ID: aiam2265

Dear Mr. Suzuki: This responds to your March 15, 1976, question whether a passenger ca is considered a convertible for purposes of compliance with motor vehicle safety standards if its roof includes a 'sun roof' or has two removable sections fitted into the roof over the dashboard front designated seating positions in such a fashion that they do not join each other (Hurst Hatch Roof). You also request confirmation that convertibles are excluded from the requirements of Standard NO. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, and are required to meet S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; The answer to your first question is no. The National Highway Traffi Safety Administration considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Passenger cars equipped with a 'sun roof' or a 'Hurst Hatch Roof' do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location.; With regard to your other question, passenger cars manufactured fro September 1, 1973, to August 31, 1976, inclusive, are required to meet one of three options specified in Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer chooses to meet the third option listed (S4.1.2.3), separate requirements are specified for convertibles in S4.1.2.3.2. Convertibles are excluded form Standard No. 216, although a manufacturer may choose to meet the standard in place of certain requirements of Standard No. 208 that are not presently mandatory.; Yours truly, Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-6.42

DATE: 09/24/75

FROM: J. C. ECKHOLD -- DIR., AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE, FORD MOTOR CO.

TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION IN RELATION TO CONDUCTING FMVSS 301-75 TESTS WITH PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM

TEXT: In preparing for compliance with 1978 California SHED evaporative emission requirements (presently under consideration by EPA for application in all areas), Ford Motor Company (Ford) is considering modifications to the fuel tank vapor venting system. At this time, Ford's primary design direction for certain of its 1978 vehicles is to incorporate a pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube between the fuel tank vapor separator/rollover valve and the carbon canister (see Attachment).

When the engine is operating, this pressure relief valve will be open and the fuel tank will vent in a normal manner through the carbon canister. When testing according to the procedure set forth in FMVSS 301-75, the pressure relief valve would be closed, contrary to its normal open position when the engine is operating, and such closure would prevent venting of vapor from the fuel tank into the carbon canister. As a result, vapor pressure could build up within the fuel tank during FMVSS 301-75 testing, and indeed would do so if the fuel tank were exposed to elevated ambient temperatures during the substantial time period (in some instances several hours) required to ready the test vehicle for the rollover test following an impact test. If such pressure built up, it (taken together with the hydrostatic pressure of the Stoddard solvent in the tank) might force open the vacuum/pressure valve in the fuel tank cap and permit leakage through that valve (cap).

Such leakage would not occur in an accident involving a rollover because, in such a situation, vapor pressure would not build up in the fuel tank, and therefore, the vacuum/pressure valve in the cap would not open. Any rollover of the vehicle that may occur would happen immediately after the collision, before vapor pressure build-up. Hence the vacuum/pressure valve (cap) would remain closed after rollover. More particularly, just before the accident, the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve would be open, preventing vapor pressure build-up.

Accordingly, Ford proposes to perform tests relating to compliance with FMVSS 301-75 with the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve open, the better to simulate actual usage conditions. Before testing in this manner, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance from the Administration that it regards as appropriate the maintaining open of this pressure relief valve during rollover tests, and would conduct in that manner its rollover tests of those Ford vehicles equipped with such a valve.

As you are undoubtedly aware, in addition to design and development work, a test program required to obtain emission certification covers a period of many months. Therefore, since Ford has only a limited time in which to develop a 1978 evaporative emission system complying with the SHED requirements, an early response to this letter is urgently requested.

ATTACHMENT

PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM

(Graphics Omitted)

ID: nht89-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM T IRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Sir:

On behalf of domestic manufacturers of tires, the RMA requests that you reconsider the NHTSA position taken in your August 30, 1989 letter to E. H. Galloway concerning UTQG traction test inflation pressures. Your interpretation that metric designated ti res (including P-metric tires) which are labeled for maximum pressure in both kilopascals (kPa) and common english (psi) units should be treated the same as those labeled with english values only is contrary to long standing industry interpretation and p ractice.

The following is offered in support of our request:

1. All tires designed using the metric system are required by FMVSS 109, para. S4,3,4(a) to show not only kPa pressure information, but the equivalent value in english units (psi) in parenthesis. Thus, no tires can be sold or offered for sale in the U. S. market with pressures specified only in kilopascals.

2. Load Range B alpha-numeric and numeric tires are labeled 32 psi maximum inflation pressure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 24 psi. Standard load P-metric tires are labeled 240 kPa (35 psi) maximum inflation pre ssure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 180 kPa (26 psi). Since P-metric tires are normally used at slightly higher pressures by consumers in accordance with vehicle manufacturers recommendations, it is logical that they be tested at slightly higher pressures.

