ID: nht73-1.2

DATE: 01/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Van Doorne's Automobielfabrieken N.V.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1972, about compliance of DAF cars with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.

Your question concerns the interpretation of paragraph S3.1.2. From your description in the letter and the description in the owner's manual, only one forward drive position is provided and engine braking can be achieved by actuating the transmission low ratio control switch. Under the conditions described above, the Variomatic transmission in DAF cars is not in violation with paragraph S3.1.2 of Standard No. 102. However, it appears that you do not comply with certain other paragraphs of the standard. For example, paragraph S3.1.1 requires that "A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse positions. . . ." and paragraph S3.1.3 requires that "The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position."

The DAF 66 owners manual dated September 1972, also indicates non-compliance with other standards; for example, 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, 114, Theft Protection, 115, Vehicle Identification Number, etc. It is recommended that all standards and regulations be checked for compliance.

A copy of "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your review and information.

ID: nht94-2.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laborat ories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system mee ts Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of a n oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: nht78-2.12

DATE: 08/29/78

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

TO: Cibie Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated reply to your letter of December 15, 1977, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your request concerned the legality of installation on motor vehicles of remote manual or of automatic headlamp aiming equipment.

If a headlamp assembly meets the requirements of Standard No. 108 when installed with or without auxiliary means of aiming, we consider the assembly to be in conformance. Your device does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the prohibition of S4.1.3, and either device that you described would apparently provide an additional safeguard against glare when the rear of the vehicle is heavily loaded.

SINCERELY,

CIBIE CORPORATION

Office of the Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

December 15 1977

Dear Sir

Headlamp "Aim Correction"

Cibie Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, the American subsidiary of CIBIE PROJECTEURS of Bobigny, France. Cibie Projecteurs manufacturers automotive lighting equipment of every description: headlamps, fog and spotlamps, combination lamps, etc. In addition, headlamp aim correction units are manufactured for passenger cars.

In Europe, these aim correction units are referred to as headlamp levellers; this terminology may lead to confusion with suspension levellers in the United States, hence I have coined the name "aim correction units" in the absence of a recognized term.

The aim correction units manufactured by Cibie are of two types: manual and automatic. Both types are additional to the normal aim features of the headlamp system to which they are applied. That is to say, the correct aim of the headlamps is first established by means of a screwdriver adjustment made externally to the headlamp by a person standing at the front of the car. (Sometimes the screwdriver is not required, where the slotted-head screw has a finger-tip knob molded onto it, allowing the basic aim to be made with the fingers directly.)

The movement of the headlamps that is applied by the aim correction units to the basic correct adjustment is in a downward sense only, to compensate for a full luggage load in the trunk. Thus, the aim correction units cannot of themselves produce dazzle; however, failure by the driver to take advantage of them can allow dazzle to persist (due to luggage load) that could otherwise be removed by their use.

Dealing with the two types of aim correction unit, taking the manual type first: there are two types of manual aim correction unit, two-position and variable.

The earlier two-position type incorporates a cam in the headlamp mounting itself. A small lever, moved by hand, produces a downward correction of the headlamp aim; this lever is accessible by raising the engine hood of the car.

The later variable type incorporates a small piston unit and control knob under the instrument panel, operable from the driving seat. Hydraulic tubing connects the piston unit to a slave unit on each headlamp, lowering the headlamp aim by any desired amount within the design limits of movement. Again, the aim correction is downwards only.

The automatic aim correction unit incorporates hydraulic sensors on the vehicle suspension which, by means of hydraulic tubing and the same slave units, correct the headlamp aim downward without any action on the part of the driver. In the case of the automatic system, headlamp aim is also corrected dynamically for vehicle pitching movements as well as statically for luggage load.

These three types of aim correction unit have been in use in Europe for many years. The automatic unit is currently standard equipment on the Lancia Beta.

Council Directive 76/756 of the European Common Market now requires passenger cars to be fitted with headlamp aim correction units, operable from the driver's seat or automatic. Thus, it is entirely possible that European passenger car manufacturers may wish to export to the United States models of cars in which the European headlamps have been replaced with SAE sealed beams, in accordance with FMVSS 108, but still retaining the aim correction feature, whether manual or automatic.

