ID: nht88-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 14, 1988

FROM: C. DIANNE BLACK -- ENGINEERING MANAGER, JAGUAR

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

TITLE: FMVSS 108, HEADLAMP LEVELLING SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-1-88, TO C. DIANNE BLACK, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1988 which discussed our June and October 1987 letters regarding a headlamp levelling system for our US models.

We have reviewed your letter, and we have decided that we should go one step further and provide a drawing of the switch, showing its location on the steering column shroud and to perhaps better describe its operation.

To reiterate from our October 17, 1987 letter, the switch has three positions -

zero = driver only or

driver plus front passenger or

driver plus front and rear passengers

one = driver plus passengers plus maximum trunk load

two = driver plus maximum load in trunk

The switch/lamp motor system is limited to the above three positions and intermediate settings are not possible. The switch is not a rheostat but rather a 'master/slave' unit. The switch is illuminated by turning on the headlamps and it cannot be turne d off.

Headlamp alignment is adjustable only in the zero position.

We believe that full description in the owner handbook, and the fully visible illuminated switch will enhance owner familiarity with the system and the system can be used to enhance headlighting performance.

We hope this will further clarify the system and allay your concerns over our headlamp levelling system and its operation.

Feel free to contact me should you have further questions.

Headlamp Dipped-Beam Levelling Control

Driver's-Eye View (On Left Steering Column Shroud)

ID: nht76-1.35

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bemperit of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms a telephone conversation between yourself and Mr. George Chifflett, a member of my staff, on March 12, 1976. In that conversation a telex from Semperit, Austria, was discussed and the following points were made:

1. Motor-driven cycles (mopeds) need not be equipped with tires conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, until September 1, 1976. Of course, if the tires were manufactured after March 1, 1975, they would have to conform (see paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120 and paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 119, highlighted copies enclosed).

2. All tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, must be marked in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 574 (49 CFR 574), Figure I (copy enclosed). Tires on mopeds being offered for sale must be marked accordingly. If branding would weaken the tire sidewall, replacement might be the only solution to the problem.

3. FMVSS No. 119, applies to all covered tires manufactured on or after March 1, 1975. It does not apply to tires in aftermarket inventory that were manufactured before that date.

4. "Federal Register Car [CFR] 393 Docket Number MC-56 Notice Number 75-19," pertains to a Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulation that applies to vehicles being used as interstate carriers. It does not apply to vehicles being manufactured or offered for sale. As stated before, vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, must be fitted with tires that meet FMVSS No. 109 or 119.

5. The post March 1975 labeling described in your telex does not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 119.

(a) The symbol "DOT" must appear before the manufacturer's identification code number, as a certification that the tire complies with the standard. "TIRE" may appear elsewhere on the tire, but it is not required.

(b) The composition of the ply cord material must also appear.

(c) While the labeling "Maximum Speed 30 MPH" is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Moped tires are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires, most notably, the high speed and endurance test requirements. An amendment on the subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

ID: nht88-3.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 7, 1988

FROM: George T. Miller -- Child Riding Inc.

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Childing Riding, Inc.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R.J. Sullivan (A36; Std. 213); Also attached to letter dated 10-23-89 from R.J. Sullivan to D. Fujita (OCC 4098)

TEXT:

NHTSA held a public meeting in Washington on August 9, 1988. My presentation at the meeting was limited to a discussion of built-in restraints. I expressed concern that a super-technical construction of the new regulations might serve to deny the publi c access to this new technology.

After the meeting I spoke with Ms. Joan Tillman. She recognized my concern. However, she stated that it was not the intention of NHTSA to be super-technical in its interpretation of Standard 213. However, she made it clear that a formal interpretation of Standard 213 can be made only in response to written inquiry directed to your attention.

On January 22, 1988 Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 213, CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, was amended to permit installing built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars.

The stated purpose of the Agency was to amend 213 "only to the extent necessary to accommodate built-in restraints. In those instances where specifications would not accommodate built-in restraints, the Agency proposed creating a separate requirement fo r each kind of restraint" (see Fed. Reg. Vol. 53, No. 14 pg. 1783).

Accordingly, S4 of CFR 571.213 was amended in part, as follows:

(a) "Built-in child restraint system" means any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car.

"Specific vehicle shell" means the actual vehicle model part intowhich the built-in child restraint system is fabricated, (Emphasis Added) including the complete surroundings of the built-in system. If the built-in child restraint system is manu factured as part of the rear seat, these surroundings, include the back of the front seat, the interior rear side door panels and trim, the rear seat, the floor pan, the B and C pillars, and the ceiling.

In addition, S7.3 of 49 CFR 571.213 was revised to read as follows:

S7.3 Standard test device.

(b) The standard test devices used in testing built-in child restraint systems under this standard are either a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle. (Emphasis Added).

We are prepared to test our built-in child restraint system in a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle.

We would expect to successfully test the built-in restraint in your standard small, medium and large size vehicles before offering it to the general public.

This approach would seem to be consistent with the stated purpose of NHTSA. This will mean that your typical young family (who may not be able to afford a new vehicle) can now avail itself of the convenience and safety offered through use of a built-in restraint.

