ID: nht87-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the identification requirements for a master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol o ther than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer had an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2.1(a) states:

Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in fo rm to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. . . . Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. . . .

Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown In your letter for the master lighting switch. Also, footnote 2 of the table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting swit ch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.

A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of the master lighting switch Identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2. 1(a) perm its words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.

Your second question concerns identification requirements for an upper beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symb ol.

Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements for an upper beam control , regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, If so, how to ident ify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as that designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) tell tale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbols drivers must f amiliarize themselves with for the same function.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation or FMVSS 101; Controls and displays.

We believe, (1) if the head lamps and tail lamps are controlled by master lighting switch, this is not required to be marked with any symbol , other than and it is the manufacturer's option to use other symbols in addition to the, as desired.

(2) When using the turn signal lever for the upper beam control, no symbol is required, and it is at the manufacturer's option to use symbol as desired.

Shown by current models in Attachment 1 are the symbols we have been using. In future models, we plan to change the symbols to those shown by future models in Attachment 1.

Please inform us in a timely manner if these symbols are acceptable and whether our interpretation is correct. If you have any questions, please contact me at (515) 353-5444.

Sincerely, Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC. Attachment

ID: nht87-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry F. Wort; Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York (Std. 222); 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Melvin H. Smith

TEXT:

Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764

This responds to your May 26, 1967, letter to me asking about our requirements in Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, for restraining barriers and seat back height. I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements. I n this discussion, I would also like to go over preemption issues that are raised by the state law you describe.

In your letter, you said that Illinois has recently enacted a law requiring 28-inch-high seat backs on new large school buses (i.e., buses with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds). You ask whether the 28-inch-high seat backs w ould negate the requirement for a restraining barrier in front of the front passenger seat. The answer is no.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 specifies: "Each vehicle shall be equipped with a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating refe rence point . . . ." The standard makes no exception for any type of school bus passenger seat. The reason for the broad application is clear, since restraining barriers are needed to compartmentalize the seating area.

Your second question was whether the height of the restraining barrier must be as high as the height of the extended seat back. The answer is no. The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: "in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required." The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. A restraining barrier must therefore only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back su rface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.

The preemption issue you raise relates to the Illinois law mandating the 28-inch-high seat backs and FMVSS 222's seat back height requirement. I have enclosed a copy of our recent letter to Mr. Melvin Smith of your Department which explains that the Illi nois law for 28-inch high seat backs is preempted by Federal law. However, as discussed in our letter, the State may require the high seat backs for public school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(See 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Melvin H. Smith; also see 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York)

May 26, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

When a school bus with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) more than 10,000 pounds is equipped with passenger seats having 28 inch seat backs (i.e., all backs about 4 inches higher than standard seat backs), will federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 (49 CFR 571.222) require a restraining barrier for each front seat?

If a restraining barrier is required for each front seat having a 28 inch high seat back, in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 10,000 pounds, must the height or that barrier match the seat back height:

Illinois law requires every Type I school bus (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) manufactured after June 30, 1987 and sold, purchased, or used as a school bus within Illinois to be "equipped with passenger seat backs having a seat back height of 28 inches". A bus body manufacturer has pointed out that to accommodate the higher backs either the bus body must be longer or "knee clearance" must be reduced throughout the bus. Omitting the two front barriers would provide additional space to accommodate the high seat backs without lengthening buses or shortening knee clearances.

We will be most grateful for an immediate answer to our questions.

Sincerely,

Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety

ID: 86-5.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Tsuyoshi Shimizu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tsuyoshi Shimizu Vice-President MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center - Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Shimizu:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You asked how the instrument panel impact protection requirements of S3 of the standard would apply to an occupant compartment interior described in your letter. In particular, you asked whether the "center console" described in your letter would be considered a console assembly that is exempt from the requirements of S3.1 of the standard. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

S3.1 of the standard sets forth the head impact protection requirements for the instrument panel. S3.1.1, in turn, sets out several exemptions to the instrument panel performance requirements. S3.1.1(a), which provides that the performance requirements do not apply to "console assemblies," is the first exemption which is relevant to your design. As depicted in your letter, there is a short structure, which you referred to as the center console, that is mounted on the floor of the vehicle and is located primarily between the vehicle seats. The gear shift lever is mounted in this structure. Although the structure is connected to the bottom of the instrument panel, you pointed out that there is a "gap," which appears to be an indentation, between "the instrument panel and the center console which makes the console and instrument panel area dist? and separate areas."

