ID: nht69-2.23

DATE: 09/08/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Caroline Nigro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1969, concerning head restraints on your 1969 Pontiac Catalina.

Before Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, which requires passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, to be equipped with head restraints was issued, the issue you raise, that of the possibility of decreased visibility, was carefully considered. It was felt, however, that the possibility of a slight decrease in visibility, which may occur in certain passenger cars, was far cutweighed by the benefits to safety provided by head restraints.

In a study published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and conducted by members of the Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineers, U.C.L.A., it was concluded that (1) "Rear-end collisions are one of the most common types of accidents, and can cause crippling injuries even at low speed," and (2) "head restraints are as important to the motorist involved in rear-end collisions as the safety belt is to the motorist involved in front-end impact."

Furthermore, in the recent case of Sterling Products versus Boyd, in which the Federal Highway Administrator's iasuance of the head restraint standard was challenged and upheld, Judge McGovern of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concludeds;

"In any event, we find substantial support in the record for conclusion that the contribution of head restriants to consumer safety is such as to warrant their inclusion in all newly manufactured motor cars. There can be no question but that the Administrater, on the besis of the submissions made to him, could reasonably determine that the benefits from mandatory head restraints for outweighed any disadvantage from such restraints due to decreased visibility, or other possible adverse effects upon safety."

Federal law does not prohibit you from removing head restraints. However, I strongly urge that you retain these safety devices in your vehicle for your own safety and protection.

ID: nht76-2.13

DATE: 04/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Transportation Design & Technology, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 14, 1975, request to know how the tensile strength at a joint is determined under S6.2 of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, in the case of more than two body components joined by the same fastener.

An extensive discussion of joint strength requirements and test procedures was recently sent to Blue Bird Body Company. Your question is addressed in that discussion and a copy is enclosed for your information.

YOURS TRULY,

Transportation Design & Technology, Inc.

14 November 1975

Mr. Frank A Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have been asked to contact your office for a clarification of the joint integrity ruling. Where two pieces of sheet metal overlap to form a joint and are also attached to a body post of a much higher yield material, does the joint calculations apply to the surface metals only or should the higher yield material of the inner post be taken into account?

There appears to be some doubt in the minds of several people I have spoken with and therefore, I would appreciate your comments at your earliest convenience.

L. W. Smith President

ID: nht69-1.15

DATE: 03/04/69

FROM: DEAN F. NIEDERNHOFER FOR CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA

TO: P.O.B. Manufacturing Company

COPYEE: R. O'MAHONEY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 21, 1960, concerning glazing materials.

I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 and, since you manufacture and distribute sealing compounds, a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212.

ASA Standard Z26.1-1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205, can be obtained at a cost of $ 3.50 from the United States of America Standards Institute, 10 East 40th Street: New York 10016.

SAR Recommended Practice J673A, August 1967, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205, can be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York, 10001.

We are in the process of changing paragraph S.3.2 of Standard No. 205. You may want to keep up with future amendments to these and other standards, therefore, I am enclosing a copy of form HS-13, Mailing List Questionnaire and subscription information for the Federal Register. Either or both of these will enable you to receive information in your areas of interest in all future motor vehicle safety rulemaking actions.

Sincerely,

February 21, 1969

Federal Highway Administration

Dept. of Transportation

Attention: Standards Dept.

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers and distributors of sealing and glazing compounds for the transportation industry.

In view of this we would appreciate receiving a copy of Standard 205 (glazing materials) or information as to where and how we may obtain some.

Thank you for your courtesies and cooperation.

Sincerely, Jack Flyn--

P.O.B. Manufacturing Company

ID: nht95-5.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Sinkez -- Vice-President, Mitsubishi Motors of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sinkez:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of our Vehicle Identification Number regulation, which you made in a July 5, 1995, meeting with Dorothy Nakama and Steve Wood of this office. You asked, after Diamond Star Motors Corporation's (DSM's) name is changed to Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (MMMA), whether that company may continue to use the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to DSM. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

We understand the facts as follows. When DSM was formed, shares of DSM stock were split between Mitsubishi Corporation and Chrysler Corporation. In 1994, Mitsubishi purchased all of Chrysler's shares in DSM. Mitsubishi now owns 100% of DSM stock. Effective July 1, 1995, Mitsubishi changed DSM's name to MMMA. We have been informed that no changes other than transfers of shares in DSM stock and the name change were made in MMMA's corporate form.

By way of background information, 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements is intended to simplify VIN information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle defect recall campaigns. Section 565.4(a) provides that a portion of the VIN, called the WMI, must "uniquely identify the manufacturer."

The basic issue raised by your question is, if MMMA continues to use the WMI assigned to DSM, whether the WMI will "uniquely identify the manufacturer." In the factual situation at issue, only the company's name is changed, and not the identity of the manufacturer, i.e., MMMA is the same corporation as DSM. Therefore, MMMA may continue to use the WMI assigned to DSM.

I hope this response is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Sinkez -- Vice-President, Mitsubishi Motors of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sinkez:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of our Vehicle Identification Number regulation, which you made in a July 5, 1995, meeting with Dorothy Nakama and Steve Wood of this office. You asked, after Diamond Star Motors Corporation's (DSM's) name is changed to Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (MMMA), whether that company may continue to use the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to DSM. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

We understand the facts as follows. When DSM was formed, shares of DSM stock were split between Mitsubishi Corporation and Chrysler Corporation. In 1994, Mitsubishi purchased all of Chrysler's shares in DSM. Mitsubishi now owns 100% of DSM stock. Eff ective July 1, 1995, Mitsubishi changed DSM's name to MMMA. We have been informed that no changes other than transfers of shares in DSM stock and the name change were made in MMMA's corporate form.

By way of background information, 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements is intended to simplify VIN information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle defect recall campaigns. Section 565.4(a) prov ides that a portion of the VIN, called the WMI, must "uniquely identify the manufacturer."

The basic issue raised by your question is, if MMMA continues to use the WMI assigned to DSM, whether the WMI will "uniquely identify the manufacturer." In the factual situation at issue, only the company's name is changed, and not the identity of the ma nufacturer, i.e., MMMA is the same corporation as DSM. Therefore, MMMA may continue to use the WMI assigned to DSM.

I hope this response is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht74-1.40

DATE: 02/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, asking whether a school bus rear lighting system is permissible that activates the back-up lamps and flashes four red stop lamps when the gearshift is in reverse.

The system of supplemental school bus warning lamps you describe is one that is not specified by Standard No. 108. Although S4.6(b) states that "All . . . lamps [other than those specified in S4.6(a)] shall be steady burning . . . ," we interpret this requirement as covering only the systems specified by the standard. Therefore there is no Federal prohibition against your installation of such a system. However, the system would be subject to regulation by the individual States, some of which may have restrictions on the use of flashing lights.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

January 15, 1974

Richard Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 1C8

We need a ruling on whether it is legal to use rear stop lights on a bus as follows:

1. When brakes are applied rear stop lights are steady burning under all conditions.

2. Place gearshift in reverse - two backup lights are energized and the two seven inch and two four inch rear stop lights flash at a frequency between 60 and 120 cycles per minute.

The purpose for such a system is to give school pupils and others additional warning in addition to the backup lights when the bus is in reverse gear and would not interfere with the stop light function. Thanks for an early reply.

Yours very truly,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY;

W. G. Milby -- Project Engineer

ID: nht92-6.38

DATE: May 25, 1992

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Guy Dorleans (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Standard 108 specifies different levels of photometric requirements for signal lamps, depending on the number of lighted sections which they have. The highest values are mandatory for those functions obtained by "three lighted sections", as per relevant subparagraph 5.1.1.11 Fig 1b, title 49 in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The use of light-emitting diodes does not permit to distinguish at a glance several distinct lighted sections, because the small size of each individual light source produces an even illumination on the lens. These light sources can not be subjected to voltages bigger than 1,5 Volts, and current state-of-the-art compels the equipment manufacturer to group them in arrays, each of these arrays containing a few diodes in series.

In the case of failure of one diode or its solder, a variation of the illuminance on the lens will be easy to identify. The inner wiring of the diodes will either produce a completely dark array, or increase the brilliance of those diodes not affected by the defect.

In the event where light-emitting diodes, or other non-removable light sources are used in quantities bigger than three, we consider that the provision for "lamps with three lighted sections" applies A FORTIORI, because its severeness will keep the user on the safe side even if the Standard does not specifically address the problems raised by the multiple light sources.

We hereby ask confirmation that our interpretation is correct.

ID: 1123

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, on the subject of "optical combination" as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a "Rider" in "a proposed change [around 1990] that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, `NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.'" You ask how "[u]sing the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re- Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support."

You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term "optical combination" is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp "has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)", and when "its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions." It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different housings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:9/25/95

ID: nht72-5.38

DATE: 03/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert Waggoner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1972, requesting information on "a new law effective January 1, 1972, that makes it mandatory that manufacturers of truck bodies and those repairing such items must now certify their product."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) has required since January 1, 1968, that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment certify that the products they manufacture comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.101 et seq.). The "new law" to which you refer is actually regulations issued pursuant to Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) which amended existing regulations specifying the method by which manufacturers are to certify compliance. These regulations are the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568). I have enclosed copies of both for your information.

These regulations apply to manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles as defined in the regulations. They only apply to manufacturers of truck bodies if such manufacturers install the truck bodies on chassis, thus completing the vehicles. The regulations do not apply to one who only repairs truck bodies.

ID: nht72-3.20

DATE: 12/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Coach Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of August 17, 1972. We indicated in a letter to you of September 8, 1972, that we would respond to your letter when action on petitions for reconsideration of the June 21, 1972, amendment to Standard No. 205 had been completed. Notice of our action has now been published 137 F.R. 24035, November 11, 1972) and a copy is enclosed.

Based upon the November 11, 1972, notice, your conclusions regarding the requirements for certification and marketing by prime glazing material manufacturers (paragraph 3.2 of your letter) are for the most part correct. These manufacturers must mark glazing materials in accordance with Section 6 of ANS (Illegible Word). They must also certify. The certification must be made by the addition of the symbol DOT and assigned code number only when the glazing is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper. In other cases certification may be accomplished by any method meeting the requirements of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (13 U.S.C. 1403). It may not be accomplished, however, by affixing the DOT and code number.

Your conclusions regarding certification and marking requirements for persons who cut glazing material from larger sheets (paragraph 3.1 of your letter) are not entirely correct. It is true that such persons must also certify, and that the method for certification may be any that satisfies the requirements of section 114 of the Act. Affixing a label to the material is one such method. You are incorrect, however, in your conclusion that the material need not contain the markings of the prime manufacturer. Section 6 of ANS %26 requires glazing cut from larger pieces to contain the markings of the manufacturer of the larger piece. As clarified in the notice of November 11, 1972, this requirement is still applicable.