However, we do have a major concern. If NHTSA makes a super-technical interpretation of Standard 213; then it could require that the built-in restraint be tested in each and every vehicle before the restraint could be properly used in any particular mod el. For example, using such reasoning, NHTSA could require that the manufacturer crash test a 1977 Ford before permitting a sale of the restraint to the owners of 1977 Fords.

I would appreciate it if I could have official confirmation from NHTSA that no such requirement was intended. I would also hope the NHTSA could publish some guide-lines on this problem.

Please understand that, absent such guidelines, the manufacturers of built-in restraints unnecessarily risk considerable financial exposure.

I plan to be in Washington next week and I would like to take the opportunity to show you the completed and installed prototype of our new seat.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter

ID: nht95-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Randall Townley -- Statewide Coordinator, The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/9/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Randall Townley (A44; Std. 207; Std. 222)

TEXT: I have had a question brought to my attention in reference to bench seats being installed in a van side-facing. I am aware some vehicles such as ambulances and pickup trucks are still being manufactured with bench mounted seats. I realize you have no d ata which would support side-mounted seats as being unsafe to the passengers in a vehicle.

Please give me your written opinion in reference to the above. Thank you for your assistance.

ID: 7996

Mr. Rodney T. Nash, P. E.
Vice President Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
421 East 30th Avenue
Hutchinson, KS 67502-2493

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your letter to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), received in this office on November 18, 1992, and your telephone conversation of November 30, 1992 with Walter Myers of this office, regarding the proper classification of an ambulance.

You indicated that Wheeled Coach Industries of Orlando, Florida, a subsidiary of Collins Industries, produces ambulances that are built on truck chassis. You stated that in the past those vehicles have been classified as trucks, but that Ford Motor Company auditors told you that they should be classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). You said that you needed to know how to classify ambulances, observing that it appeared to you that the final stage manufacturer was free to choose between the two classifications, truck or MPV.

NHTSA has long considered ambulances to be multipurpose passenger vehicles, which are defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Your company's ambulances fit this definition very well: they are mounted on a truck chassis and are designed to carry ten persons or less.

As you pointed out in your letter, it is true that an ambulance may carry more weight in special equipment than it carries in patients, and it may operate half its life with no patient on board. Nevertheless, NHTSA believes that whether or not a patient is on board or how much equipment is carried, the vehicle is primarily designed for the transportation and/or care of ill or injured persons, as well as the transportation of paramedic personnel to wherever they are needed. This is in contrast to a truck which is defined also in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment". Thus, although an ambulance carries special purpose equipment, NHTSA believes that the equipment is only ancillary to the primary function of an ambulance which is the transportation of persons. Accordingly, an ambulance falls within the definition of MPV rather than truck.

I hope this will help clarify this issue for you. Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

ref:571 d.12/30/92

ID: nht90-2.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1990

FROM: Olivier M. Sprangers -- A.T. Kearney, Inc.

TO: James T. Brooks -- Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Traffic Operations HTO-21

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-8-91 from Paul J. Rice to Olivier M. Sprangers (A37; Std. 125); Also attached to letter dated 8-20-90 from Harry B. Skinner to Olivier M. Sprangers (OCC 5444)

TEXT:

With reference to our telephone conversation of Monday 25th of June, we'd like to ask your help in preparing the best advice for our customer. There are in fact two major concerns, for which we'd appreciate your written comments.

The first one concerns the process of approval of a new triangle. Basically, the company has designed the product such that it fits within the regulations you have supplied us, namely 49 CFR Ch. III par. 393.95 and 49 CFR Ch V 571.125. The company inten ds to have this verified by a neutral testing organisation. Is this a required or advisable step, and are there any other steps which have to be taken in order to be allowed to start selling the product in the US market?

The second concern is about the term "collapsible" in said regulations. Most traffic triangles are collapsible in the sense that the two sides ("legs") pointing upwards can be flapped down, and the supporting feet can be turned resulting in a flat and th in, long package. This company's product, allows only for the supporting feet to be turned and brought into the same flat surface as the triangular, resulting in a flat, triangle shaped thin package. Would this structure still be within the meaning of the term "collapsible"?

Next to these two concerns, we'd highly appreciate your advice concerning other official government people to contact, who could offer valuable advice in the application of this product.

We highly appreciate your time and efforts in this matter, also on behalf of our client.

We'd kindly welcome your answer within two weeks, if possible.

ID: 24524.ztv

D.W. Robertson, Captain
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of State Police
491 Southlake Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23236

Dear Captain Robertson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on June 3. The subject of your letter was "road lamps."

Specifically, you reported that the 2001 and 2002 model year Acura CL coupes are equipped with "road lamps." You stated that "these lamps are not marked, and from my understanding do not fall under FMVSS 108. These lamps produce 5 watts of power, and the lens and reflector are not specifically focused to any point." You related that "Honda advised that these lamps are located below the headlights . . . and are used in conjunction with both the low beam and high beam headlamps . . . ."