The purpose of the head impact requirement is to ensure that portions of a vehicle's instrument panel which are mounted forward of the front seat and are likely to be struck by an occupant's head in a frontal impact provide adequate protection. Thus, the head impact protection requirements apply primarily to the upper portions of the instrument panel. As stated in an interpretation letter of January 12, 1983, to the Blue Bird Body Company, the agency considers the instrument panel to the vehicle structure below the windshield used to mount a vehicle's gauges. Since the "center console" described in your letter is a low-lying structure mounted on the floor and lies primarily between the vehicle seats, the agency would consider it to be a console assembly rather than a part of the instrument panel.

The second exemption which is relevant to your design is S3.1.1(e) of standard. That section exempts areas of the instrument panel that are "below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel." The area labeled section B in your diagram is such an areas and thus does not have to meet the performance requirement of S3.1. The exemption of S3.1.1(e) would also apply to the "center console" depicted in your diagram, since it also lies below the point which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel. The area labeled section A in your diagram is covered by the standard thus would have to meet the requirements of S3.1.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

This letter serves to request an interpretation of FMVSS 20. Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, for the passenger vehicle interior which is cross-sectioned in the enclosure.

S3.1.1 (a) and (e) of 49 CFR 571.201 describes that console assemblies and areas below any point at which a vertical ? tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel do not apply to the requirements of S3.1.

We believe that the "center console" shown in the cross-section should be considered a console assembly by virtue of a gap between the instrument panel and the center console which ? the console and instrument panel area distinct and separate areas. The impact area would be the upper portion from the rearmost surface (see Section A). Section B would be the area below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel.

Please inform us in a timely manner whether our interpretation is correct. If you have any questions, please contact me at (313) 353-5444.

Sincerely,

Tsuyoshi Shimizu Vice-President MMC Services, Inc.

ID: 86-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Lembke -- CL's Crafts and Florals

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Carol Lembke CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar Street Charles City, Iowa 50616

This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked about the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of "animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the backs of cars. The eyes are in red or amber".

We assume that you wish to sell these as accessories available in the aftermarket and not as original vehicle equipment. As these are not items of replacement lighting equipment but intended to supplement a vehicle's existing turn signal or stop lamp system, they are not covered by Standard No. 108 and their legality would be determined under the laws of a State where they would be in use. For example, you have told us that Iowa would allow these supplemental lamps. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators once more, inform them that there is no Federal prohibition on this use, and ask their advice.

You have mentioned the center high-mounted stop lamp and whether your lights might be acceptable on cars of a certain age, and not on others. Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a third stop lamp mounted on the rear centerline not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches on convertibles). In the initial year of use, the most frequently used area for mounting the lamp is the interior parcel shelf, where we presume that your supplemental lamp would be installed. Because your light would not meet the requirements for the center mounted lamp, it would be a violation of Federal law for a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business to remove the center mounted stop lamp and install your device. However, if the center mounted lamp is located in a place other than the parcel shelf, there would be no legal prohibition under Standard No. 108 forbidding the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar St. Charles City, Iowa 50616 October 30, 1985 Taylor Vinson NHTSA - Legal Counsel 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St., SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir: I am writing to ask assistance on the legality of a craft item I am making. I have a craft shop and attend craft shows. Recently I started making animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the back of the cars. The eyes are in red or amber. I checked with the Iowa State DOT and was told they would be ok since they were an ornament as long as they did not block view and had red or amber eyes. I've spoken to a Small Business Representative whom suggested I go mail order or sell to stores. I've also had interest from Florida and a Rod and Custom Club since they represent the fads of the 50's and 60's. I then became concerned about going into other states, their state laws and Federal laws that might not permit this item to be sold. I don't want to invest money and lots of time into this craft item only to find out that it is illegal and could come back on me. I've been told that a possible conflict could be a code number FMVSS 108. Something having to do with the new laws on the standard center mount lighting. I'm also wondering if this lighted animal might be ok for certain age cars and not others? I've made calls to DC to: American Assoc. of Motor Vehicles, NHTSA, and Federal Motor Vehicle Dept. of Trans. - only to get passed from one department to another till finally I was told to contact your office for assistance. I'm beginning to feel that this is one of those times that I should have taken my chances instead of trying to check things out to be legal. The interest is mounting in our Auto Animals for Christmas gifts and I have another show Nov. 9th. I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that I will know if I can go ahead or not. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol Lembke 905 Cedar St. Charles City, IA 50616 Phone: 515-228-6913

ID: nht79-2.19

DATE: 02/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sulvan Avenue Englood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in reponse to your letter of September 29, 1978, and in confirmation of your conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.

Your letter raises a number of questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. These questions will be answered in the order posed in your letter.

Q-1. The term "line" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles within a make which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type". You are correct in saying that "B210" is a Datsun "line."

Q-2. You ask whether it is necessary in designating a vehicle "line" to distinguish between independent and rigid axle systems within the same model of vehicle. The answer to your question is no. It is not necessary to make this distinction. In your example, either Case 1 or Case 2 would be correct.

Q-3. You ask whether it is necessary in designating a vehicle "line" to distinguish between different lengths of wheel base within the same family of vehicles. Again, the answer to your question is no. In your example, either Case 1 or Case 2 would be correct.

Q-4. You ask whether it is necessary in designating vehicle "body type" to distinguish between a 2-door vehicle and a 4-door vehicle. It is necessary to make this distinction.

Q-5. You also ask whether it is necessary in designating vehicle "body type" to distinguish between a sedan and a hardtop. It is not necessary to make this distinction.

Q-6. You ask whether it would be necessary in designating a vehicle "series" to distinguish between a Datsun 810 with air conditioning and power steering and a Datsun 810 without these features. It is not necessary to make this distinction.

Q-7. You ask whether it would be necessary in designating a vehicle "series" to distinguish between a Datsun B210 with a cigarette lighter and a Datsun B210 without a cigarette lighter and with a less elegant interior. It is not neces- sary to make this distinction. A Datsun B210 with two doors would have a different "body type" than a Datsun B210 with four doors, however.

Q-8. You ask whether in designating vehicle "engine type", you may use the same character (e.g., "H") to designate different engines so long as they are within different "lines", or whether you must use different characters for each engine type you manufacture.

The vehicle description section (VDS) of the VIN is used to describe a group of vehicles with common characteristics. One of these characteristics is engine type. The VDS is a "code word" which is translated as a whole into the appropriate specification. Each VDS is unique, and the use of a specific character in one VDS does not bar its use in another VDS, whether or not the meaning is the same or different. Consequently, "HB210" can represent a Datsun B210 with an 85 CID displacement engine and "HA100" can represent a DATSUM 510 with a 119 CID displacement engine. In your example, both Column 1 and Column 2 would be permissible.

Q-9. You ask whether it is necessary to uniquely distinguish all engine types within a make, or whether it is sufficient to distinguish engine types within a line. As explained above, each vehicle discriptor section is unique. Consequently, you may use the same characters in more than one VDS provided the VDS can be translated into the specific engine type. In your example, either Column 1 or Column 2 would be permissible.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 28, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NHTSA D.O.T. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Enclosed please find some questionnaire which I would like to get your interpretation on as soon as possible. It is regarding FMVSS 115, VIN.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

HM:mh CC: Mr. Nelson Erickson, Office of Motor Vehicle Programs NHTSA Enclosures

ID: nht81-2.1

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Columbia Body & Equipment Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Ms. Joan Morton Bookkeeping Department Columbia Body & Equipment Co. 123 N.E. Oregon Street Portland, OR 97232

Dear Ms. Morton

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 25, 1980

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION: VIN COORDINATOR Ref: Per conversation with Frederick Schwartz 11-24-80 Gentlemen:

Per Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Part 571, S6, Page 17500 reporting requirements, the following is an explanation of Columbia Body & Equipment Co.'s assigned values in regards to the 17 character vehicle identification number as called for by the amendment to Safety Standard 115.

