ID: aiam3696

Dear Mr. Alexander: This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; You are concerned with the 'design to conform' language as it relate to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it 'does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in.'; I am not certain what you mean by 'every photometric point in' However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set forth by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not 'designed to conform'.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-4.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1994

FROM: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 208 S7.1.2

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/5/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Randal Busick (A43; Std. 208; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of FMVSS 208 S7.1.2. More specifically, would a seat belt system as shown on the attached drawing be in compliance with S7.1.2 as a so-called "semi-integrated" seat belt?

As shown on the drawing, the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage, n1 is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance between the two extreme adjustmen t positions of the system is more than 5 cm.

n1 The belt which holds the buckle is attached to this inboard anchorage.

We look forward to your response. If you have any questions, kindly contact the undersigned.

Sincerely

Enclosure

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: tunick

Lance Tunick, Esquire
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to a message that you e-mailed to Coleman Sachs of my staff concerning a statement in an interpretation letter dated May 24, 2002 that we sent to Mr. Dick Keller of Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin (Bruno). That letter addressed whether the replacement of a seat supplied on a motor vehicle as original equipment with a device developed by Bruno to facilitate the transfer of a mobility-impaired individual between a motor vehicle and a wheelchair would constitute an alteration that triggers the vehicle certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567.

In discussing this matter, we noted that if the device were installed after the vehicles first retail sale, the installation would not constitute an alteration, but the installer would be prohibited under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). We further noted that in a final rule issued on February 27, 2001 (at 66 FR 12628), the agency created an exemption from this prohibition for motor vehicle repair businesses that modify vehicles to enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as passengers in those vehicles. We stated that by virtue of this exemption, if the seating transfer device developed by Bruno "were to be installed in a vehicle after a sales contract is entered for the delivery of that vehicle, but prior to the actual transfer of title . . . the installer would not be subject to the making inoperative prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)."

Your message took issue with the latter statement. In particular, you contended that since the February 27, 2001 final rule, which is codified at 49 CFR Part 595, "only provides for an exemption from the making inoperative prohibition as regards FMVSS No. 207 when no driver seat is provided, then an installer of a seating system would be subject to the making inoperative prohibitions" (emphasis in original). Referencing 49 CFR 595.7(c)(13). You further noted, however, the agencys pronouncement, in its letter of August 21, 2001 to B&D Independence Co. Inc., that it would not pursue an enforcement action against the installer for a violation of the "making inoperative" prohibition if the installer follows procedures set forth in that letter.

We have reviewed our May 24, 2002 letter to Bruno in light of the concerns you have raised, and agree that it incorrectly implies that an exemption from the "making inoperative" prohibition is available, without limitation, to a motor vehicle repair business that replaces a seat supplied on a motor vehicle as original equipment with a transfer device such as the one developed by Bruno. Our letter to B&D Independence Co. noted, in fact, that the final rule establishing the amendments to Part 595 "does not contain any exemptions from Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210 allowing for the installation of six-way power seat bases" similar to the device that Bruno is marketing.

Insofar as Standard No. 207 is concerned, the exemption from the "making inoperative" prohibition is only available under the Part 595 regulations "in any case in which a vehicle is modified to be driven by a person seated in a wheelchair and no other drivers seat is supplied with the vehicle, provided that a wheelchair securement device is installed at the drivers position." See 49 CFR 595.7(c)(13). Since the device marketed by Bruno would not result in "a wheelchair securement device [being] installed at the drivers position," so as to permit the "vehicle to be driven by a person seated in a wheelchair," no exemption from the making inoperative prohibition with respect to the requirements of Standard No. 207 is available under Part 595 to a motor vehicle repair business that installs such a device.

Our May 24, 2002 letter to Bruno is clarified accordingly. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Dick Keller

Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

ref:567
d.1/16/03

ID: aiam4645

FAX 03-792-0007 (Japan) Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to you letter of June 16, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June l9 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) to December l, l989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed. Your third question is: How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations. This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the test procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathematical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance. Your final question is: It is acceptable to set up initial '0' point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically? You may determine the 'O' point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal 'O' point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal 'O' mark is required to be determined. In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. 108 to this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: 16-002814 Chrysler_VIN_interp_clean_1

ID: aiam1389

Dear Mr. Hammond: In your letter of January 21, 1974, you cite the provision of Standar No. 108 under which 'the height of the rear clearance lamps is optional if the identification lamps are located at the top of the trailer', and suggest that a similar option be adopted for identification lamps, *i.e.*, that their height location 'be made optional if the rear clearance lamps are located as close to the top of the closed van trailer as practical'.; Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to 'indicate th overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top as practicable'. The primary purpose of these lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and the secondary purpose is to indicate the overall height. Identification lamps on the other hand are a system (three lamps with specified spacing) located 'as near the top as practicable'. The sole purpose of this system is to identify a vehicle as one of large size. When the widest part of a vehicle is at a point other than the highest point, such as when the fenders are separate or protrude from the body, the option in Standard No. 108 in effect allows the clearance lamps to be mounted at the widest point even though it would be practicable to mount them higher, as long as the identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle, thus fulfilling the secondary function of the clearance lamps. Since the identification lamps are a system serving only the one function of identification, the clearance lamps cannot act as substitutes and the system must be mounted at the point of maximum visibility ('as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle'). To adopt your suggestion would allow a manufacturer to mount the system at the bottom of a vehicle even if it is practicable to mount them at the top, thus substantially negating the identification function the system serves. For this reason we cannot adopt the option your suggest.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3582

Dear Mr. Kitchen: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff askin for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.; Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR S574.5 that 'the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable.' Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.; In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 198 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this intrepretation (sic) seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.; The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol o retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is S574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.; I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you allude in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3579

Dear Mr. Kitchen: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff askin for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.; Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR S574.5 that 'the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable.' Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.; In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 198 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this interpretation seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.; The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol o retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is S574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.; I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you allude in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Noel H. McMormick

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel H. McCormick Personal Lines Coordination Manager Sentry Insurance 1800 North Point Drive Stevens Point, WI 54481

Dear Mr. McCormick:

This responds to your letters to our Administrator, concerning whether your company should be subject to 49 CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements, for the reports due not later than October 25, 1987. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explai n our rulemaking procedures to you.

As you know, we publish annual amendments to the listing of insurance companies subject to the reporting requirements of Part 544. These amendments are made in accordance with the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act; 5 U.S. C. 553. Those provisions require the agency to publish a proposed listing of insurers subject to the reporting requirements, and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. After all comments are received, the agency evaluates the comments and publishes a final listing.

On May 28, 1987, we published a proposed listing of insurers that would be subject to the reporting requirements for the October, 1987 reports: 52 FR 19898 (copy enclosed). As you will see, this proposed listing identifies your company as one that would be subject to the reporting requirements. The comment period for this proposal closes on July 13, 1987. The agency will consider all comments received as of that date in preparing the final listing of insurance companies required to file a report in Octo ber, 1987.

Pursuant to normal informal rulemaking procedures, your first letter on this subject was treated as a comment on the proposed listing and put in the public docket for this rulemaking action, along with any other comments we receive on the proposed listin g. In your most recent letter, you stated that, in a telephone conversation with agency staff, you "did not receive an adequate explanation" of why your company would be subject to these reporting requirements. Therefore, you stated that your company doe s not plan to file an October, 1987 report. Agency staff cannot offer any opinions about what the final agency decision on this matter will be before the decision has been made. No final decision can be made until all comments have been considered and th e statutory provisions and past agency positions reexamined. This procedure will begin after July 13, 1987, when the comment period closes.

You should be aware of the fact that if your company is included in the final listing of subject insurance companies and you do not file the required report, this agency has authority to seek both a civil penalty and injunctive relief against your compan y' pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2028.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 27, 1987 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

RE: INSURER REPORT - 1986 AUTOMOBILE THEFT CLAIMS

This letter is a follow-up to my letter of May 6. 1987 and our phone conversation of May 27, 1987. We appreciate your effort in reviewing and concurring that our premium writings on a countrywide basis are 0.984%

We have been informed that A. M. Best has rounded this percentage to 1%, and thus in the Federal Register, Sentry will be listed as one of the companies required to submit data for the report due October 25, 1987.

In my May 27 phone conversation, I did not receive an adequate explanation as to how .984 can be rounded to 1%. Without that explanation. our interpretation is that our percentage is less than 1%. Therefore, Sentry does not plan to submit data for the Oc tober, 1987 report.

Sincerely yours,

Noel H. McCormick Personal Lines Coordination Manager SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY

ID: nht90-4.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 21, 1990

FROM: Julie Gonzalez -- Keiper Recaro

TO: Paul J. Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-90 from P.J. Rice to J. Gonzalez (A36; VSA 108(a)(2); Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Our company Keiper Recaro is a manufacturer of automobile seats. We install the seats into vehicles on an aftermarket basis. To complete the installation we use an adapter bracket to mount our seat into the vehicle. In some vehicles we mount our seat o nto our adapter bracket and then mount that assembly onto the original equipment manufacture's seat track. In some of these cases the seat belt buckle is attached to the OEM seat. We would like to remove the OEM belt buckle from the OEM seat and attach it to our adapter bracket. Please send us a list and description of the tests and safety standards we must meet.

In other vehicles we must remove the OEM seat track and use a Recaro seat track. In these cases the Recaro Seat is mounted onto the Recaro seat tracks which mount onto a Recaro adapter bracket that mounts onto the floor. In this situation we would like to mount the OEM seat belt buckle to the adapter bracket which bolts to the floor. Please send a list and description of the tests and safety standards we must meet.

Enclosed is a print of a typical bracket we design at Recaro. The drawing shows the belt buckle mounting location in relation to the occupants hip point.

If you need more information or have any questions, please call at 1-800-873-2276.