ID: nht73-2.35

DATE: 10/05/73

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- ASSOC. ADM., MVP, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ELWOOD T. DRIVER

TO: State Motor Vehicle Administration

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have checked the sample ANSID-19.4 title and odometer disclosure forms which were submitted by you and Mr. Pfaff for review.

The odometer disclosure form complies with the disclosure regulation, 49 CFR Part 580. The odometer disclosure portion of the title document complies except for a blank for Last Plate Number and a reference to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which points out the civil liabilities for failure to comply.

If we can be of any more assistance, please contact our office.

ID: aiam2643

Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your June 8, 1977, letter asking where a school bu sidewall ends and the bus roof begins for purposes of complying with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; You enclosed a sketch detailing the bus sidewall and roof structure. O that sketch, you have a section of the bus labeled 'A' where the sidewall and roof structure join. You have called this a quarter panel section. However, from your sketch, it appears that this panel is divided into two segments, with one extending upward from the window a short distance and connecting with a second more rounded section that continues over the top of the bus. The National Higheay Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that your interpretation that the section labeled 'A' need not comply with the requirements of the standard is incorrect. The agency concludes that the portion of the 'quarter panel' that is a continuation of the bus sidewall is exempted from the requirements. However, the rounded portion of the panel that is merely a continuation of the roof must comply with the standard.; In your other sketch you present a roof drawing of a larger school bus The agency has determined that the section you have labeled 'roof section' is the only section of the drawing subject to the head protection zone requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Larson, Victor -- P.E., Cryenco, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Conspicuity Striping Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/14/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Victor Larson (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: Cryenco is a manufacturer of cryogenic tank trailers. Our trailers are cylindrical in shape and in most cases, have no side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road, except at the center of the tank (at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions ). This is at a height of approximately 90" above the ground. Additional structures would have to be added to the sides of the trailer to provide lower mounting surfaces that are at the 1.25m height. In our interpretation of the rule, which is based o n phone calls with NHTSA and 3M striping performance specifications, the side striping 1.) Can legally be placed at a height of 90" above the ground, if that is the only available vertical mounting area, and 2.) it is not necessary to add additional stru cture for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface for the side striping. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

Additional limited side mounting areas are sometimes available. For instance, some cryogenic transports have a rear cabinet that is approximately 4' long. Some also have a midship undermounted cabinet. These locations provide limited lower areas for si de striping to amount to, approximately 4' to 6' length each, that could be used for striping location. However, if striping is mounted to these surfaces and to the remaining areas above, (on the tank at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions and 90" height), the result is a fragmented, non-aligned striping pattern that is not visually pleasing, and which Customers object to. Since transporters are highly interested in visual impact they sometimes find this pattern unacceptable. Would compliance be satisfied if the side striping was placed only at the higher (90" above the ground) location, where the predominant available vertical mounting surface is found?

Requests to mount the side striping lower on the tank, to better fit-in with their graphics, have been received. In one instance, if this were done, the side striping would be rolled down from the 3:00 and 9:00 positions to about the 4:30 and 7:30 posit ions. This would place the side striping on an area of the tank that angles downward approximately 30 degrees. The striping manufacturers do not certify to meet the reflectivity requirements at compound angles exceeding 15 degrees down, combined with t he horizontal angles indicated in the rule. The general feeling among transporters and striping suppliers is that the rule is not definitive about the angular orientation of the striping, i.e. that there is no need to have the striping mounted on a surf ace that is perpendicular to the road. Please verify what the requirement is relative to orientation of the striping for conspicuity.

ID: nht80-4.8

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 5, 1980, letter asking why it might not be possible for a manufacturer to certify a vehicle in compliance with the school bus safety standards if that vehicle transports 10 persons or less. You state that you would like the smaller sized vehicles to be constructed with the same safety features as larger school buses.

