ID: nht88-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/07/88

FROM: MAMORU ARISAKA -- MANAGER AUTOMOTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED

TO: MS. ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 FROM MAMORU ARISAKA FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sirs,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. are, as one of the leading manufacturers of automotive lamps and associated equipment in Japan, devoted to development of new lighting systems representative of our state-of-the-art technology.

One of such innovative lighting systems we are developing is a headlamp called "Rolling Headlamp". The central feature of this new headlamp is its mechanism to change automatically the mounting angle of lamp vis-a-vis the motorcycle, in order to assure stable photometric performance of the headlamp. Please refer to the figure below.

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground surface regardless of inclination of the motorcycle. In other words, the headlamp keeps its geometrical position independently of the motorcycle movement.

With regard to this new headlamp, we would like to ask you if it is acceptable (legally permissible) in your country. As you see, this headlamp is designed exclusively to be mounted on two-wheel vehicles.

Your prompt reply will be highly appreciated. Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation,

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht76-5.45

DATE: 03/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

COPYEE: J. CARSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, to Mr. Fred Vetter, expressing your concern about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is well aware of the importance of the VIN and its use in requirements for certification, defect investigation, recall campaigns, inspection and registration. We are also well aware of its importance to other users such as State administrations, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers. The VIN is crucial to the identification of stolen, junked and recycled vehicles.

It was NHTSA's intention with the initial issuance of FMVSS No. 115, to include within its scope all aspects of vehicle numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applied, and to leave any aspects for which there were no specific requirements to the discretion of the manufacturers until such requirements could be issued. This, of course, is the basis of our position that any state rules in this area must be the same as the Federal standards.

We agree, however, that the VIN may be more effective if it is standardized in structure, format, and information content. The NHTSA, through its personnel who are members of the Society of Automotive Engineers and International Standards Organization Committees, has been participating in the efforts to develop a worldwide VIN system for several years. The NHTSA plans to issue in the next few months an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 115 that will specify requirements for a standardized, uniform identification numbering system for all motor vehicles on a worldwide basis. We welcome all help and recommendations in this action.

I sincerely hope that VESC will provide comments and recommendations to the docket as we proceed in our rulemaking action.

ID: 21605.ztv

Mr. Gary L. King
Supervisor of Regulations & Standards
R&D Dept.
North American Lighting, Inc.
26750 Haggerty Road
Farmington Hills, MI 48331

Dear Mr. King:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 2000, asking for a clarification of our views on photometric test requirements for multi-compartment rear combination lamps.

You ask whether it is correct to say that a rear combination lamp system (stop lamp, turn signal lamp, taillamp) which consists of lamps on both the rear deck lid and fender which have the appearance of a single lamp with multiple compartments may be considered two lamps because they are not physically connected. If this is the correct interpretation, you then ask for confirmation that the fender-mounted lamp is the lamp that must meet all photometric requirements applicable to stop lamps, taillamps, and rear turn signal lamps.

We confirm your interpretation as it pertains to the rear combination lamp system you describe. Even though a lamp system design may have the appearance of a single lamp with multiple compartments, the system cannot be considered a single lamp when it is mounted both on the deck lid and adjacent fender. It is impossible for the two portions to share a common housing or lens because the housing and lens must be separated in order for the deck lid to open. Thus, the system you describe consists of two lamps. As we have indicated in previous interpretations, we regard the combination lamp that is mounted on the body as the one that must be designed to comply with Standard No. 108. This is because a body-mounted lamp will be visible at all times, whereas one on the deck lid will not be in its design orientation should the deck lid be ajar when the vehicle is in operation, such as may occur when the driver is carrying a load.

You have also referred to the requirement in S5.3.1 of Standard No. 108 that lighting equipment be mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, and asked whether the deck lid can be considered a "rigid part." Yes, the deck lid is a rigid part. This specification was adopted primarily to forestall installation of rear reflex reflectors on mud flaps. However, consistent with the discussion in the prior paragraph, in terms of your design, we consider the second lamp to be supplemental lighting equipment because all items required by Standard No. 108 must be mounted on the body. This supplemental lamp may be mounted on the deck lid because the complying lamp will remain in its design orientation regardless of the position of the deck lid.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d..7/12/00

ID: nht72-4.29

DATE: 09/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cody Chevrolet Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention of Mr. Jerome Palist of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean a bus "designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children" (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), therefore, "gross vehicle weight rating" should not be computed under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met by inserting, "BUS."

This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes a position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.

ID: 1984-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/84

FROM: ROGER HAGIE -- KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP USA

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION...FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/02/85 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO ROGER HAGIE, REDBOOK A26, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the provisions of FMVSS 108 with respect to a new headlamp design/concept under development at Kawasaki.

We are aware of the interpretation issued by your office to Koito Manufacturing Co. (letter dated July 24, 1984) in response to their request of June 21, 1984. In this interpretation, you confirmed that two headlamps, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may be used on a motorcycle when mounted side-by-side as described by Koito's letter.

Kawasaki wishes to clarify a question which we feel was raised by the Koito request and your response, and to further determine your position with respect to our design ideas. Concerning the Koito request, Koito stated that their "headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd". It is unclear to us whether Koito was referring to the output of a single lamp in their dual-lamp system, or whether the maximum output of both lamps together would not exceed 75,000 cd. Therefore, our first question is: Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?

Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, and each capable of independent aim, installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. Bulbs would be a standardized, replaceable unit, accessible from the rear of the housing. The assembly would meet all of the environmental and other requirements of SAE J584 and FMVSS 108. In some respects, this unit would be similar to the headlamp design proposed by Ford and approved by NHTSA on May 20, 1983. Our questions with respect to this design are: First, is such a design acceptable for a motorcycle? Secondly, would both reflectors have to be independently aimable, or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly as long as the aiming requirements of SAE J566 and the photometric requirements of SAE J584 are met?

Kawasaki would appreciate your earliest response to these questions. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or if any additional information is required.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT C. CRAIG -- QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER COSCO, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM ROBERT C. CRAIG TO GEORGE L. PARKER -- NHTSA, RE 49 CFR 571-213, STANDARD NO 213 CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS AT 5.5.1 LABELING, OCC 3119

TEXT: Dear Mr. Craig:

This responds to your February 3, 1989 letter to Mr. George Parker, our Associate Administrator for Enforcement, seeking an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Specifically, paragraph S5.5 of that standard require s each child restraint system to be permanently labeled with certain specified information. On of the items of information required to be permanently labeled on the child restraint is the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system, and those weight and height recommendations must be expressed in English units (pounds and inches). Your letter stated that your company would like to express its maximum weight and height recommendations in both English units and equivalent metric units (kilograms and meters), and asked whether this would be permitted by Standard 213. As long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion, Standard 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from expressing required information in equivalent English and metric units.

For each of the labeling requirements set forth in NHTSA's regulations, this agency has consistently taken the position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presen ted in a manner that is not likely to confuse the user. Moreover, the agency has already concluded that passenger car tires may be labeled with required information expressed in equivalent English and metric units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. We would apply the same reasoning in interpreting the labeling requirements of Standard 213. That is, Standard 213 permits manufacturers to present the required information in

both English and metric units, provided that the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse persons using the child restraint system.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht78-3.48

DATE: 02/03/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Rhoda; Stoudt & Bradley

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1977, requesting clarification as to whether the modified Odometer Disclosure Form which you prepared would meet the Federal requirements. Specifically, you are requesting permission to inform the buyer of the vehicle that the mileage is unknown because the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease. It has been the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that if the seller does not know that the mileage indicated is wrong, he should not state that the mileage is unknown. More than mere lack of knowledge is necessary to check the mileage unknown box. The seller is not, however, precluded from adding a statement that the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease or otherwise outside of his control.

It appears from the form which you submitted that you are modifying the disclosure statement which is no longer to be used. The form was substantially changed, with those amendments to be effective as of January 1, 1978. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Register notice of the amendments. Your client must certify to the accuracy of the odometer to the best of his or her knowledge under the amendments, however, as I stated before, he or she is free to add additional statements explaining the vehicle's history.

ID: nht75-4.12

DATE: 11/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Realco Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Realco Services' October 10, 1975, question whether the replacement of the four rails in the sides of a monocoque-type van would qualify as a vehicle assembly operation subject to certification to new vehicle standards, including Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. The position of the NHTSA with regard to the use of used trailer components that was discussed in the Stainless Tank and Equipment interpretation letter applies only to situations in which a new trailer body is installed on used running gear. These limitations do not apply where most of the used body (along with used running gear) is retained, as where one or more rails are replaced in the sides of a used monocoque van.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 10, 1975

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Realco Services Incorporated, owner of over 30,000 trailers which are leased to railroads and steamship companies would appreciate a clarification of a new versus used trailer, in the repair of trailers and the compliance of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In your letter to Mr. Paul Krueger, Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc., dated August 28, 1975, File N40-30, you refer to manufacturers and to retaining the main frame of the units to qualify as a used chassis.

In monocoque construction, the trailer side walls constitute the main load bearing members.

In the maintenance of our equipment, we find it necessary to replace one or more items of the trailer sides, ranging from a bottom rail to possibly all four rails, top and bottom.

As you know, lifting devices used by the railroads do considerable damage to the trailer top and bottom rails which in many instances demands their replacement.

We interpret the ruling to cover only the manufacture of trailers, not the repairs to equipment over its normal life. We would appreciate your confirmation that this is correct.

Very truly yours,

J. A. Davies

cc: C. J. Calvin - T.T.M.A.; J. M. Lillis

ID: nht74-3.49

DATE: 06/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Michael Peskoe of NHTSA's Cheif Counsel's Office asking our comments on a sample defect notification letter Sears plans to send to known purchasers of the Armstrong L78-15 Allstate Wideguard Dynaglass tire having the identification number CEV3FP1372.

The sample notification letter you enclose would not conform to 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification" in several respects. To comply with section 577.4(b) we believe your letter should include, in addition to the existing statement, a statement that the tires failed to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. We have taken the position that defect notification letters resulting from failures of compliance with applicable safety standards should contain that information, as it would be required under section 575.5(b) were the notification sent following an administrative proceeding.

We also believe the letter should include precautions the purchaser can take to reduce the chance that the failure will occur (@ 577.4(c) (4)). Such precautions could be stated as the corollary to the failure mode you describe, i.e., avoid prolonged driving.

The letter further fails to conform to Part 577 in that it does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety in the manner set forth in section 577.4(d). Vehicle crash would seem to be a potential result of tire failure, and the letter should therefore contain language meeting section 577.4(d)(1).

Finally, the letter does not conform to section 577.4(e). It is not clear whether the "replacement free of charge" will include mounting or balancing, both of which might be considered by consumers as part of a free replacement. Consequently, we find that the description required by section 577.4(a)(1) is incomplete. There is further no attempt to meet the requirements of 577.4(e)(2) or (e)(3), requiring a date by which replacement parts (tires) are available (if they are presently available, the letter should so indicate) and how much time will be necessary to perform whatever labor is included in the replacement.

In order for your letter to conform to Part 577, it must be modified in each of the respects described above.

ID: nht93-5.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Gail Lindsey -- Hillsborough County Public Schools, Risk Management and Safety Department, Tampa, Florida

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/93 from Gail Lindsey to Ron Engles (OCC 8807)

TEXT:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You, therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.