ID: aiam0493

Dear Mr. Spitz: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1971, in which you expresse concern over the requirement in our Certification regulations (36 F.R. 19593, October 8, 1971) that all vehicles, including those manufactured in two or more stages, have a vehicle identification number on their certification label.; You stated that your major concern was that the manufacturers would b 'confused', and 'would further add to the problems of vehicle identification experienced by the Motor Vehicle Administrators.' Your letter did not, however, specify how or why our regulations would 'add to the problems.' With reference to a telephone conversation of November 4 with Mr. Dyson of our Chief Counsel's Office, you declined a request that you supply specific suggestions for modification of the regulation, on grounds that 'this could be ultimately viewed as presumptive on our part.'; I would like to clarify some points concerning this requirement. Th requirement of placing a vehicle identification number on each certification label has existed since our first Certification regulations went into effect on September 1, 1969, and the amended regulations that become effective January 1, 1972 (to which you refer) contain no change whatever in that requirement. The reason why the VIN came to your attention as a separate proposal was that our March 17, 1970 notice, in which we proposed changes in the way we regulate multistage vehicles, had omitted the requirement, largely through oversight. The legal requirements for public notice required us to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, in order to retain the VIN on the labels, where it has been since September 1969.; We have not attempted in this motor vehicle safety regulation t regulate the form of the vehicle identification numbers on vehicles other than passenger cars. We have, in effect, left the situation exactly as it has been since September 1, 1969, when the Certification regulations first went into effect: we require that each vehicle have on its permanent label a 'vehicle identification number.' We chose then (as we have since) to leave the form of the number to the manufacturer, in the first instance, subject to whatever State regulations might be in force, and in accordance with whatever guidelines he might choose to follow. While this policy has not solved the problems of the motor vehicle administrators, it is not at all clear to us how it could have added to them.; As you know, we are working closely with State officials on the proble of standardizing vehicle identification numbers, in connection with our highway safety program standard on motor vehicle registration. We would like very much to have your ideas on how we can deal with these problems through our Traffic Safety Programs.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator

ID: aiam4825

"Dear Mr. Loewentritt: This responds to your November 7, 1990 lette requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply 'to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.' In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army, and that the buses were actually sold to the Army, albeit indirectly. In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive Center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA's Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS 'are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS.' You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS. In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for 'indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school.' You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications 'which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses rather than school bus specifications.' Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c). The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults. I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4394

Dear Mr. Pape: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, to which you have asked that we reply.; Your first question is 'May one word be introduced on the brake light? Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to the lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the lamp must meet specified candela maxima and minima at 13 discrete test points.; Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whethe it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c *Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices*, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather narrowly defined, and falls with the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if its is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribed limits. In our opinion, the 'soft pink' or 'hot pink' that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.; Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are 'hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing.' Under assumption that your lamp would not comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold and used.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5198

"Dear Mr. Peepas: We have received your letter of July 9, 1993, t Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting interpretations of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your questions are directed towards a 48-foot container chassis, but in a telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson you have explained that a 40-foot container chassis is also involved. For simplicity's sake we shall refer to trailers of both lengths collectively as the 'trailer'. The gooseneck on the trailer is 8 feet long. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies in pertinent part that the side horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting 'need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered.' You have asked whether the length of the gooseneck is included in the 50% computation. The answer is yes. The gooseneck is similar to a trailer tongue, and is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. From the photos you enclosed, we see that retroreflective sheeting has been applied to the gooseneck and the frame rail with approximately the same spacing between segments. If you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck. The same paragraph also requires that retroreflective sheeting shall be located 'as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface.' You enclosed a photo of a Maersk loaded chassis and note that 'because of space limitations, the striping may not be 4 foot (sic) from the road surface.' You have asked whether there has been a change in height allowance to compensate for space adjustments. The agency has been petitioned for reconsideration of this specification, and to allow a mounting height as low as the 15 inches originally proposed. We have not reached a determination on this point, and the height remains at 4 feet. However, if the manufacturer of a new trailer determines that something less than 4 feet is 'as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface' with respect to a particular trailer design, it may certify conformance of the trailer with the mounting height requirement on that basis. Finally, paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that the spaces between sheeting be 'distributed as evenly as practicable.' In a telephone call on July 16, you informed Mr. Vinson that in some instances equal spacing may not be possible because of trailer unit numbers and other identification, and structural characteristics. As we have advised in the preceding paragraph, the requirement is modified by what is practicable under the circumstances. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1642