3. Industry and private testing organizations have been testing P metric tires for UTQG traction using 180 kPa at the NHTSA test facility in San Angelo, Texas for 10 years with no prior comment from NHTSA.

4. In summary, our members sincerely believe the intent of the regulation is to test alpha-numeric tires at 24 psi and P-metric tires at 180 kPa. We ask your timely reconsideration of your August 30, 1989, interpretation to minimize confusion within th e industry.

5. NHTSA has specified variations in test pressures for UTQG treadwear and temperature tests and in FMVSS 109 bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance and high speed tests to accommodate the differences between P- metric (240 kPa) and alpha numeric /numeric (32 psi) tires. The same philosophy should apply to traction testing.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-3.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 from S. Watanabe to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1990, requesting an interpretation of how the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 would apply to a combined taillamp and side marker lamp. Your letter indicates that "the light output of side marker lamp is als o emanated toward the rear of the vehicle mixed with tail lamp light, and similarly, the light output of tail lamp is also emanated toward the side mixed with side marker lamp light." You requested answers to the following two questions.

"1) Should the Tail lamp function of this lamp meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections, or 3 lighted sections?"

Although NHTSA and the SAE have not defined "lighted section", we understand it to be that portion of a lens that is illuminated, either singly by a single light source, or in common by more than one light source. Your question assumes that the number o f bulbs in your lamp is equal to the number of lighted sections, that is to say, that each bulb illuminates a separate section of the lens. However, in your design, all bulbs contribute, without interruption by a divider or other light-directing feature , to the illumination of the lens. Therefore, we regard your lamp as a single compartment lamp to which the single lighted section requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), September 1977, apply, even though the illumination i s provided by three light sources.

"2) Should the Side marker function of this lamp meet the photometric requirement of SAE J592e by 3 lighted sections or 1 lighted section?"

Standard No. 108 also incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972. Unlike SAE J585e, SAE J592e does not contain different photometric requirements depending on the number of lighted sections. Therefore, we interpret your question as asking whether photometric compliance is determined on the basis of the bulb that is dedicated to that purpose, or by all three bulbs. Because there is no clearly defined side marker lamp other than the portion of the lamp that is visible from the side, compliance should be measured using all three light sources in the lamp.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: 3322o

Mr. Tracy L. Clark, Jr.
Vice President
Cottle Industries
1103 Musser St.
Muscatine, Iowa 52761

Dear Mr. Clark:

Thank you for your letter in which you requested confirmation of your company's status as an alterer of motor vehicles, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567.7. You stated that your company, Cottle Industries, takes a new Honda moped that is certified as complying with all applicable safety standards, removes the plastic body shell and seating components, and adapts the vehicle for the use of wheelchair riders. Now called the Chariot, the modified moped allows the wheelchair bound to gain access to public roads and highways without having to ride in vans. You assert that the Honda front end and drive train components continue to retain their integrity. You enclosed a brochure describing the Chariot.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on the facts set forth in your letter, it appears that Cottle Industries would be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with 567.7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in 567.4, containing the following information: * * * * *

Cottle Industries does alter previously certified vehicles (the Honda mopeds) before the first purchase of the mopeds in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which Cottle would not be required to affix its own certification labels to each moped that it modifies would be:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply in your company's case. Your company cuts the frame of the Honda moped being modified into two sections and then welds those sections to a new tubular steel frame. This new steel frame for the vehicle is not a "readily attachable component." Similarly, the operations performed by your company on the Honda mopeds appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations." Accordingly, Cottle Industries appears to be an alterer subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. In this case, 567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see 567.7(a)); (2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in 567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see 567.7(b)); and: (3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act, and alterers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

For the purposes of our safety standards, the Chariot would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." A "motorcycle" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which indicates those standards that apply to motorcycles. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You also indicated that your company plans to leave in place on the altered vehicles the vehicle identification number (VIN) originally assigned by Honda to the vehicles. Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115) applies to all motorcycles. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides in part that: "Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle." Accordingly, your company as an alterer is required to leave in place the VINs originally assigned by Honda.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:567#115 d:12/19/88

ID: 2807yy

Mr. Paul A. Shaw
Superintendent
Florence County School District Five
Marion Street
P.O. Drawer 98
Johnsonville, South Carolina 29555

Dear Mr. Shaw:

This responds to your letter of October 15, 1990. In your letter you correctly state that a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events is considered a school bus under federal law. You then asked, "(d)oes federal law prohibit a school district from using a fifteen-passenger van that does not meet federal safety standards for school buses to transport students to athletic events, extra-curricular activities, and field trips?"

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

Your letter also indicates that your school district purchased a "standard, fifteen-passenger 1990 Dodge van to transport students to various school-related events." I assume that by the term standard you are indicating that the van has not been certified as complying with all regulations applicable to school buses. If this van was purchased new, and if the dealer knew of your intended use, the dealer may have violated federal law. If you believe that you were sold a noncomplying vehicle, please contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref: 571.3 d:l/l4/9l

ID: nht91-1.17

DATE: January 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul A. Shaw -- Superintendent, Florence County School District Five

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-15-90 from Paul A. Shaw to PaulJ. Rice (OCC 5363)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 15, 1990. In your letter you correctly state that a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events is considered a school bus under federal law. You then asked, "(d)oes federal law prohibit a school district from using a fifteen-passenger van that does not meet federal safety standards for school buses to transport students to athletic events, extra-curricular activities, and field trips?"

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

Your letter also indicates that your school district purchased a "standard, fifteen-passenger 1990 Dodge van to transport students to various school-related events." I assume that by the term standard you are indicating that the van has not been certified as complying with all regulations applicable to school buses. If this van was purchased new, and if the dealer knew of your intended use, the dealer may have violated federal law. If you believe that you were sold a noncomplying vehicle, please contact NHTSA'S Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht73-4.40

DATE: 07/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, inquiring as to your responsibilities regarding the conformity and certification of motor vehicles on which Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E) performs certain manufacturing operations. You indicate that the operations involve "body transfers," in which used bodies are first removed from used trucks chassis, repaired, and then transferred to new cabs and chassis. The two questions you raise are:

1) Must the vehicle comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of the body transfer, and

2) If not, need it comply at the time of sale to the public.

You indicate that your position is that you believe the answer to both questions to be negative; that with respect to the first question, the vehicle need not conform nor be certified as conforming because no "sale" of the vehicle has occurred; and with respect to the second question, you argue that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding used vehicles (Sec. 108(b)(1); 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1); appear to exempt these vehicles from conforming to the standards when they are sold.

We must disagree with both of your conclusions. We agree that the operations performed by PG & E, adding used bodies to new chassis, make PG & E a "final-stage manufacturer" as defined in the Certification and Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). The Certification

regulations require that final-stage manufacturers who complete vehicles for their own use ascertain and certify conformity to all applicable standards as of the time the final-stage manufacturing operations are performed. We do not agree that section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) applies only in connection with the sale of vehicles. That section also requires conformity with respect to the introduction and delivery for introduction of vehicles in interstate commerce. We have construed this language to include the use of any vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways, even if the vehicle has not been sold. The responsibility for certification under the regulations is concomitant with the responsibility for conformity, and, similarly, is not dependent upon a vehicle sale.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in our view, also requires a vehicle used by its manufacturer to conform to all applicable standards at the time of its eventual sale by that manufacturer. Our conclusion is based upon section 108(b)(1), which requires conformity until the first purchase of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. Where a manufacturer uses his own vehicles, that purchase would not take place until the manufacturer ultimately sells the vehicle. However, the NHTSA is aware that conformity of vehicle systems which deteriorate under normal use may be impossible to maintain, and as a matter of administrative practice does not consider it necessary for such a manufacturer to renew conformity when his use of the vehicle has been bona fide.

ID: 18475-2.drn

Dear <Confidential>

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of how S5.1 of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection applies to your company's planned passenger car with a new side door system feature. As explained below, the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) for the car must not exceed the 90 g requirement applicable to passenger cars with two side doors.

Your new side door system feature can generally be described as follows:

The side door system is that of a conventional 2-door vehicle with certain variations. The front portion of the side door system is identical in structure to that of the side door on a conventional 2-door vehicle. Access to the rear seat is possible using the front portion of the side door system alone. The side door system also includes a narrow rear access door panel. This panel cannot be opened independently of the front portion of the side door system. There is no structure between the front portion of the side door system and the rear access door panel.

I note that this type of side door system could be used on one or both sides of a vehicle. For ease of discussion, we will address the situation where it would be used on both sides. However, our interpretation would not differ if the system is used on one side of a vehicle.

Standard No. 214's dynamic performance requirements are set forth in paragraph S5. The performance requirements for passenger cars differ for 2-door cars and 4-door cars. More specifically, under S5.1, the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) may not exceed 85 g for passenger cars with four side doors, and 90 g for passenger cars with two side doors.

The issue raised by your letter is whether passenger cars equipped with your new side door system would be considered 2-door cars or 4-door cars for purposes of S5.1. Put another way, the issue is whether the front portion of the side door system and the rear access panel would be counted as separate doors in determining whether the vehicle is a 2-door car or 4-door car.

We note that this issue is not directly addressed by the language of Standard No. 214. Among other things, the standard does not include a definition of "door." It is therefore especially appropriate, in interpreting the standard, to look to the purposes behind the different performance requirements for 2-door cars and 4-door cars.