Cibie Projecteurs, as manufacturer of the aim correction units, would wish to be in a position to advise its customers as to the eligibility of these units for importation into the United States.

Therefore, Cibie Corporation requests a legal opinion as to whether a passenger car that complies in all respects with FMVSS 108, but in addition is equipped with manual or automatic aim correction as described above, would be deemed still in compliance with FMVSS 108.

Inasmuch as the application of the Council Directive takes effect during 1978, the earliest possible answer to this enquiry would be greatly appreciated.

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht88-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

President Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport, NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1988, enclosing a letter you have received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, New York State, advising you that your 1987 Cadillac hearse requires a center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked for the sp ecifications of such a lamp.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. A passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying 10 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one "designed for carrying 10 persons or less which is c onstructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off road operation." A "truck" is defined as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The agency recognizes chassis constructed for commercial use, such as a hearse, as the equivalent of a truck chassis. The determination of vehicle category is initially that of the manufacturer or final stage assembler who certifies compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety st andards applicable to the category of vehicle selected. In our opinion, a hearse could be properly certified as a either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or a "truck."

In a conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on April 29, you informed us that the first six characters of the VIN of your hearse are "1GEDO9", and that its final stage assembler, Superior, had certified it as an "MPV" (multipurpose passenger vehi cle). The "G" in the VIN identifies it, according to internal documents of the initial stage manufacturer, General Motors, as "Cadillac Incomplete Coaches" (meaning, it would appear, funeral coaches), and the "9" as "Cadillac Commercial Body/Chassis." Th is chassis does not form the basis of any passenger car completed by Cadillac. The letter from New York State states "The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multipurpose vehicles and do not require the lights." This is correct, as yo u have told us that Superior has classified it as an MPV, and certified its compliance to all standards applicable to that vehicle category. As the center high-mounted stop lamp standard is not one of those applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, there is no Federal requirement that your hearse be equipped with such a lamp.

We appreciate your interest in safety, and trust that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Standards Compliance 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: 1987 CADILLAC HEARSE AND THIRD BRAKE LIGHT

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find a copy of the letter we received from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated March 16, 1988. They have determined that the above vehicle should be required to have a third brake light.

I would like to know what the requirements are as to its specific location, size. etc.

Please forward any and all pertinent information regarding the above to this office.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Yours truly,

NOLAN & TAYLOR-HOWE FUNERAL HOME, INC. James P. Nolan, Jr. President

JPN:plg ENC:

Mr. James P. Nolan, Jr. Nolan & Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport, L.I., NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

In your letter dated February 22, 1988, you asked if a third taillight is required on a 1987 Cadillac hearse. The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multi-purpose vehicles and do not require the lights.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require a third brake light on 1986 and newer passenger motor vehicles. Multi-purpose passenger vehicles are exempt from this requirement. A multi-purpose passenger vehicle is a vehicle which is built on a truck cha ssis and has certain features making it suitable for off-road operation. I do not believe a hearse can quality as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Therefore, I believe your hearse requires a third brake light.

The Department of Motor Vehicles' has no control over a manufacturer located in another state. I suggest you write to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Compliance, 400 Seventh Stree t, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to require the manufacturer to recall every vehicle to bring it into conformity with the standards.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR L. ALOWITZ Assistant Counsel

ID: nht88-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Auto Chek, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard J. Matysiakh President Auto Chek, Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain, GA 30086-02581

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you aske d how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention sta ndard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law enforcement Act of 1981, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would n aturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Relly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the ve hicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titli ng requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 2, 1987

Mr. Frank G. Ephraim Director, Office of Standards Evaluation Plans and Policy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5208 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Ephraim:

Relative to the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, Title VI, which inpart pertains to the Inscribing or affixing of identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts for passenger car lines wit h high theft rates: How will this law impact the body repair process of clipping and/or sectioning of vehicles that are created by different components with conflicting identification numbers?

