ID: nht95-6.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bryan G. Nelson -- Director, Health & Transportation Services, Parents in Community Action Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN G. NELSON TO WALT MYERS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter asking for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends, but does not require, school buses to be yellow.

Your understanding is correct. NHTSA's recommendation that school buses be painted yellow is found in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed). Guideline 17 consists of recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only if it has been adopted by your State or local officials.

We wish to note, however, that there are safety reasons behind Guideline 17's recommendation for the uniform school bus color. Motorists associate the yellow color with school buses, and quickly recognize that a yellow bus is transporting school children. The yellow color is a signal to motorists to be especially alert around the vehicles, particularly when the buses are loading and unloading children. For these reasons, NHTSA believes all school buses should be yellow.

We also want to highlight for your information that Guideline 17 is different from NHTSA's school bus safety standards, which by Federal law apply to all new school buses, regardless of State action. The school bus safety standards require new school buses to have safety systems such as energy-absorbing seats, school bus lamps, stop arms, and improved emergency exits and rearview mirrors. These requirements apply to all new school buses, no matter what the States have done to adopt them. The safety record of school buses has improved in the years since buses began to meet the school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bryan G. Nelson -- Director, Health & Transportation Services, Parents in Community Action Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN G. NELSON TO WALT MYERS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter asking for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends, but does not require, school buses to be yellow.

Your understanding is correct. NHTSA's recommendation that school buses be painted yellow is found in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed). Guideline 17 consists of recommendations for State pupil transport ation safety programs. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only if it has been adopted by your State or local officials.

We wish to note, however, that there are safety reasons behind Guideline 17's recommendation for the uniform school bus color. Motorists associate the yellow color with school buses, and quickly recognize that a yellow bus is transporting school childre n. The yellow color is a signal to motorists to be especially alert around the vehicles, particularly when the buses are loading and unloading children. For these reasons, NHTSA believes all school buses should be yellow.

We also want to highlight for your information that Guideline 17 is different from NHTSA's school bus safety standards, which by Federal law apply to all new school buses, regardless of State action. The school bus safety standards require new school bu ses to have safety systems such as energy-absorbing seats, school bus lamps, stop arms, and improved emergency exits and rearview mirrors. These requirements apply to all new school buses, no matter what the States have done to adopt them. The safety re cord of school buses has improved in the years since buses began to meet the school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11018

Mr. Bryan G. Nelson
Director, Health & Transportation Services
Parents in Community Action Inc.
700 Humboldt Avenue, North
Minneapolis, MN 55411

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter asking for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends, but does not require, school buses to be yellow.

Your understanding is correct. NHTSA's recommendation that school buses be painted yellow is found in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed). Guideline 17 consists of recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only if it has been adopted by your State or local officials.

We wish to note, however, that there are safety reasons behind Guideline 17's recommendation for the uniform school bus color. Motorists associate the yellow color with school buses, and quickly recognize that a yellow bus is transporting school children. The yellow color is a signal to motorists to be especially alert around the vehicles, particularly when the buses are loading and unloading children. For these reasons, NHTSA believes all school buses should be yellow.

We also want to highlight for your information that Guideline 17 is different from NHTSA's school bus safety standards, which by Federal law apply to all new school buses, regardless of State action. The school bus safety standards require new school buses to have safety systems such as energy-absorbing seats, school bus lamps, stop arms, and improved emergency exits and rearview mirrors. These requirements apply to all new school buses, no matter what the States have done to adopt them. The safety record of school buses has improved in the years since buses began to meet the school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:9/14/95

ID: 1984-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mayer D. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG Porschestrasse 42 Stuttgart-Zuffenheusen Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

Your letter of June 5, 1984, to Mr. Jettner was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Porsche may use a trilingual marking on glass-plastic glazing. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section 5.1.2.5(b) of Standard No. 205 requires manufacturers of glass-plastic glazing to permanently and indelibly mark the lower center of such glazing with the words, "Glass Plastic Material -See Owner's Manual For Care Instructions". The letter must be not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high. You ask whether the optional marking permitted may be trilingual. As long as the English marking conforms to the requirements of section 5.l.2.5(b), there is no prohibition in the standard to using a trilingual warning.

I note that the pictures you enclosed with your letter appear to show a decal with the language required to meet the standard. As discussed in the preamble to the glass-plastic glazing final rule, the agency added section 5.1.2.5(b) of the standard to allow manufacturers to etch or otherwise permanently and indelibly mark the message on the glazing. Please note that the use of a plastic decal which could be removed or become illegible would not be deemed "permanent and indelible" by the agency.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Edward Jettber Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA

ESV-My-re Weissach, June 5, 1984

Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Jettner:

In February 1984 (Federal Register Vol. 49; No. 37; Pages 6732/6735 of February 23, 1984) Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials, was amended to allow the use of glass-plastic glazing as windshields and windows in motor vehicles.

In relation with this amendment permission was given to affix a label on the window in order to give vehicle owner's cleaning instructions, S 5.1.2.5(b).

The text must be in letters not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high, with the following words:

"GLASS PLASTIC MATERIAL - SEE OWNER'S MANUAL FOR CARE INSTRUCTIONS."

We are now asking for permission to add the corresponding cleaning instructions in German and French to this label.

The trilingual label would assure that the content of the instruction will be understood by the customers in most of the countries our vehicles are sold to, without the disadvantage of using different labels in production.

A uniform label would also prevent errors in the assignment of the labels to the different countries.

For better understanding we enclosed pictures showing the requested labels on our vehicles '911' and '928'.

Altogether, the dimensions of the label are small enough that the label can be affixed on the area underneath the windshield wipers (windshield wipers in resting position).

An early favorable answer of our request would be greatly appreciated as we intent to use the new windshields, which have a layer of polyurethan on the inner surface, on our new vehicles (1985).

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

"INSERT"

"INSERT"

ID: nht79-2.1

DATE: 09/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Trading Corporation International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 26, 1979, concerning an "after market" motor vehicle accessory you plan to distribute. You describe the accessory as an item of clear plastic that affixes to the inside of the rear window "to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle."

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, establishes performance requirements for rearview mirror systems. The standard only applies to mirrors installed as original equipment in motor vehicles and does not apply to replacement equipment such as the aftermarket accessory you intend to distribute. However, since the device you plan to distribute is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), as amended, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defect in your mirror accessory. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

July 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To Whom It May Concern:

We will be distributing a new automobile accessory to the retail trade selling "after market" accessories to the public. Following my brief phone conversation with Mr. Joseph F. Zemaitis, NHTSA, San Francisco, we deemed it advisable to check with your offices to determine if there will be any objections to the product.

Basically the article is made of plastic (clear) and is designed to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle. The unit is affixed to the inside of the rear window by means of a self-adhesive mounting bracket. The driver when looking at the rear view mirror, with the field of vision passing through the unit rearward, then is capable of seeing objects on either side of their vehicle, which they cannot normally do so (Illegible Word) viewing through the rear view mirror.

The unit is 9"x3"x1" (rectangular) and is out of the way of any passengers. As it is not permanently mounted to the vehicle, it will break away upon impact. There are no sharp edges and the larger flat portion of the unit faces the interior of the vehicle. We have enclosed photocopies which will enable you to better understand the unit.

In light of the current problems with rearvision from the drivers seat, we believe the product is needed and timely. Your office's concern in this area as evidenced by Docket No. 71-3a;Notice 4 is indicative.

Your earliest comments will be appreciated.

David H. Lewis Import Manager

cc: Joseph F. Zemaitis

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

PLASTIC

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 18652.ztv

Mr. Buddy King
Canada and Eastern Sales Manager
ARB Air Locker
1425 Elliott Avenue, W.
Seattle, WA 98119

Dear Mr. King:

This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1998, asking for "a copy of the official guidelines on auxiliary lighting." Your company is the sole U.S. distributor for a line of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured in Japan, which is shown in a sales folder you enclosed with your letter.

In order to be imported into the United States, original and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, if applicable, and be certified as complying with the standard. We use the term "auxiliary lighting" to refer to any item of lighting equipment that is not covered by the terms of Standard No. 108. After reviewing the sales folder you enclosed, it appears that only #816 Backup Lamp, the Head Lamp Replacements, and the Halogen Bulbs are covered by Standard No. 108. This means that the remainder of the lighting equipment shown in your folder is subject to no Federal requirement pertaining to its importation and sale.