Dear Mr. Gerth: This responds to your September 18, 1974, request for clarification o the vehicle requirements set out in S4. and S6. of a recent proposal to amend Standards Nos. 207, *Seating systems*, and 202, *Head restraints*. As published March 19, 1974 (39 FR 10268), S5. provides:; >>>S5. *Requirements*. Each vehicle shall be capable of meeting any o the requirements set forth under this heading, when tested in accordance with the procedures of S6. and the conditions of S7., except that any vehicle which is capable of meeting the requirements of S5.3(e) is not required to be capable of meeting S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), or S5.3(c) as applied to forward-facing seats. However, a particular vehicle (i.e., a test specimen) need not meet further requirements after having been subjected to any one of the following groups of requirements:; Group I: S5.2, 5.3(a), S5.3(b), S5.3(d), S5.5.1(b), and S5.5.1(a). Group II: S5.2, S5.3(c), and S5.3(e). Group III: S5.2 and all S5.4 requirements.<<< The first statement in S5. is that each vehicle must be capable o meeting any of the requirements listed, with certain exceptions. The second statement in S5. does not modify the first statement, but only makes clear that, for test purposes, a particular test specimen is not required to successfully undergo each of the destructive tests without a failure. To accomplish this end, the destructive tests of the standard are separated into three separate groups, each of which is calculated as appropriate for sequential testing of one vehicle.; The first statement in S5. can be interpreted as offering an option t the manufacturer between compliance with S5.3(e) or compliance with S5.3(b), S5.5.1(b), and S5.3(c). In fact, all passenger cars and all multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV) and trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less would be required to meet S5.3(e). A review of comments on the proposal demonstrates that manufacturers and other commenters did not misinterpret these requirements as an option. Therefore, the NHTSA concludes that the language, while it could be made more clear, adequately notified interested persons of the NHTSA's intent to apply the rear barrier crash requirement to all passenger cars and to all light MPV's and trucks subject to the standard.; Because a particular vehicle is only required to meet either S5.3(c) o S5.3(e), we agree that the Group II series of tests applicable to any one vehicle would be better expressed as 'Group II: S5.2, and S5.3(c) or S5.3(e).' Such a wording change would appear in any final rule issued in this format.; Section S6. is a statement of test procedures and, as such, it does no state further or conflicting requirements. In the case of Group II testing, it reflects the requirements of S5. that a vehicle meet either S5.3(c) or S5.3(e), but not both.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4392

Dear Ms. Tate: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference t the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platform mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit 'obstructs direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light.' You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift 'so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind....,' leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it.; Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and because the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.; However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperativ may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* allows an exception for modifications made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Where a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directly on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4128