You asked two questions: "1. Are road lamps, as described, sanctioned by FMVSS 108?," and "2. If they are not sanctioned by FMVSS 108, are they sanctioned by NHTSA in some other rule or regulation?"

The lamps you describe are not required by FMVSS No. 108. The question then arises whether lamps other than required lamps are allowed. FMVSS No. 108 permits a new vehicle to be manufactured and/or sold with supplementary lamps, subject to the prohibition imposed by S5.1.3 of the standard that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other item of motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard."

We have not tested Acura vehicles to judge whether additional lamps of 5 watts located below the headlamps in the front bumper, and operating in conjunction with them, will impair the effectiveness of the upper or lower beam headlamps, or of the front turn signal, parking, or hazard warning system lamps. The label that Honda affixes to each Acura CL coupe certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS represents, in part, its determination that the road lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other front lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have no basis to question that determination.

As for your second question, "road lamps" are motor vehicle equipment and subject to the agencys safety notification and remedy requirements if a safety-related defect occurs in them. Apart from regulations implementing these requirements, there are no other NHTSA regulations that pertain to auxiliary lighting equipment such as road lamps. This means that any State may regulate these lamps, and their use, as appears appropriate to the State.

If you have any further concerns, please call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

ref:108

d.7/29/02

ID: 1982-2.33

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Z. Taylor Vinson; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretation file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On August 4, 1982, Mike Segraves of Trailmobile presented the hypothetical to me of whether a remanufactured trailer could be purchased by the remanufacturer before modification and leased to its former owner after modification without it being considered newly manufactured for purpose of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

He found a contradiction between 49 CFR @ 571.7(f) and the preamble establishing it. Subsection (f)(2) imposes the restriction that the remanufactured trailer is "an existing trailer" which "is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle." Yet the preamble (41 FR 27073, July 1, 1976) states that the restriction "would require that the owner or lessor of the existing trailer also be the owner or lessor of the rebuilt trailer". I found no interpretation letters on the point.

Subsection (f)(2) was adopted verbatim from the proposal (40 FR 58154, December 15, 1975). It appears to have originated from a petition by Monon Trailer Company suggesting, in the words of the preamble "that the rebuilt trailer be sold only to the owner of the trailer from which it was rebuilt". NHTSA agreed, believing that "the requirement that the trailer be sold to the original owner under its original identity would be included to prevent large-scale evasion of the standard by parties who might attempt to recycle old, unreliable equipment that would normally be junked".

Upon close examination, I see no conflict. I believe that 571.7(f)(2) and the preamble language mean simply that in order for the trailer to qualify for the exclusion, it must be either owned by or leased by the same person both before and after manufacture. A "lessor" is an "owner" but a "lessor" cannot be the "user"; thus, the word "leased" refers to a lessee rather than a lessor. The preamble clarifies that the "owner or lessor" of the existing trailer must be the owner or lessor of the rebuilt trailer. But "owner" as "vendor" is outside the exclusion, and sale of the trailer after remanufacture is prohibited. But sale before remanufacture is not precluded. Trailmobile as "owner", independent of its status as remanufacturer, remains the "owner" after its property is reconstructed, and as "lessor" may enter into a lease with the former owner or any other party without bringing the trailer under the umbrella of the new vehicle standards.

After consulting with Roger Tilton I so advised Mr. Segraves.

ID: nht94-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1994

FROM: Vincent A. Ugoletti -- Chief Engineer, Great Lakes Communications, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/14/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO VINCENT UGOLETTI (A42; STD. 208; STD. 207; STD. 209; STD. 210; STD. 302)

TEXT: Great Lakes Communications, Inc. is currently in the process of turning a conversion van into a production van. One of our requirements for the production van is for the front seats of the van to swivel. The company wishes to maintain the federal safet y requirements for the seats. If your administration could please provide us with the federal safety standards requirements for swivel front seats in a van so we could convert our van a.s.a.p.

ID: aiam4273

Dear Mr. Ziolo: Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1986, concerning th labeling requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. Those requirements provide that each safety belt is to be labeled with the year of its manufacture. You asked whether the year of manufacturer can be shown in code. As explained below, the answer is no, the standard does not provide for showing the year of manufacture in code.; S4.1(j) of the standard requires each safety belt to be permanently an legibly labeled with the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or importer, the model of the safety belt model, and 'the year of manufacture.' The standard specifically requires the date of manufacture to be provided on the belt and does not provide for the use of a code to represent that date.; The purpose of the labeling requirement is to make it possible for th agency and consumers to identify easily the manufacturer of the safety belt for the purpose of noncompliance and safety-related defect investigations and notification and remedy campaigns. In addition, having the date of manufacture clearly marked on the belt assists consumers in determining whether a particular belt complies with the latest requirements of Standard No. 208 or some earlier version of those requirements. It also assistant the agency in compliance testing of aftermarket and other safety belts because it enables the agency to determine easily which version of the standard should be applied to that safety belt. Having the year shown in a code can complicate the easy identification of which safety belts are covered by an investigation or campaign and make it more difficult to determine which version of the standard applies to the safety belt.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel