ID: nht89-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: S. WATANABE -- MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., JAPAN

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, 1989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter.

You have two questions:

"1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(v)?"

Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that "Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim." If a VHAD is "without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope" it would not satisfy Standard No. 108.

"2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(v)?"

The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may n ot be level, and will

compensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

[DIAGRAM OF VEHICLE HEADLAMP AIMING DEVICE OMITTED]

ID: 2111y

AIR MAIL

Mr. S. Watanabe, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-l3, Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo l53, Japan

Japan FAX 03-792-00007

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, l989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter.

You have two questions:

"1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l(v)?"

Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that "Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim." If a VHAD is "without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope" it would not satisfy Standard No. l08.

"2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(v)?"

The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may not be level, and will compensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: 7026

AIR MAIL

Mr. Masashi Maekawa Director, Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara City Kanagawa, 259-11, Japan

Dear Mr. Maekawa:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1992, asking for a clarification of our letter of December 18, 1991.

In that letter we discussed "a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ('Lamp B') immediately adjacent to a combination tail\stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ('Lamp A')". You informed us that each lamp complied with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but that neither complied with photometric requirements. You asked whether Ichikoh could consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring photometrics. We replied that it was not possible to consider the two lamps as one, and that we regarded the lamp that was on the vehicle body as the one that should be designed to conform to Standard No. 108.

You have asked whether this advice is consistent with an interpretation given Mazda on June 28, 1985, with respect to a similar design. That letter informed Mazda that compliance of the design would be judged with the vehicle in its normal driving position, thereby implicitly agreeing that the two lamps could be considered one for photometric purposes.

The difference in the interpretations originated in the way each manufacturer described its design. Ichikoh referred to its design as two adjacent lamps. Mazda described its configuration as a (single) lamp constructed so that a portion of it is fixed to the body and a portion on the decklid. Our review of the two designs shows that they are essentially similar, and that the Mazda design comprises, in fact, two adjacent lamps. As it was not our intent to change the earlier interpretation, we confirm that the June l985 interpretation remains valid, and that the December 1991 letter is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with it.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/10/92

ID: nht92-7.45

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industires, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/21/92 from Masashi Maekawa to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 7026)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1992, asking for a clarification of our letter of December 18, 1991.

In that letter we discussed "a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ('Lamp B') immediately adjacent to a combination tail/stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ('Lamp A')". You informed us that each lamp complied with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but that neither complied with photometric requirements. You asked whether Ichikoh could consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring photometrics. We replied that it was not possible to consider the two lamps as one, and that we regarded the lamp that was on the vehicle body as the one that should be designed to conform to Standard No. 108.

You have asked whether this advice is consistent with an interpretation given Mazda on June 28, 1985, with respect to a similar design. That letter informed Mazda that compliance of the design would be judged with the vehicle in its normal driving position, thereby implicitly agreeing that the two lamps could be considered one for photometric purposes.

The difference in the interpretations originated in the way each manufacturer described its design. Ichikoh referred to its design as two adjacent lamps. Mazda described its configuration as a (single) lamp constructed so that a portion of it is fixed to the body and a portion on the decklid. Our review of the two designs shows that they are essentially similar, and that the Mazda design comprises, in fact, two adjacent lamps. As it was not our intent to change the earlier interpretation, we confirm that the June 1985 interpretation remains valid, and that the December 1991 letter is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with it.

ID: nht78-4.25

DATE: 03/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald Beyer National Service Manager Vespa of America Corporation 322 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1977, requesting an interpretation whether motorcycles with turn signals are required to have turn signal indicators. You noted that Table 2 of Standard No. 123 does not include a turn signal indicator as a motorcycle display, while there appear to be conflicts within Standard No. 108, S4.5.6 requires an indicator but SAE Standard J588c (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108) requires an indicator only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Although S4.5.6 does require each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator, in my view a manufacturer who eliminated them in reliance upon J588c would not fail to comply with the standard if all signal lamps are readily visible to the driver.

However, we interpret "readily visible to the driver" to mean visible to the driver when facing forward in the driving position. Motorcycles are required to have separate turn signal lamps at or near the front, and at or near the rear of the vehicle. If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of his rear turn signal lamps, then those lamps are not "readily visible to the driver" and a turn signal indicator must be provided. While Standard No. 123 itself in Table 3 does specify requirements for identification of turn signal "control and display identification", it does not provide requirements for illumination ana operation of the display in Table 2, as you noted.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4817

"Dear Ms. Verenes: This responds to your letter of September 7, 199 requesting 'written correspondence relative to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, which applies to vans transporting school children.' Additionally, you requested 'information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 220, 221, and 222' because your district is considering modifying vans to transport school children. By telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on September 28, 1990, you stated that your school district has stopped using its 12-15 passenger vans to transport school children, because you had been informed that such use violated federal law. You requested information on what needed to be done to modify your vans to comply with Federal school bus regulations. You also asked if a dealer who had sold your school district new vans which did not comply with school bus regulations would be required to modify the vans or replace them with complying vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Thus, under federal law, a 12-15 passenger van is considered a school bus if its intended use is to transport school children. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. Your first question asked what must be done to bring your vans into compliance as a school bus. Again, I must emphasize that there is no regulation under Federal law requiring your school district to retrofit your vans to comply with federal regulations. However, the following is a list of all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through 108, Standards No. 111 through 113, Standard No. 115, Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 119 and 120, Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), Standard No. 222, Standards No. 301 and 302. Some of the standards which have unique requirements for school bus vehicles include, but are not necessarily limited to, Standards No. 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301, other standards (220, 221, and 222) are applicable only to school bus vehicles. Modification of the vehicles to comply with Standards No. 220 and 222 will be difficult and require recertification. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. Your second question asked whether the sale between the dealership and the school could be dissolved if you determined that any purchases of new vans did not comply with the regulations for school buses. While we have no regulations which void or 'dissolve' sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased. In addition, if you believe that you had been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of your intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law. However, these instances involved essentially new vehicles. Section 154(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Safety Act specifies the repurchase remedy as, 'the purchase price of such motor vehicle in full, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation' (emphasis added). Thus, it may be more cost efficient for the school district to use these vans for other purposes within the district or transfer them to other county functions. For future vehicle purchases, it may be advisable to inform dealers specifically that the vehicles will be used for transporting school children. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 1985-04.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: JACK H. MCDANIEL -- TRIM PLUS AUTOMOTIVE ACCESSORIES

TO: JEFFEREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK H. MCDANIEL LETTER DATED 01/09/86 FROM JACK MCDANIEL TO JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

ID: nht95-6.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1995

FROM: Dorothy Jean Arnold -- M.D.

TO: Safety Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D. (A43; Std. 208)

TEXT: [Illegible Words] I contact you about having the airbags in my car disconnected or [Illegible Words] event I trade cars in the future, I am requesting that this same [Illegible Words] apply to any new vehicle.

[Illegible Words] physician, with an excellent driving record, who is physically impaired [Illegible Words] of osteomyelitis that occurred at eighteen months of age. Some [Illegible Words] of both hips and spine are present. I cannot use a seatbelt with comfort [Illegible Words] was granted dispensation from such usage several years ago.

[Illegible Words] please advise me regarding the legal procedure I must implement in order to remove [Illegible Words] disconnect the airbags. Your prompt response to this letter will be deeply appreciated.

ID: nht71-1.8

DATE: 02/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Toms has asked me to reply to your letter of December 3, 1971, in which you enclosed a drawing of a certification label you intend to use to fulfill the amended requirements of Part 567 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In a telephone conversation with you, Mr. George Shifflett of my staff has explained that the (Illegible Word) used on your proposed label does not fulfill the requirements. The Certification regulations require each vehicle to be labeled with specific information applicable to that vehicle. The information is to be presented in a specific order and manner. We do not consider a multipurpose label such as the one you have submitted to be consistent with those requirements. The label for each vehicle should reflect information only for that vehicle.

Multiple GVWR and GAWR are permissible as specified in the amendments to the regulation published in the Federal Register on December 19, 1971. A copy of that publication is enclosed. (Illegible Word) multiple listings are to be applied to the label in keeping with the format outlines in the amendment. For example:

GAWR:

Front - 10,000 with 7.50 x 15E Tires 13,000 with 8.25 x 15F Tires 15,000 with 8.25 x 15X Steel Cord Tires

Rear - 19,000 with 7.50 x 15E Tires 13,000 with 8.25 x 15F Tires 15,000 with 8.25 x 15X Steel Cord Tires

The other nonrequired information in the body of your label, "when load is properly distributed" and "based on tire capacity for each axle (Illegible Word) of position," should be removed from its present location on the label. Section 567.4(g) requires all information on the label to be placed in the order listed in all information. However, we have no objection if you wish to add the additional information to the bottom of the label, below the required information. We would expect vehicles produced by your company to bear conforming labels by April 1, 1972.

If you have further questions I will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht92-7.19

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: John W. Arnold Jr.

TO: NHTSA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to John W. Arnold, Jr. (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On 4-22-92 I had bucket seats installed in my 1992 Dodge Diesel Ram pickup (standard sized - not extended cab) by a vehicle accessories dealer, Orig. Equip of San Angelo, Texas. The newly installed seats seemed so totally unsafe that I removed them and reinstalled the original bench seat. Are such dealers required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards? If so I would like to file a complaint -- if not, they should be. Thank you.