Enclosed for your review and consideration are several articles that relate to this problem. Your comments as to disclosure. titling and compliance will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Richard J. Matysiak President, Auto Chek, Inc.

ID: aiam4412

Dear Mr. Cox: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect t whether a lighting product you intend to market is 'in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.'; You describe your product as a 'lighted decal' which can be mounted i the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville.; The decal will be wired into the brake system and when activated by th brake 'only the letters in the decal will be lighted.' You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer 'this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.'; In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federa requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, and that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replacement with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the rear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1987, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear lighting equipment.; By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicle under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system.; You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State an local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.; I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we hav answered your questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 8640

Mr. Shawn Shieh
Ventures International USA
1141 N. Columbus Ave., Suite 303
Glendale, CA 91202

Dear Mr. Shieh:

This replies to your undated letter to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read.

I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps.

In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The "restriction" on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:6/8/93

ID: nht91-1.1

DATE: 01/01/91 EST

FROM: Jessie M. Flautt

TO: Steve Kratzske -- NHTSA Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jessie M. Flautt (A37; Std. 202; VSA 108(a)(2)(4))

TEXT:

I am writing to your department to obtain authorization to reduce the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile; These reductions would still meet the federal standards set in 1987. I am not able to drive a 1991 car due to the increased length and width of the headrests in the past few years. The newer cars are designed for an average man with average vision: however, I am under five feet-two and an legally blind in one eye. Therefore, I cannot find a car that does not impede my field of vision. Consequently, my driving safety and that of drivers and passengers in other cars is in jeopardy as I have a limited view of side and rear objects.

I would be the sole driver of the car and would thus not be endangering anyone else by a reduction of the headrests: in fact, I would be greatly improving my own safety as well as that of persons in other vehicles if I were allowed to increase my field of vision by reducing the size of the headrests.

I apppreciate the time and interest you expended in speaking to me on the telephone. It is a wonderful feeling to know that we can indeed reach a helpful person in our huge goverment organization.

(Stetson's Auto Shops, 7414 Ashcroft, Houston, Texas, would be doing this work.)

ID: nht89-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 5, 1989

FROM: DAVID G. GOULD -- LEGISLATION DEPT., LOTUS ENGINEERING, NORFOLK, ENGLAND

TO: STEVE WOOD -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: WMI REGISTER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO SEPTEMBER 29, 2989 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, TO DAVID G. GOULD, LOTUS ENGINEERING;[REDBOOK A34; PART 565]

TEXT: Lotus Cars Ltd was allocated the WMI "SCC" some years ago by the British Standards Institution - BSI - in England. BSI handles the issuance of WMIs and the maintenance of the United Kingdom WMI register; they notify SAE, the world coordinating body, of those WMIs assigned.

Due to a difficulty that we are experiencing with BSI, Lotus Cars wish to establish the mandate that BSI has with respect to additions to and deletions from the world register, and we have been advised to consult you on this matter.

Specifically, we seek advice on whether a national agency (BSI in the case of the United Kingdom) can delete an allocated WMI from SAE's master register without the agreement of the holder of that WMI, for whatever reason.

Our concerns in this matter stem from the fact that the WMI is a legally required component of the VIN, itself a legal requirement in the European Community, and we would not wish to be deleted from the SAE master register as a result of our difficulties with BSI.

We understand from the SAE WMI co-ordinator in Warrendale PA that WMIs must be allocated by a national body, and cannot be allocated by SAE outside the USA.

We would therefore welcome your views on this query.

Yours sincerely,

ID: nht78-3.4

DATE: 04/13/78

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

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.

The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Cars & Concepts, Inc.

February 16, 1978

Mr. Oats -- Office of Chief Council, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Oats:

Regarding your conversations with Ed Myjack of my office, it is his understanding that the Department of Transportation markings on glass need not be visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle (providing the original manufacturer's marking do remain on the glass).

As we provide vinyl top design and installations on some OEM vehicles, some of the designs may cover these markings on the quarter glass and/or backlights.

Since we provide these type of installations to the OEM, they require written proof that such modifications are within the requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Moe Pare, Jr. -- Director of Design

cc: D. Draper; E. Myjack