In the preamble to the final rule establishing the different performance requirements for 2-door cars and 4-doors (see 55 FR 45722; October 30, 1990), the agency provided the following explanation:

Another important issue, however, is technological feasibility. In particular, based on its review of the record, NHTSA is concerned about the ability of manufacturers to achieve TTI(d) lower than 90 g for all of their two-door cars, and lower than 85 g for all of their four-door cars.

NHTSA believes that it is generally more difficult for manufacturers to achieve lower TTI(d) for two-door cars than for four-door cars. The reason for this is that the side structure and geometry of two-door cars is different from four-door cars. For example, since the door on a two-door model is typically wider than on a four-door model, it is more difficult to design as strong a structure for the door on the two-door model. Taking into account the confidential data submitted by the manufacturers and other available data, the agency has six sets of data on two-door and four-door versions of the same model. These data indicate that the driver dummy injury measurements in a two-door car are about 14 percent higher than in a four-door car. NHTSA also observes that of 22 two-door cars for which the agency has data, only one had driver TTI(d) less than 80, only two had less than 85 g, and only five had less than 90 g.

(55 FR 45746-45757.)

The primary rationale for the slightly higher TTI(d) limit for 2-door cars was thus the difference in side structure and geometry of 2-door cars and 4-door cars, including but not limited to the wider doors typically used for 2-door cars.

The side structure and geometry of the car design at issue is comparable to that of a typical 2-door car rather than a 4-door car. As discussed above, the front portion of the side door system is identical in structure to that of a conventional 2-door vehicle, and access to the rear seat, using the front portion of the side door system alone, is possible. The front portion of the side door system, by itself, thus has the width of the wider doors typically used for 2-door cars. Moreover, there is no structural component between the front portion of the side door system and the rear access door panel.

Given that it is unclear from the language of Standard No. 214 whether the rear access door panel should (considering its small size) cause the vehicles in question to be regarded as 4-door cars, and given the new side door system has the same characteristics that led the agency to establish a slightly higher TTI(d) limit for 2-door cars, the agency concludes that the vehicles should be considered 2-door cars for purposes of determining S5.1's applicable TTI(d) limits.

I note that because this interpretation is based in large part on the policy determinations behind establishing different TTI(d) limits for 2-door and 4-door cars, it should not be viewed as precedent for how we would interpret the term "door" in other contexts.

NHTSA grants your letter's request for confidential treatment of certain information and will keep the identity of your company confidential. The information in publicly available copies of the letter will be redacted.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:214
d.10/1/98

ID: 21406.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Automotive Lighting Reutlingen GmbH
Tubinger Strasse 123
72762 Reutlingen
Germany

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your fax of March 16, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 specifies requirements for headlamp visual/optical aiming. You note that this paragraph "does not say anything about the measuring distance and the diameter of the photocell to be used when measuring the cut-off for determination of position and quality of the cut-off." You state that the preamble to the final rule adopting S7.8.5.3 mentions a GTB document in which "a measuring distance of 10m and a diameter of the photocell has been proposed." According to your letter, the rationale behind the proposals was that visual aiming, where ever conducted in Europe be done at a 10m distance, "and the instrumental method developed for FMVSS 108 should reflect the 'real world' of visual aiming at that time."

Your question, then, is whether it is permissible for a headlamp manufacturer to "measure the cut-off at 10m with a 10mm photocell for aiming purposes and then measure the light intensity of the correctly aimed headlamp at equal or more than 18.3m. We confirm that this is permissible for the reason indicated below.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 was adopted pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking in which the attending parties concurred in the drafting and adoption of the language of the preamble and the resulting rule. Although the 10m distance and diameter of the measuring photocell were not incorporated into Standard No. 108, there was unanimous agreement as to this basis for specifying the measuring procedures. The text to which you refer appears at 62 FR 10710 (March 10, 1997). We noted in this preamble (p. 10711) that a procedure had been developed which provided a baseline system for the visual aim test. The procedure was developed by the Groupe de Travail "Bruxelles 1952" (GTB) Short-term Scientific Studies Working Group (SSST WG), and set forth in "Draft minutes of the Meeting held at Budapest 1995 October 3," which is filed in our rulemaking docket as attachment 3-9 to the Committee's minutes of Meeting No. 3. This procedure specifies that the cut-off is to be measured at a distance of 10m using a photocell with an aperture of 10mm. This was understood by all the parties to the negotiated rulemaking, and we intend to include it in the text of Standard No. 108 itself in a future amendment.

In summary, a headlamp with a cut-off feature should be measured and aimed at 10m using a 10mm photocell, and its compliance with photometric requirements determined at 18.3m.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (fax 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/6/2000