First, we would like to note that the school bus safety standards were originally applied only to the larger sized vehicles (more than 10 persons) because the larger sized vehicles were not previously required to comply with many of our safety standards. On the other hand, most of our standards apply to vehicles transporting 10 persons or less. Since these small vehicles were extensively regulated it was determined to be unnecessary to apply school bus safety standards to them.

In response to your particular question, a vehicle transporting 10 persons or less is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), not a bus or a school bus. A manufacturer is required by this agency to certify such a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. This certification statement must be made on the vehicle's certification label. Therefore, a manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a school bus in compliance with the school bus safety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category (more than 10 persons).

New York should not attempt to issue a regulation that would require multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with all school bus safety standards. Some of those standards might conflict with other Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's and would, therefore, be preempted. For example, the school bus seating standard could not be applied to MPV's because their seating is regulated by other Federal safety because their seating is regulated by other Federal safety standards. However, since MPV's are not presently regulated in the areas of emergency exists, joint strength, or roof crush, New York could have a regulation requiring MPV's used to transport children to comply with these performance standards now applicable only to school buses. The vehicles would still be required to be certified only to the safety standards applicable to MPV's however.

ID: nht80-2.50

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yarbrough manufacturing Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of April 23, 1980, with Mr. Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.

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

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

YARBROUGH MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC.

March 24, 1980

Nelson Erickson -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT

RE: FMVSS No. 115. VIN for trailers to tow Boats, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Utility and similar items.

Dear Sir:

Last week, we discussed by phone the information needed to properly complete section 2 of the new vehicle identification number. I have put together the data on our trailers with a sample serial number. Will you please review this information and let me know if it complies with all the provisions of No. 115 concerning our type of trailers.

Enclosures:

1. Sample serial number

2. Part number information to be used for section 2 of VIN.

3. Information on model designations with examples and explanations.

4. Coded locations of assembly points where serial numbers are assigned and affixed to trailers. For use in 2nd Character of section 3.

5. Sales literature with specifications

Our engineering department would keep your files updated with information on new models added to our line.

Since we begin assigning new serial numbers in July of each year, I would appreciate receiving your written comments as soon as possible. If you would prefer to discuss any of this by phone, please call me at 1-800-433-8863.

Sincerely,

Milton M. Singleton, Vice President

[Enclosures Omitted.]

ID: nht75-3.26

DATE: 03/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Automotive Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting an opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR @@ 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.

The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on the part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.

If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will be required.

ID: Toyota_knee_bolster

Chris Tinto, Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the definition of "air bag system" as it pertains to test procedures specified in our occupant crash protection standard. Your letter asked if an inflatable knee bolster would be considered part of the "driver frontal air bag system" under the procedure for low risk deployment (LRD) tests of the driver air bag. As explained below, for purposes of LRD tests, the driver frontal air bag system refers to the steering wheel hub-mounted inflatable restraint and does not include an inflatable knee bolster.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 to minimize the risk of injury from deploying air bags for small adults and children (65 Federal Register 30680; Advanced air bag rule). The Advanced Air Bag Rule adopted a LRD test to address the risk air bags pose to out-of-position occupants, particularly those of small stature. The test is performed by activating a frontal air bag system with a test dummy in "worst case" positions: placing the dummys chin on the module and for the 5^th percentile adult female test dummy, also placing the dummy's chin on the steering wheel.

In your letter you stated that Toyota has equipped some of its vehicles with a knee air bag (knee bolster), which deploys in a frontal crash along with the driver air bag located in the steering wheel hub. You further stated that Toyota considers a knee bolster part of the frontal air bag system and therefore, it should be deployed during a LRD test. Your letter also noted that both the knee bolster and the air bag located in the steering wheel hub deploy in the rigid barrier test described in S22.5 of FMVSS No. 208, which determines the deployment stage for the LRD procedure in S26.

In a November 19, 2003, final rule, the agency specifically addressed which air bag system components are fired in a LRD test. The agency stated that:

While neither "air bag [system]" or "inflatable restraint [system]" is defined in FMVSS No. 208 or any other place in 49 CFR Part 571, the intent of the term "air bag" is to describe the components that make up the passenger- side dash-mounted and driver-side steering wheel hub-mounted, inflatable restraints used for occupant protection in a frontal impact. This does not refer to any other pyrotechnic system such as a belt pretensioner or inflatable knee bolster (68 Federal Register 65179, 65186; emphasis added).

We further stated that the agency has no data on the effect deploying devices other than the frontal air bag will have on the LRD test procedure. We also do not have any data on the performance of any of these other pyrotechnic devices for out-of-position occupants in the field. Specifically, we are concerned that inflatable knee bolsters could negatively impact the repeatability of the LRD tests, even though they would inflate in a real crash. Therefore, when the agency performs a LRD test on a vehicle equipped with inflatable knee bolsters, the knee bolsters are not inflated.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/19/04

ID: aiam2939

Dear Mr. Miyazawa, This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1978, to Mr. E. T. Driver requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*. Your letter depicted the use of two headlamps, both round and rectangular, mounted side by side, and also one above the other.; Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if two headlamps are mounted o a motorcycle they must be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The same requirement applies to taillamps, stoplamps, and reflex reflectors. This has been interpreted previously, in the case of reflex reflectors, to mean that if two are used they may be mounted only side by side. Four headlamp systems are now permitted on motorcycles. These are specified in the new paragraph S4.1.1.34 in the amendment published in the *Federal Register* July 27, 1978. A copy of the new amendment is enclosed, along with copies of previous notices that constitute FMVSS No. 108. However, if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle, they still must be mounted side by side and equidistant from a vertical centerline of the body of the motorcycle.; This agency is currently considering an amendment to the standard tha will, if approved, permit the positioning of headlamps and reflectors one above the other when two are mounted on a motorcycle. The necessary rulemaking procedures, if initiated, would take several months and there is no certainty that the contemplated amendment would be issued.; We welcome your further comments and questions, Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking;

ID: aiam3906

Dear Ms. Goodrich: This responds to your letter asking about regulations for automobil ignition systems and steering wheel locking systems. You asked for information concerning requirements for vehicles with automatic transmissions for the removal of the ignition key while the vehicle is in drive or any gear other than park. You specifically asked whether a driver should be able to remove the key from the ignition while the car is in drive even if the engine is no longer running.; Requirements relating to steering wheel locking systems are set fort in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*. Section S4.2 of the standard requires (among other things) that vehicles have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or forward self- mobility of the vehicle, or both. Section S4.3 of the standard requires engine shall not activate the deterrent that prevents steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle. Thus, the driver of an automobile may turn off the engine while the car is in motion without activating the steering column lock or impeding forward self-mobility.; Neither Standard No. 114 nor any other standard specifically require that vehicles be designed so that drivers are unable to remove the key from the ignition while the vehicle is in drive. I would note that the agency has conducted rulemaking addressing the issue of inadvertent activation of the steering column lock in moving vehicles. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in May 1978 and a final rule in December 1980, the agency deleted the relevant requirements in a final rule and response to petitions for reconsideration, published in June 1981. In that latter notice, the agency stated that it had determined that the problem of inadvertent activation is not significant enough to require vehicles to be equipped with key-locking systems that provide more protection against inadvertent activation.; Standard No. 102, *Transmission Braking Effect*, also includes requirement relevant to your question. Section S3.1.3 requires that the engine starter for automatic transmission vehicles be inoperative when the transmission shift level is in a forward or reverse drive position.; Copies of Standards Nos. 102 and 114 and the three Federal Registe notices discussed above are enclosed for your convenience.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5601

"Dear Mr. Meurer: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995 responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process. You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c). 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency 'decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events.' Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain 'a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation.' The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported. The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project. Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point, when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs. Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must 'at all times retain title to and possession of' vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and 'shall not lease' them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project. I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes 'on terms NHTSA decides are necessary.' Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers. The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest. If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";