ID: 0788

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3000 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108.

SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108." This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that "license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate." However, you acknowledge "that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate." You believe "that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical."

We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree

limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95

ID: 1982-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, is applicable to school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 222 specifies in paragraph S5(b) that all seats, other than the driver's seat, in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 or less shall meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles. The requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles in Standard No. 208 are found in paragraph S4.2.2 for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1976. There is no exception in S4.2.2 which allows school buses to comply with S4.2.1.2 of Standard No. 208.

School buses are not specifically mentioned in paragraph S4.2.2 of Standard 208, because that standard includes separate requirements for buses (including school buses) in paragraph S4.4. Under the general bus requirements of Standard 208, only the driver's position must be equipped with a seat belt. These requirements are supplemented by the more specific provision in Standard No. 222 which, as noted earlier, requires small school buses to meet the requirements of Standard 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

I hope this has clarified your understanding of the requirements of these two standards. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any additional questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 1, 1981

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

Dear Sir:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" requires school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 for multi-purpose passenger vehicles at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

Section 4.2.2 of FMVSS 208 does not specifically refer to school buses. It is our understanding that they are considered an exception under S4.2.2, and may instead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2.

Please send us your official written opinion regarding the applicability of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 to school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

We appreciate your assistance.

Yours very truly, William E. Lawler -- Specifications Manager, INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

ID: 1984-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. Yamada -- Technical Research Group, Toyota Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/26/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Melanie Turner (A33; Std. 205); 4/13/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Moe Pare (Std. 205); 11/3/88 letter from Melanie Turner to Erika Z. Jones (OCC 2777)

TEXT:

August 6, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: Request for Clarification of FMVSS 205

According to FMVSS 205, the windshield glass of a passenger car must have marks on it, such as "DOT" and the manufacturer's code mark. But, we wonder if any problem would be caused from a compliance point of view if the mark were to appear underneath the moldings when the car was assembled? Please review the diagram below.

"INSERT"

I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group U.S. Office

KY:gcm

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration AUG 31 1984

Mr. K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Yamada:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1984, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked whether the "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code mark required by the standard must be visible when a windshield installed in a passenger car. You explained that the windshield molding may cover the required marks.

The certification requirements of section S6 of the standard do not require the markings to remain visible after installation the glazing on a glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as the markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer, there is no prohibition against covering the markings. The agency does, however, urge manufacturers to place the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code mark in a visible location whenever possible. Having the symbol and code in a vehicle location enables State motor vehicle inspection officials and U.S. Customs officials to easily determine if the glazing in the vehicle conforms to our standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 77-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' July 8, 1977, request for confirmation that the requirement that "[each] service reservoir system shall be protected against loss of air pressure. . .by check valves or equivalent devices" in S5.1.2.3 and S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permits small losses of air pressure through the check valve of up to 2 psi per minute without constituting noncompliance.

The requirement for protection against "loss of air pressure" does permit a small amount of leakage, in recognition of the fact that no fitting can be perfectly air tight. While the standard does not presently specify a rate of permissible air loss in S5.1.2.3 or S5.2.1.5, the agency has adopted a maximum loss of 10 psi in 10 minutes as meeting the requirement for protection against loss of air pressure. The agency is considering adding such a specification to the standard in the future by interpretive amendment.

SINCERELY,

MIDLANDROSS CORPORATION

July 8, 1977

Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Subject: FMVSS #571.121, Section S5.1.2.3.

Midland-Ross Corporation is a manufacturer of air brake actuation equipment for heavy duty trucks. We therefore manufacture components which are used by truck manufacturers for compliance with FMVSS #571.121. We are asking for interpretation of the requirement for check valves, specifically as it relates to section S.5.1.2.3.

Section S.5.1.2.3 states: "Each service reservoir system shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and the source of air pressure, by check valves or equivalent devices whose proper functioning can be checked without disconnecting any air line or fitting".

The statement "loss of air pressure" has not been qualified and can be interpretated to mean zero leakage. It is common knowledge that check valves being produced today have a leakage tolerance. For example, Midland-Ross 100% inspects check valves and allows a maximum leakage of 330 ccm (cubic centimeters/minute) leakage at 20 psi. It is also common knowledge that some leakage will exist in connections upstream to the check valve through air lines, fittings and valves. In fact the accepted industry standards have been to allow a maximum leakage of 2 psi pressure drop in one minute (reference: SAE J-890, California Highway Patrol; DOT part 570, Inspection Standard for Motor Vehicles).

ID: nht74-2.11

DATE: 08/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dura Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dura Corporation's July 24, 1974, questions whether S5.6 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires parking brakes on air suspension liftable axles, and whether the "no lockup" requirements of the standard apply to a liftable axle on a "tandem axle rig".

The parking brake performance options of S5.6 do not require parking brakes on an air suspension liftable axle such as you describe. S5.6.2 requires only that the parking brakes installed on a vehicle meet minimum performance levels. S5.6.1 requires parking brake retardation force on "an axle other than a steerable front axle". We do not consider this requirement to apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated.

The standard's "no lockup" requirement (S5.3.1) applies to

"any wheel at speeds above 10 mph except for . . .

(b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.

Under this provision, if a vehicle has two nonliftable, nonsteerable axles at the rear which do not lock up (such as an antilock-equipped tandem axle rig) it may be equipped with a liftable nonsteerable axle which does not meet the "no lockup" requirements.

Yours truly,

July 24, 1974

Sidney F. Williams -- Office of Operating Systems, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Dura Corporation is presently involved in manufacturing add-on liftable axle/suspension assemblies which are marketed with OEM and body builders. Due to the impending effectivity dates of FMVSS 121 we are presently preparing to equip our products to comply. Our liftable airide axle/suspension assemblies are applicable to both pusher and tag situations.

The intent of this letter is to request an official interpretation of FMVSS 121. Our present understanding of the standard is as follows:

An anti-lock system will be required with the add-on axle/suspension if added to a single axle rig but not required if added to a tandem axle rig.

II. An emergency/parking spring brake will not be required with the add-on axle/suspension. This supposition is based on a loss of air pressure will automatically lift the axle rendering the spring brake inoperable.

Please indicate if the above statements are correct. Your consideration and cooperation in this matter is truly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Raymond E. Jones, Project Engineer -- DURA CORPORATION

cc: W. Locke

ID: nht78-3.17

DATE: 09/27/78

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 208 applies to side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, does require side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.

Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strength requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

August 24, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

The Wayne Corporation manufacturers small buses (GVWR 10,000 lbs. and under), Busette and Transette, which have a normal passenger capacity of 16 to 20 passengers.

Some of these buses are equipped to accommodate transporting the handicapped. In some of these cases, the operators' requirements for lifts, wheelchair anchorage devices, side facing seats, etc., reduced the passenger capacity to less than 10 persons, in which case the vehicle becomes, for purpose of Federal Certification, a multipurpose passenger vehicle rather than a bus.

Which, if any, of the requirements of FMVSS 208, Passenger Crash Protection, apply to side facing seats installed in the MPV discussed above?

If you should find that S4.1.2.3 of FMVSS 208 applies at the option of the manufacturer, please advise the criteria to be used for the installation of the seat belts, taking into consideration that all current seat belt requirements relate only to forward and rearward facing seats.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: nht88-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Billy S. Peterson President Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. Product Liability-Testing-Certification at TRC of Ohio East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your client has designed a vehicle in which the backup lamps and rea r reflex reflectors would be mounted on the deck lid, and you have asked whether there are any current or contemplated prohibitions that would preclude this design.

The lamps in question will be mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle as required by paragraph @4.3.1 of Standard No. 108, and the deck lid will be closed and the lamps and reflectors in full view under normal operating conditions. The visibility requirem ents of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 108 are predicated on the normal driving or closed deck lid position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with deck lids open or otherwise having the lamps and reflectors obscured by a particula r load on the vehicle is under the jurisdiction of the individual States, we do not anticipate rulemaking on this subject. Thus, this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 23, 1987 Administration National Highway Traffic Safety U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Our client, Hyundai Motor Company, has asked us to inquire regarding the positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with FMVSS 108 for a new model currently in the final design stages. The rear lighting design for the new model provides for mounting some of the lighting on the bottom edge of the trunk lid, similar to a design currently used on the Audi 5000.

Although FMVSS 108 Table IV only calls for paired lamps and reflectors that are required on the rear to be at the same height on each side of the vertical centerline and "...as far apart as practicable," Hyundai would like to know if there are any curren t specific prohibitions or future anticipated changes that would preclude or limit the mounting of rear lamps or reflectors on the trunk lid. A schematic of the rear lighting configuration for the new model is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Billy S. Peterson President

BSP/PLS/plm

Enclosure

ID: nht75-2.33

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokio Iinuma

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 27, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 219 with respect to certain of your test results.

The primary purpose of Standard No. 219 is to protect vehicle occupants from impact with vehicle parts that have penetrated into the passenger compartment through the windshield during a crash. The inner surface of the windshield is the area of interface between the windshield and the passenger compartment. Therefore, the standard is designed to ensure that nothing penetrates into the passenger compartment by precluding penetration of the inner surface of the windshield below the protected zone in a crash test.

In Case 1, although the windshield below the protected zone was cracked, nothing penetrated the inner surface of the windshield. Therefore, it would appear that the windshield is in compliance with S5 of Standard No. 219.

Similarly, in Case 2, it appears that the object did not penetrate the inner surface of the windshield, although the windshield was deformed. Therefore, it would appear that the vehicle is also in compliance.

We hope this information is of assistance. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

August 27, 1975

Frank Berndt Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 219: Windshield Zone Intrusion

This is to request your interpretation of FMVSS 219; S.5 which states, "no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S.6"

Something hit against the portion of the windshield below the protected zone and cracked it in the following cases:

Case 1. As the deformation of the glass was very little, it could not be observed even in the movie analysis. However, the shock was enough to crack the glass.

Case 22. The deformation of the glass could be observed visibly, but the film between glasses was not broken and nothing went through the windshield.

That is, the object did not get in touch with the air in the occupant compartment.

May we understand that the tested vehicles in the above two cases are in compliance with the requirement respectively?

Thank you for your attention to the above request. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Tokio Iinuma

Staff, Safety

ID: nht73-5.14

DATE: 09/17/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1973, concerning Toyota's use of a clip to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing the occupant's neck. Your questions are (1) whether a clip of this type is permitted by Standard No. 208 and (2) whether the clip would be considered a part of the anchorage under Standard No. 210.

Your description of the clip indicates that it does not restrict the free travel of the webbing. The clip would therefore not inhibit the ability of the belt to adjust automatically to fit the occupant, as required by S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. It is our opinion that such a clip is permitted by Standard No. 208.

We have also concluded that a plastic guide clip designed so as not to affect the basic geometry of the belt during a crash is not a seat belt anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210. The clip you describe would therefore not be required to meet the strength of location requirements of that Standard.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

August 24, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

For the purpose of encouraging our customers to use the seatbelt system, Toyota has been striving to minimize the possible discomfort or irritation which they may experience when wearing the upper torso belts, and we have developed a clip which is attached to the upper portion of the seat back as shown in the enclosed photo.

This clip is used to prevent the shoulder harness from contacting the occupant's neck and does not affect the retractive movement of the seatbelt shoulder harness. This clip, which is made of plastic, is designed so as not to hinder the performance of the seatbelt system during an accident.

Toyota believes the above-mentioned clip meets the intent of FMVSS No. 208 and the requirements of paragraph @ 7.1.1 of that standard. Toyota does not consider a clip of this nature to be an anchorage to which the requirements of FMVSS No. 210 apply.

As soon as we receive your favorable reply regarding this interpretation, we would like to install the clip on some of our models to improve the comfort of the seatbelt system.

Your prompt response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.40

DATE: 12/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cal Light Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of your wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by "federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971."

Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since it does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.

You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol stating that it was amending its regulations

"to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the type 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation".

Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.

Notwithstanding California's "approval" of your headlamp, your sale of this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation, up to $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

YOURS TRULY,

CAL LIGHT CO.

November 4, 1975

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel

I am writing you this letter on the suggestion of Mr. Lowenstern, NHSTA enforcement. I have designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed a Rectangular Motorcycle Headlight. It is a good looking, well built, and efficient headlamp, which has gained an approval from the California Highway Patrol. The unit complies with all the requirements, of all the regulatory agencies. However, there are some apparent conflicts within your FMVSS-108 which might confuse enforcement authorities.

The conflict arises from federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the ammended SAE J584B December 1971. The reference here, is to one test point, 1/2 degree down 1 degree right to right (1/2D-1R o R). In this test point current FMVSS standards hold 10,000 CP as Max., while SAE recommend 15,000 CP, our unit produces 12,800 CP. This extra CP is a great benefit to the motorcyclist to see merging traffic on his near side. To further complicate the matter, FMVSS-108 allows motorcycles to use 1/2 of an automobile headlighting system, without requiring them to meet the motorcycle headlamp requirement of 1/2D-1R to R.

Therefore, I would like your office to tell me if it feels there is a just cause to hold my product off the market.

Enclosed are copies of the test report from ITL, a letter stating the position of the CHP and the approval issued by the CHP. Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

L.A. MacEachern- Cal Light