POSITION 1 = 1

POSITION 2 = B (These characters uniquely identify C.B.E. as the Manufacturer - Registered with SAE) see attached letter

POSITION 3 = 9

POSITION 4 = (Type of Trailer) A - Pintle type Pull, B - Full, C -Gooseneck 5th Wheel, D - Straight Semi, E - Ball Type Pull, F -Custom

POSITION 5 = (Body Type) A - Utility, B - Van Body, C - Flat Bed D -Dump, E - No Body

POSITION 6 = (Trailer length) consecutively - example: 09 - 9' Long,

POSITION 7 = 10 - 10' Long, 11 - 11' Long etc. all lengths are rounded to the nearest foot.

POSITION 8 = (Axle Configuration) or number of axles. 1 - 2 - 3 -4 -5 etc.

POSITION 9 = Check Digit Number

POSITION 10 = (Model Year) - A - '80, B - '81, C - '82, D - '83 etc.

POSITION 11 = (Plant of Manufacture) - P - Portland

POSITION 12 = (C.B.E.'s unique identifiers as registered through SAE)

POSITION 13 = Consecutively - see attached letters

POSITION 14 = 018 - Specialty Trailers/Commercial Trailers 003 - Pony Trailer/Commercial Trailers 004 - Belly Dump Trailer/Commercial Trailers

POSITION 15 = (Represents the number sequentially assigned by C.B.E. to

POSITION 16 = each new trailer) Consecutively 368, 369, 370, etc.

POSITION 17 =

Please acknowledge if the above is correct. I have enclosed a carbon copy of this letter to be returned to me with a place for you to sign and a self addressed envelope for your convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

COLUMBIA BODY & EQUIPMENT COMPANY

Joan Morton Bookkeeping Dept.

March 1, 1979

Mr. Thomas J. Hickman Columbia Body and Equipment Co. 123 N. E. Oregon Street Portland, OR 97232

Dear Mr. Hickman:

Thank you for your completed application form for the assignment of World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI) Codes. We would like to confirm the following assignments:

Columbia Body and Equipment Company 123 N.E. Oregon Street Portland, Oregon 97232 UNITED STATES 1 B 9 (with 3rd, 4th, and 5th characters of Pony Trailer/ Vehicle Identifier Section to be 0 0 3) Commercial Trailer

1 B 9 (with 3rd, 4th, and 5th characters of Belly Dump Trailer/ Vehicle Identifier Section to be 0 0 4) Commercial Trailer

Sincerely,

Leo P. Ziegler, Jr.

Manager, Motor Vehicle Safety and Environment Program

pd

cc: M. Dixon D. Wolfslayer

November 3, 1980

Ms. Joan Morton Columbia Body & Equipment Company 123 N.E. Oregon Street Portland, Oregon 97232

Dear Ms. Morton:

This letter confirms our recent telephone conversation on the assignment of a World Manufacturer (Maker) Identifier (WMI) Code. As the agent of the NHTSA for the assignment of manufacturer identifiers pursuant to S 4.5.1 of FMVSS 115, we hereby confirm the following code:

Columbia Body & Equipment Company 123 N.E. Oregon Street Portland, Oregon 97232 UNITED STATES

1 B 9 with teh 3rd, 4th & 5th characters of the Vehicle Indicator Section to be 0 1 8

Specialty Trailers/Commercial Trailers

Yours truly,

Leo P. Ziegler, Jr. Manager, Motor Vehicle Safety and Environment Program

LPZ/dms

cc: M. W. Dixon N. F. Erickson B. P. Hickey

ID: nht87-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Kato -- Assistant Vice President, Technical, WC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous (Part 581); 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President, Technical WC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sought my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a july 2 8, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis cou ld be considered a truck chassis Has based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction Has more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.

In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation by have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van into the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.

My previous interpretation Has based on the fact that the mini-van you will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis has based on the facts that the chas sis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 3, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is a letter to confirm your response dated July 28, 1987 (attached II) to our letter seeking an interpretation (attached I) as to whether a new mini van will be classified as a "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" for the purposes of the FMVSS and the bumper standards. Because it seems to me that you may misunderstand our statement, I will illustrate our statement and ask your interpretation again as soon as possible.

The component reinforced for commercial vehicle

o rear suspension changed

o rear floorpan and longitudinal members are changed o GM + 300kg

o the flat cargo floor

o the roof raised for cargo

o the end of the cargo floor, no stepped up cross rail

MMC is going to launch Vehicle 3 in U.S. market as MPV. Vehicle 3 & 1 have been sold in Japan as passenger car and Vehicle 2 as van. MMC is asking that, although Vehicle 3 has been sold as wagon in Japan, Vehicle 3 should be classified to be MPV. Because Vehicle 3 has the same chassis and body

(continued)

construction as Vehicle 2 (Van), and Vehicle 2 is developed to withstand the commercial use criteria changing rear suspension, rear floor pan configuration, longitudinal members, GM and roof configuration, etc. from Vehicle l (Sedan). Therefore, Vehicle 3 is considered to have truck chassis...

NHTSA' s understanding

We presume that you misunderstand our statements as follows after reading your response.

However, Vehicle 2 has the same construction as Vehicle 3 and there is no fact that vehicle 2 is substantially reinforced from Vehicle 3 as mentioned before.

MMC's request

Therefore, could you re-examine our statement and give us your interpretation on Vehicle 3's classification as soon as possible. We do believe that Vehicle 3 should be classified as an MPV because Vehicle 3 has the truck chassis although MMC is responsib le for the proof that this Vehicle 3 has a truck chassis.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 355-5444.

Sincerely yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Hiroshi Kato

HK/xsg Assistant Vice President, Technical Attached: I: MMC Services letter to NHTSA II: NHTSA's response letter

See 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous.

ID: nht88-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mike Kaizaki -- Manager, Truck Tire Engineering, Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (A32; Std. 109; Std. 119); Undated letter from Erika Z. Jones to E.W. Dahl; 8/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (OCC 1951)

TEXT: Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 601 S. Acacia Fullerton, CA 92631

Dear Mr. Kaizaki:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger cars. You asked whether it is permissible to place two tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters, on the same tire. The answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual size markings." Dual size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consu mers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency conclud ed that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 PR 1195, January 26, 1971.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section 56.5 of the standard. Section @6.5(s) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications d esignated in @5.1. Section @5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manuf acturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section @6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section @6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in @5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 17, 1987

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We at Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD are considering the double tire size designations (equivalent but different) marked on the tire sidewall of the medium truck tire.

We believe that it is in compliance with Standard No. 119. New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars as far as the tire size designations are equivalent to each other and the tire dimensions, and other markings, meet with the estab lished standard, TRA, ETRTO, and so on.

Accordingly, would you respond to our specific question below regarding this marking:

Yokohama places 2 tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and 15R22.5 in small letters. These sizes are different but equivalent to each other. The max load/inflation pressure marking is one specified by ETRTO for 385/65R22.5 but larger tha n one specified by TRA for 15R 22.5.

Is this compatible with FMVSS 119?

I would appreciate your specific response in writing at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering

ID: nht88-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Roito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Ritawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure 1" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on mot orcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure 1 a chamber containing a tail/sto p lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure 1, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with se parate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure 1b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11." Figure 1b specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sect ions used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to c omply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Tail & Stop Lamp for Motorcycle (1) photometric values (2) Spacing with Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones:

The photometric values which are required for tail & stop lamp for motorcycle are specified in S. 4.1.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp is specified in Table IV.

We would like to ask you the following questions concerning photometric values of tail g stop lamp for motorcycle and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp in the cases of Structure-(1) and -(2) which are shown in the attached drawing.

Question-1:

In Structure-(1) and -(2), which of the following cases shall be applied for the photometric values required for tail & stop lamp?

(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure lb of S. 4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamps on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photo-metric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S. 4.1.1.11.

Attn: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Jan. 25, 1988

Question-2; For each case of Structure-(1) and-(2) as illustrated in the attached sheet, shall the specification of 4 inch minimum spacing between tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp be required or not:

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht73-1.33

DATE: 04/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received copies of your letter of March 28, 1973, to the ten Regional Administrators of this agency, concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 108. You state that law enforcement officials in certain jurisdictions are citing your semitrailers for lack of clearance lamps when, as a matter of fact, the vehicles are equipped with combination turn signal and clearance lamps located near the lower rear corners of the vehicle. You ask the Regional Administrators to advise the local authorities that this lamp configuration conforms to Standard No. 108 and "that any conflicting state regulation is unenforceable under the provisions of Section 103(d) of the Traffic Safety Act."

Paragraph S4.3.1.4 of Standard No. 108 states, "Where the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Since the identification lamps depicted in your drawing are at the extreme height of the vehicle, the location you have chosen for the clearance lamps in allowed by Standard No. 108. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), renders void any State law with differing requirements for this equipment.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Regional Administrators.

Sincerely,

March 28, 1973

This letter was sent to Regional Administrator, Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at each of the 10 Regional Offices on attached page.

Dear Sir:

In the past few months we have (upon customer specification) been building highway semi-trailers with only the three identification lamps on the top-rear of the vehicle. The two rear clearance lamps have been combined with the turn-signal lamps and are not at the customary top corner locations (SEE ATTACHED SKETCH).

In our opinion this is a perfectly legal situation under sections S4.3.1.5 and S4.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #108, established pursuant to Public Law 89-563.

In some states, these vehicles are being cited for "not having rear clearance lamps", due in part I feel to a lack of knowledge or understanding on the part of the state enforcement people that these trailers in fact do have the legally required lamps.

Would you please inform the proper enforcement people in the states within your region of the legality of this particular lamp configuration under Federal law and that any conflicting state regulation is unenforceable under the provisions of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563).

Please advise the undersigned of the situation with respect to this matter in your particular region so that we may in turn inform our customers accordingly.

Sincerely,

R. J. Deller -- Vice President of Engineering, TRAILMOBILE

c: J. E. Cook; E. Hammond; R. P. McArdla - Chicago; E. E. Lungren - Chicago; R. Dyson-D.O.T., Wash. D.C. w/sketch

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS Region I * Transportation Systems Center Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 55 Broadway New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 Region II 4 Normanskill Boulevard New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico Delmar, New York 12050 518 472-4095 Region III Room 1633, Federal Building Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 31 Hopkins Place Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia Baltimore, Maryland 21201 301-962-3878 Region IV Suite 200, 1720 Peachtree Road, NW Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Mississippi, North Carolina, South 404-526-5537 Carolina, Tennessee Region V 18209 Dixie Highway Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Homewood, Illinois 60430 Ohio, Wisconsin 312-799-6300 X-21 Region VI 819 Taylor Street Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Texas 817-334-2021 Region VII P.O. Box 7186, Country Club Station Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska Kansas City, Missouri 64113 816-361-0860 X-7887 Region VIII Room 242, Building 40 Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Denver Federal Center South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming Denver, Colorado 80225 303-233-3611 X-6429 Region IX 450 Golden Gate Avenue Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada P.O. Box 36096 San Francisco, California 94102 415-556-5450 Region X Room 412, Mohawk Building Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 222 S.W. Morrison Street Portland, Oregon 97204 503-226-3361 X-1754

* Handled out of Delmar office until further notice.

Truck Body & Equipment Association, Inc.,

DOT CHART-5

Supplement 3/31/71

TRAILER REAR LAMP LOCATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FMVSS #108

(Graphics omitted)