Dear Mr. Jackson: This responds to your letter following up our correspondence regardin the designation of the target zones under 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. In this letter, you quoted the statement in my February 4, 1986, letter to you that NHTSA 'knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit.' You asked me to provide information to you on the means of inscription to which I referred, including the name of the process and the address and the telephone number of supplier firms.; The means of inscribing curved surfaces to which I referred in m previous letter to you include technologies such as chemical etching, sandblasting, 'shot-peening', and hard-point vibration. Each of these technologies would enable a person to inscribe markings on curved surfaces, and none requires the purchase of very expensive equipment.; This agency does not provide commercial referrals of supplier firms fo a number of reasons. Section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each *manufacturer* to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify that any particular means of marking complies with the theft prevention standard. A listing of supplier firms might be viewed as an approval or endorsement of those firms and their means of marking, and be contrary to the statutory requirement.; Further, as a policy matter, this agency does not provide commercia referrals even absent statutory requirements. By listing a group of supplier firms, the agency would give those firms an unintended 'government sanction' for their products. Conversely, any such listing would unintentionally denigrate all firms not included in the listing. Any commercial referrals by this agency would give rise to these potential problems no matter what disclaimers NHTSA attached to the referral.; The theft prevention standard is a performance standard that specifie criteria with which the markings used by your group must comply. You are free to choose the means of compliance. In making that choice, you will have to use your business judgment to decide whether you should inscribe the markings yourself or pay someone else to inscribe the markings. If you choose to pay someone else to inscribe the markings, the choice of whom you should select would again be your decision.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2225

Dear Mr. Baudhuin: This is in response to your January 29, 1976, letter to Secretar Coleman, concerning problems with your 22 foot Executive 'MINI' Motorhome.; SS 567.4(g)93) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification* provide that a motor vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) shall; >>>not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated carg load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.<<<; Your letter and its enclosures indicate that your vehicle's weight i 9180 pounds, its designated seating capacity is six, and the GVWR specified by Executive is 9000 pounds. From this information, there appears to be a violation by Executive of Part 567. In addition, the possibility that the rear axle may be overloaded under normal conditions of use may constitute a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.; Please note that a final-stage manufacturer is not automaticall prohibited from certifying a GVWR that differs from that specified by the chassis manufacturer. For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, Executive is free to certify a lower GVWR, provided the above-cited constraint is observed.; The remaining questions presented in your letter are not matters ove which we have jurisdiction, and probably are most appropriately handled by a private attorney.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1412

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of December 19, 1973, asking whethe Blue Bird may use the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicles it manufactures, to be completed at a later time, as the date by which conformity to applicable safety standards is to be determined. You indicate that Blue Bird manufactures both incomplete and complete vehicles.; The Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stage regulations (49 CFR Parts, (sic) 567, 568) allow only final-stage manufacturers to certify conformity to applicable standards as of the manufacture date of an 'incomplete vehicle.' A person who manufactures the entire vehicle, including the chassis, is not a final-stage manufacturer within the intent of the regulation, and such a vehicle must be certified as of the date of its completion.; Part 568 clearly intends that multistage vehicles will be manufacture by more than one party. As your letter points out, the documentation required by Part 568 is unnecessary when only one manufacturer is involved. Moreover, the justification in the regulations for allowing a final-stage manufacturer to utilize the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle is based partially on the fact that he has no control over the configuration of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has no control over when and how the vehicle is completed. This justification does not exist when a single party builds the entire vehicle.; To permit a manufacturer of a complete vehicle to choose a date othe than the completion date for purposes of conformity would present this agency with serious enforcement problems. Which standards would apply would depend on how 'separate' were a single company's manufacturing operations. Due to the endless possibilities that may arise in this regard, it is difficult to envision fair and objective critieria (sic) by which this decision could be made. Finally, providing the relief you request would allow a manufacturer to avoid compliance with a forthcoming standard by manufacturing large numbers of incomplete vehicles for completion by him at a later time.; You should note that the legal status of Parts 567 and 568 is unclear due to the recent Court decisions in the *Rex Chainbelt* case. You will encounter no problems, however, by continuing to follow the regulations until further agency action is taken.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-25-90 TO T. VINSON--NHTSA, FROM J. CORNELL; (OCC 5035; ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCKET SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. 108 which were published on May 15 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in te rms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confus ion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedenc e over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May 15 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square i nches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch.

With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On may 15, Standard No. 108 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement." (S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together

to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp ... and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap ." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signa l", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple co mpartment lamp."

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.