

than 30 days after the relevant changes occur. A copy of this part is also enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-1.49

DATE: 12/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes' April 21, 1976, question whether motor vehicle rims that are labeled in conformity with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, may be installed on passenger cars.

The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120 for labeling of rims for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles do not affect the use of those rims on passenger cars. This situation would change if Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, is modified in the future to prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2, but such an eventuality is considered to be unlikely.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

November 9, 1976

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

RE: Request for Interpretation: FMVSS-120

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We requested an interpretation on this safety standard in April, 1976 and have not yet received a reply. A copy of my April 21 letter is enclosed for reference.

May we hear from you soon on this matter? We have some pressing business decisions to make.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

enclosure

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

April 21, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS-120 Non-Passenger Car Rims

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Kelsey-Hayes Company is a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including rims for passenger car, truck, and other vehicle applications.

We make some rims that are used for both original equipment passenger cars and original equipment recreational trailers. As we understand the provisions of FMVSS-120, such a rim, when manufactured and sold for use on a trailer, must conform to FMVSS-120. It is not clear, however, whether rims conforming to FMVSS-120 may also be used on new passenger cars.

We envision circumstances under which a rim marked in conformance with FMVSS-120 is inadvertently shipped to a passenger car assembly plant for use on a new passenger car. We seek your interpretation of whether or not a manufacturer of passenger cars may use rims conforming to FMVSS-120. Assuming there is a safety benefit to the marking of rims for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, we assume those benefits are comparable when the same rim is used on a passenger car. This apparent benefit would seem to outweigh the costs associated with segregating identical wheels as a factor of the customers to whom we ship them to.

Accordingly, (Illegible Words) which would enable us to sell (Illegible Words) to FMVSS-120 for original equipment passenger car applications.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

ID: nht91-1.47

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 -- High Intensity Discharge Headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Saburo Inui (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is a request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 108 concerning High Intensity Discharge Headlamps ("HID").

Although in the February 8, 1990 amendment of FMVSS 108 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 12) NHTSA clarified that HID headlamps are not excluded as integral beam headlamp systems, Toyota has some additional concerns.

1. Configuration:

S5.4, Equipment combinations, provides that "(t)wo or more lamps . . . may be combined if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ."

S4. Definitions, defines "Integral Beam Headlamp" as "a headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, that is neither a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 nor a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5."

The Toyota HID headlamp comprises "an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source" (see Figure 1), and although it contains replaceable bulbs (the inexpensive parking lamp and turn signal lamp bulbs are replaceable), it is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO PARAGRAPH S7.5." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the Toyota combination HID headlamp system is not precluded by FMVSS 108, provided of course that all other applicable requirements are met. (To suggest otherwise would require the replacement of the entire assembly at substantial cost should only an inexpensive parking lamp or turn signal bulb fail.)

2. Hard-wire connection:

Due to limited space for accommodation of HID headlamps in the vehicle, it may not be practicable to integrate the ballast (starter and converter) into the headlamp enclosure.

In one case, the ballast would be divided into two units -- a starter and a converter -- permanently connected using hard-wire (electrical wire resistant to cutting and abrasion) as depicted in Figure 2.

Such a headlamp configuration would still constitute an integral beam headlamp system, we believe.

3. Hard-wire and connector:

In some cases, vehicle body construction may dictate that the ballast units be installed in the vehicle separately, and then permanently connected electrically.

In such cases, electrical connectors would have to be provided between the starter and the converter as depicted in Figure 3.

To be considered an integral beam headlamp system under FMVSS 108, we believe all three of the following conditions would have to be met by such an HID headlamp:

(1) Connectors would be permanently coupled at vehicle assembly.

(2) Only complete headlamp systems would be available as replacement parts, and not individual parts, such as a starter or converter.

(3) Connectors supplied with replacement parts for use by repair shops and garages would be designed to be fastened permanently after coupling (they would self-destruct if they were subsequently forced apart), and would be described in the shop manuals.

With these three conditions, headlamp replacement would always mean replacement of the entire headlamp system, resulting in consistency with conventional integral beam headlamp systems.

This "hard wire" or "hard wire and self-destruct connector" arrangement is indispensable to enable us to install our HID headlamp system into our U.S. vehicles. We therefore seek NHTSA's confirmation of our interpretations concerning the use of these headlamp systems.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Manabu Morisaka of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

Attachments

Figures 1, 2, and 3 (Graphics omitted)

ID: 2866yy

Mr. James W. Lawrence
Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
7825 National Service Road
P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter of June 15, 1990 concerning replacement doors. I apologize for the delay in our response. You quote an April 9, l990 interpretation letter to Mr. Rowghani concerning Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength. You note that the letter states that "there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214." You requested a clarification of this statement as you believe that the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would require "installation of parts meeting the same performance requirements as OEM parts."

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) would prohibit any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from removing and replacing an undamaged side door, unless the vehicle continued to comply with Standard No. 214. However, that section does not require a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if it has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. The sentence you quote begins, "if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced." The interpretation was intended to be limited to situations where damage is so extensive that the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 214.

I hope you find this clarification helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA108, 214 d:3/l3/9l

ID: nht71-5.30

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Angle Product Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to the telephone inquiries you made on December 14, 1971, concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206 with respect to trucks.

You stated that you understood that the original January 1, 1972, effective date had been or would be postponed to September 1, 1972. No such postponement has been made or proposed. The standard will go into effect with respect to trucks on the first of this coming year, as originally scheduled.

Your source of information may have confused the effective date of the standard with that of a minor proposed amendment to the standard. That amendment, which was to become effective on January 1, 1972, is now scheduled to become effective September 1, 1972. A copy of that proposed amendment is enclosed for your information.

You also asked about the existence of a mailing list which would enable you to receive our new standards and amendments to our existing standards. The Government Printing Office periodically publishes supplements to a loose-leaf publication entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations." The most recent supplement, number 5, was published in November of this year. Detailed information concerning this service, including its cost, can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

If you wish to receive our proposed, as well as our final, new standard and amendments, you should consider subscribing to the Federal Register. A year's subscription to this publication, which cost $ 25.00, can be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents.

Please write if we can be of further assistance.

ENC.

ID: nht91-5.17

DATE: August 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gabriella Petersen; Hans Petersen -- Petersen Engineering GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-16-91 from Petersen Engineering GmbH (OCC 6161)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning whether any law in the United States requires the marking or coding of a number of structural parts of certain motor vehicles. As discussed below, the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) (Theft Highway Traffic Safety Prevention Standard), issued by the National Administration (NHTSA), specifies requirements for identifying numbers or symbols to be placed on major parts of certain high theft passenger automobiles.

The Theft Prevention Standard was issued pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, which is Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(2). Congress passed Title VI in order to reduce the number of motor vehicle thefts by making it easier for law enforcement officials to trace and recover parts from stolen automobiles. Some of the more important provisions are section 603(a)(2), that specifies that NHTSA shall select the high theft lines that are subject to the Theft Prevention Standard, with the agreement of the manufacturer, if possible. Section 603(d) provides that once a line has been designated as a high theft line, it remains subject to the Theft Prevention Standard unless that line is exempted under section 605 of the Cost Savings Act. Section 605 provides that a manufacturer may petition to have a high theft line exempted from the requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard, if the line is equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device. The exemption is granted if NHTSA determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with the Theft Prevention Standard in reducing and deterring motor vehicle thefts.

To implement these statutory requirements, NHTSA promulgated the Theft Prevention Standard in 1985. The standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe vehicle identification numbers (VINs) onto the following 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft passenger automobiles: engine, transmission, right front fender, left front fender, hood, right front door, left front door, right rear door, left rear door, front bumper, rear bumper, right rear quarter panel, left rear quarter panel, and if present, the decklid, tailgate, or hatchback. The agency annually publishes a list of the high theft car lines that have been selected for previous model years and includes new car lines selected for the most current model year. The most recent list of high theft car lines was published on September 11, 1990.

As you requested, I am enclosing copies of the September 1990 list of high theft car lines, the Cost Savings Act, and the Theft Prevention Standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to write to me again.

ID: nht93-5.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your FAX letter of June 25, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our FAX letter to you of May 28, 1993, provided an interpretation of SAE J588 NOV84, incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You mention the 1990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual which refers to SAE J588 September 1970, and ask which is the correct SAE reference.

Standard No. 108 was amended with an effective date of December 1, 1990, to substitute "SAE J588 NOV84" for "SAE J588 September 1970" as the U.S. Federal requirement for turn signal lamps used as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches overall width. Turn signal lamps may still be manufactured to the requirements of "SAE J588 September 1970" if they are intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps that were manufactured in accordance with "SAE J588 September 1970." We understand that your earlier letter asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it related to the design of lamps for future production, and trust that this answers your question.

As you have requested, we are also FAXing a copy of Table III.

ID: 77-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter asking whether 10 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 10 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that none of them are required to comply with the standard.

The joints numbered 1 through 4 on page 1 of your letter refer to hanger straps, panels and pads involved in the installation of overhead storage racks. These items of equipment are not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant compartment space and, therefore, are excluded from the standard's requirements.

The exterior roof luggage rack described in paragraphs 5 and 6 is not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which the rack is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

The NHTSA agrees that the joints described in paragraphs 1 through 4 on page 2 of your letter, relating to the installation of air conditioning units, involve the type of ventilation space that is not subject to the requirements for joint strength.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 9, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221

We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the definition of "body panel joint": Book Racks - Fig. 1

1. Hanger strap to headlining to bow 2. Panel (tray) to panel to hanger strap

Parcel Racks - Fig. 2

3. Hanger bracket to headlining to bow 4. Pad to hanger bracket

Roof Luggage Rack - Fig. 3

5. Panel to panel to roof sheet 6. Rail assembly to panel to roof sheet

We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the "ventilation clause" in the definition of "body panel joint".

Air Conditioner Joints

1. Saddle assembly to roof structural members - Figs. 4, 5, 6 2. Saddle assembly, structural joints - Figs. 7, 8 3. Duct section to duct section - Fig. 9 4. Duct assembly to roof sheet - Fig. 9

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

cc: LARRY HANSON

BODY TO SADDLE TRIMS

FIGURE #7

FIGURE #8

(Illegible Word) DUCT TO DUCT JOINTS

(Illegible Word) DUCT TO ROOF

FIGURE #9

(Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO DUCT TRANSITION

(Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO ROOF

(Graphics omitted)

Figure 1

Hanger Strap Tray

Overhead book rack available for conventent storage.

Figure 2

Pad

Hanger Bracket

Deluxe tubular steel parcel racks shown with upholstered aisel rail.

Figure 3

Rail Assembly

Panels

Roof luggage rack available in various lengths.

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE #4

AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE TO BODY STRUCTURE

FIGURE $5

AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE

FIGURE #6

BODY PANELS TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE

SADDLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 08-00244--139 generic name cord material--3 Jun 08 rsy

ID: 1984-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Margaret Moore Oba Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. 200 Park Avenue Suite 4114-12 New York, N.Y. 10166

Dear Ms. Oba:

This responds to your letter regarding the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on brake systems applicable to a diesel truck equipped with an "air over hydraulic" brake system.

After examining your letter and the enclosed diagram of the braking system, we note that air pressure is used to transmit braking force from the driver, not merely to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydaulic or mechanical components. A failure in air pressure would result in loss of braking force. Therefore, this brake system falls within the definition of hair brake system" in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

When the original final rule was issued on Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems, the preamble stated:

It should be noted that the term "air brake system" as defined in the standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic," in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

See Federal Register, February 27, 1971, at page 3817.

In 1972, the agency reiterated this interpretation in the preamble to the original final rule on Standard No. 105a (now, Standard No. 105), Hydraulic Brake Systems:

Standard No. 105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with "air over hydraulic" systems, which remain within the purview of Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

See Federal Register, September 2, 1971, at page 17971. Copies of these pages are enclosed.

Accordingly, the air over hydraulic diesel truck braking system described in your letter would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

January 26, 1984 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to request clarification regarding F.M.V.S.S. classification of brake systems. In a new model of diesel truck which we intend to import to the United States, we use a system called the "air over hydraulic" brake system. It is rarely used in America, and we are unsure whether it should fit within the definition of a hydraulic brake or an air brake, as it contains elements of both designs.

I am enclosing a simple diagram for your reference. In it, the blue line represents air, the red, fluid. As you can see, pressure exerted by the driver is carried by air to the hydraulic air serve. From there,force is then transmitted by fluid to the wheel brakes. The descriptions of brake systems in F.M.V.S.S. 105 (hydraulic) and 121 (air) define each category according to the medium transmitting force from the service brake control to the brake itself. If the unit which uses air is considered only as a form of power assistance, the air-over system should be included in the hydraulic brake definition.

However, if the air system from the pedal to the hydraulic servo is considered as an integral part of the brake and of equal value, then it would not be merely an assist to the hydraulic.

We would like to know into which category our brake system should fall. If my explanations or diagram are incomplete or unsatisfactory in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us for further clarification.

Sincerely yours, Margaret Moore Oba Encl: