ID: nht93-2.26

DATE: March 24, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-9-93 from D. E. Dawkins to John Womack

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 9, 1993, responding to mine of February 18.

On December 16, 1992, you informed the agency of the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1.

According to your December letter, these vehicles are "almost identical" to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans "will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted."

It appeared that you wished confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. As I informed you on February 18, in order for the agency to provide this confirmation, we must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You stated that "(b)ased on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety." While you may have used the word "significant" in an excess of caution, it implied that there were differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there was a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. Therefore, we asked you to identify the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion.

Your letter of March 9 informs us that there are "no discernable safety differences" between TEVans and CCEVs. It further informs us, as before, that the only difference between the two programs of electric vehicle development is the propulsion motors and transmissions. Therefore, it appears that two vehicles are essentially the same in design and in terms of the level of safety provided, and that it is appropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-8.38

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: Len R. Thies -- C & C Creations

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Len R. Thies (A42; Std. 111; Std. 205; Std. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

My partner and I have developed an after-market device for use in commercial and non-commercial vans. The device inhibits the flow of air from the back of the van to the front and vice-versa, in effect reducing the amount of volume to be heated or cooled. The result is a more efficient use of the vehicle's heating/cooling system resulting in more comfort for the driver and passengers especially in cases of extreme temperatures.

The device is composed of a sheet of clear vinyl suspended near the ceiling by a metal bar. The vinyl is also attached to the sides of the vehicle by velcro patches. Visibility is unimpaired, and is easily detached and removed from the vehicle by the owner.

After additional testing we intend to start marketing the device. In order to address all potential regulations, I contacted Ms. Mary Verseilles and Mr. Mark Levine in your office, who have given me their informal opinions. I appreciate their time and commend them for their sincerity in addressing my questions and for guidance through other potential areas of concern.

The only real concern regarding the device is one raised by Mr. Levine and focuses on fire resistence. Vinyl will burn but must have constant ignition in order to do so. Many people might call it a "melt" rather than a burning action.

Basis the foregoing I would request from you a written opinion relative to the acceptability of the device for use in vehicles.

Thank you in advance for your handling of my request.

Sincerely,

ID: 8133a

Mr. Dale E. Dawkins
Director
Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs
Chrysler Corporation
CIMS 415-03-17
1200 Chrysler Drive
Highland Park MI 48288-0857

Dear Mr. Dawkins:

We have received your letter of March 9, 1993, responding to mine of February 18.

On December 16, 1992, you informed the agency of the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1.

According to your December letter, these vehicles are "almost identical" to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans "will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted."

It appeared that you wished confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. As I informed you on February 18, in order for the agency to provide this confirmation, we must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You stated that "[b]ased on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety." While you may have used the word "significant" in an excess of caution, it implied that

there were differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there was a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. Therefore, we asked you to identify the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion.

Your letter of March 9 informs us that there are "no discernable safety differences" between TEVans and CCEVs. It further informs us, as before, that the only difference between the two programs of electric vehicle development is the propulsion motors and transmissions. Therefore, it appears that two vehicles are essentially the same in design and in terms of the level of safety provided, and that it is appropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:3/24/93

ID: nht88-2.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 22, 1988 EST

FROM: A. L. BRAGG -- LABORATORY MANAGER, TRUCK-LITE CO., INC.

TO: Z. TAYLOR VINSON -- SENIOR STAFF ATTY., NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF S4.1.16 AND S4.1.17 IN STANDARD NUMBER 108

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 (EST) TO A. L. BRAGG, LABORATORY MGR., TRUCK-LITE CO., INC., FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Our company currently manufactures several variations of stop, turn, and tail lamps that have a twelve square inch lens. Some particular models of this lamp also incorporate a ring of reflex reflector optics around the outside of the lens. It is our un derstanding that for the purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of the lenses illuminated by an internal bulb, the reflex area (if present) must be subtracted from the total lens area, even though it may appear to transmit light. In the case of our particular lamps, we have a total of twelve square inches, from which we would subtract a four square inch area of reflex reflector which leaves eight square inches of effective projected illuminated lens area.

We note that the current FMVSS-108 document refers to SAE J586c, August 1970 for stop lamps and SAE J588e, September 1970 for turn signal lamps. A close reading of these standards indicates (to us at least) that for vehicles of eighty inches or more in width, an effective projected illuminated area of at least twelve square inches is required when two or more lamps are mounted closer together than twenty-two inches. We would further surmise that if a single stop/turn lamp were used or if two or mor e stop/turn lamps were used but that they were kept at least twenty-two inches or more apart, the twelve square inch rule would not be enforced and that eight square inches of effective projected illuminated area would be sufficient.

This matter is further complicated by the fact that in addition to the SAE standards just mentioned, there is a reference in S4.1.1.7 which seems to indicate that twelve square inches is required for vehicles ove eithty inches in overall width.

Our basic question is in reference to our combination lamp which has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area. For vehicles over eighty inches wide can we advise our customers that these lamps may be us ed:

A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?

We would be most grateful for your views and interpretation regarding the above. If we may offer any clarification, please feel free to contact us by letter or telephone.

ID: 9861

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether footnote 4 of Table 3 of the standard applies to a motorcycle speedometer using a digital display. As explained below, the answer is no.

In your letter, you requested that information identifying your company be kept confidential. As explained in the March 25, 1994 letter to you from Heidi L. Coleman, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, when confidential treatment is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidentiality regulation, 49 C.F.R. '512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public (49 C.F.R. '512.4(e)) and other supporting information (49 C.F.R. '512.4(b)). However, in order to expedite our response to you, I will waive the requirement of the certification contained in 49 C.F.R. '512.

Under S5.2.3 of Standard No. 123, if a speedometer is provided, the item shall be identified by "wording shown in both Column 2 and Column 4" of Table 3 of the standard. Column 4 of Table 3 specifies that a speedometer shall be identified by "M.P.H." You believe your speedometer meets this requirement. However, you ask whether footnote 4 of Column 4 applies to a digital display speedometer. Footnote 4 states:

M.P.H. increase in a clockwise direction. Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations at the 5 mph intervals.

The answer to your question is no. Digital displays were not common in 1972, when the footnote 4 specifications were

published. The original Standard No. 123 drafters had in mind only dial display speedometers. For these reasons, we interpret the specifications in footnote 4 of Column 4 not to apply to digital display speedometers on motorcycles that provide a reading of numeric vehicle speed.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:123 d:5/31/94

This letter contains confidential information!

ID: nht94-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether footnote 4 of Table 3 of the standard applies to a motorcycle speedometer using a digital display. As explained below, the answer is no.

In your letter, you requested that information identifying your company be kept confidential. As explained in the March 25, 1994 letter to you from Heidi L. Coleman, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, when confidential treatment is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidentiality regulation, 49 C.F.R. @ 512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public (49 C.F.R. @ 512.4(e)) and other supporting information (49 C.F.R. @ 512.4(b)). However, in order to expedite our response to you, I will waive the requirement of the certification contained in 49 C.F.R. @ 512.

Under S5.2.3 of Standard No. 123, if a speedometer is provided, the item shall be identified by "wording shown in both Column 2 and Column 4" of Table 3 of the standard. Column 4 of Table 3 specifies that a speedometer shall be identified by "M.P.H." Yo u believe your speedometer meets this requirement. However, you ask whether footnote 4 of Column 4 applies to a digital display speedometer. Footnote 4 states:

M.P.H. increase in a clockwise direction. Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations at the 5 mph intervals.

The answer to your question is no. Digital displays were not common in 1972, when the footnote 4 specifications were

2

published. The original Standard No. 123 drafters had in mind only dial display speedometers. For these reasons, we interpret the specifications in footnote 4 of Column 4 not to apply to digital display speedometers on motorcycles that provide a readin g of numeric vehicle speed.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: hyundai.ztv

Mr. Roger Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 2003, asking for an interpretation as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 preempts a California statute relating to fog lamps.

You reported that "a California statute, Title 13, Section 691" states that "Foglamps shall be mounted so the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp."In your view, "FMVSS 108 allows fog lamps to be located less than 4 inches from front turn signal lamps in certain circumstances" by virtue of "SAE J588, which is incorporated into FMVSS 108."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, the action by California in regulating the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps is not "an aspect of performance" that is covered by FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, we do not find that FMVSS No. 108 preempts the California statute.

We do not view SAE J588 as relevant to this issue. SAE J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width," is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108 as the Federal standard applicable to turn signal lamps on passenger cars and motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width (see S5.1.1 and Table III). J588 does contain references to fog lamps. Under J588, if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater (See J588, 5.1.5.4 and 5.1.5.4.2). But the reference to fog lamps is illustrative only, and the thrust of J588 is to regulate performance of turn signal lamps.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/2/03

ID: nht88-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph 54.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembl y is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assemb ly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicl e. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1987 Ref: W-253-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., on behalf of Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, "Lam ps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Among its requirements, S4.1.1.36(b) (3) of Standard 108 stipulates that the replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1 - "Aiming Adjustment Test" of SAE J580 AUG79, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

Item 6.1.1 of the above-referenced "Aiming Adjustment Test" states that, "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of + 4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes."

Nissan's question is whether this minimum aiming adjustment requirement is to be achieved:

1. by the headlamp assembly (by the component unit) itself, or

2. by both the headlamp assembly (as a component unit)

and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the

vehicle?

Erika Jones June 30, 1987 Page Two

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington staff at (202) 466-5284, if you have any questions or require further details. I would appreciate it if you would please also notify Mr. Hayashi when your respons e has been issued.

Sincerely,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

ID: nht69-2.31

DATE: 09/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Perley A. Thomas Car Works Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1969, in which you request approval of an alternative to the label locations specified in Section 367.4(c) of the Certification Regulations that are effective as to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1969.

The location you have selected is not considered to be in the same general area, left side of the vehicle, as specified. In view of the fact that interested parties will be looking for the label in the general area, to the left of the vehicle, we are approving a label location to the left of the access panel instead of the right as you have shown in your drawing No. 2507-2369.

If there is any reason why you cannot attach your label in the area we have suggested, please advise. It is assumed that our alternative should not impose undue hardship. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary correspondence, no response from you will be interpreted as your acceptance of the above.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

ID: Miller_tri-cycle 6102

Mr. Marshall V. Miller
Miller & Company P.C.
4929 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64112

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to a letter you sent to Mr. John Lewis of this agency, in which you asked if a three-wheeled, electric work cycle ("work cycle") your client is seeking to import would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, our answer is no.

Title 49 U.S. Code 30112 prohibits the importation of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is not certified to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In previous interpretations we did not consider vehicles designed and sold solely for non-public road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) as motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. [1]

When a vehicle has on-road capabilities, the agency looks at five factors to determine if it a vehicle is a "motor vehicle." [2]These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use;
2. Whether the vehicles manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use;
3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles;
4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is intended for use on the public roads; and
5. Whether States or Foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Taken as a whole, we have concluded that the work cycle is not a motor vehicle. Our conclusion is based on the following analysis of the five factors provided above.

As to the first factor, the vehicle will not be advertised for use on-road. Your clients business is primarily based on the manufacture and sale of work tractors used in industrialized settings. You stated that the work cycle would be solely advertised for use in similar off-road industrial settings.

Second, the work cycles U.S. dealer will not be assisting purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You explained that your client would be the sole dealer of the work cycle and that the company would not provide any certificate of origin or title documents sufficient to register the work cycles in any State.

Third, your client, the sole dealer of the work cycle, does not manufacture or sell any motor vehicles for on-road use.

Fourth, you stated that your client would place a warning label on each work cycle, in a prominent place, stating that the work cycles are not intended for use on public roads.

Fifth, while you did not state if the work cycle is permitted on public roads in China, you did state that to the best of your knowledge, no State has permitted the work cycle to be registered for on-road use. Further, you stated that because the work cycle does not have a VIN number, it is unlikely that any State would allow a work cycle to be registered for on-road use.

While we have concluded at this time that the work cycle is not a motor vehicle, we may re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the work cycles were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis.

You may wish to consult the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to determine which, if any, OSHA regulations may apply to the work cycle.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:591
d.10/7/03





---

[1] See, Letter to Mr. Lane Francis, April 23, 2003 (A grain-vacuum manufactured primarily for use at agricultural sites is not a "motor vehicle."), and Letter to Mr. John L. Oberdorfer and Mr. Eric A. Kuwana, October 1, 1997 (a lift truck designed and manufactured to lift heavy loads on rough terrain and at industrial and construction locations is not a "motor vehicle.") [Enclosed]

[2] See, Letter to Mr. M. James Lester, June 26, 2001.[Enclosed]