Federal restrictions do exist with respect to the installation of the equipment. With respect to auxiliary lighting equipment installed on a vehicle by its manufacturer or dealer (prior to initial sale as a new vehicle), the equipment must not "impair the effectiveness" of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. For example, the driving lamps or fog lamps must not be mounted so close to the turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 that they obscure or render less visible the flashing of the turn signal lamp. The criteria for making this determination are in Standard No. 108 and SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps, incorporated by reference. Similarly, if the equipment is installed after a vehicle's initial sale, by a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business," the lamps as installed must not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment, such as would occur if the turn signal were obscured or its signal degraded. Standard No. 108 imposes no requirements per se for driving lamps and fog lamps. States regulate auxiliary devices in various ways. We suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for information on how to obtain State approval for these devices. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. 22203.

Standard No. 108, on the other hand, specifies requirements for backup lamps and headlamps. The sales folder does not indicate whether #816 Backup Lamp complies with Standard No. 108, but the text for the "Head Lamp Replacements and Halogen Bulbs" clearly state that "These lamps are not DOT approved." Because DOT has no authority to approve or disapprove any equipment item, we interpret this phrase as meaning that the lamps lack a DOT symbol representing its manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108. We do not know whether the #816 Backup Lamp and the three halogen bulbs bear a certification. Certification is required for all lighting equipment regulated under Standard No. 108 imported and sold in the United States. This certification is usually in the form of the symbol "DOT" placed on the item itself. Alternatively, it may appear on the exterior of the container in which the lighting equipment is sold.

We are particularly concerned about the Head Lamp Replacements because of the desire of many people to import headlamps that comply with ECE regulations. We reiterate, any replacement headlamps imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson who spoke with you earlier (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/22/98

ID: 21359.ztv

Mr. Wayne L. Kruse
Murray, Inc.
P.O. Box 268
Brentwood, TN 37024-0268

Dear Mr. Kruse:

Thank you for your letter of February 29, 2000, informing us that you "are evaluating a product opportunity." You ask how we would classify this product under our regulations and "if it needs to comply with any FMVSS, CPSC or other Federal standards."

You identify your company as a "manufacturer of outdoor power equipment and recreational products." You identify the product in question as "an electric leisure mini scooter." The scooter "folds to compact size," and you envision it being bought "by RV campers and boat owners and used at places where passenger car use is not feasible." You also believe that "in some instances, it may be used in residential areas where traffic flow is restricted or controlled." The scooter is powered by an electric motor with "less than 2HP output," has a maximum speed of 15 mph, a range of 15 miles, and weighs 90 pounds.

The question we must answer is whether the electric leisure mini scooter is a "motor vehicle." If it is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a motor vehicle is one that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30101(a)(6)). Because you speak in terms of "evaluating a product opportunity," and printed literature already exists on the scooter, we surmise that Murray is not the manufacturer of the scooter but would be a dealer, in the sense that it would be purchasing the scooters for resale to its customers (the photocopy of the literature you enclosed contains no manufacturer name). However, it is the manufacturer's intended primary use that we must consider, and not the dealer's.

The product literature depicts the scooter on what appears to be a roadway in a wooded area. Further, you have stated that it may be used in residential areas subject to restricted or controlled traffic flow. We believe that the scooter is indistinguishable from a moped, which is an on- road vehicle that we have long interpreted to be a motor vehicle. The seated rider on the scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use. These are sufficient indicia for us to conclude that the scooter has been manufactured primarily for on-road use.

For purposes of compliance with the FMVSS, a two or three-wheeled motor vehicle (the product literature also shows a three-wheeled scooter) is defined as a "motorcycle" and is required to comply with the FMVSS that apply to this vehicle type. Some of the motorcycle standards specify lesser performance requirements for "motor driven cycles." These are motorcycles with engines of 5 HP or less. Because the scooter has a motor of not more than 2 HP, it is eligible to meet the requirements that have been modified for motor driven cycles.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115, in addition to assuring that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, a motor vehicle manufacturer must also affix a certification label to each vehicle. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), Murray may not offer for sale, or sell, the electric leisure mini scooter unless the manufacturer has certified its compliance.

The product may also be required to comply with emission regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are not conversant with their requirements for small vehicles such as the scooter.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-355-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.5/10/00

ID: Bailes.1

Mr. Alistair Bailes
Perei Group Ltd.
Sunbury House
Ivy Road
Aldershot
GU12 4TX
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Bailes:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek confirmation as to whether your proposed front turn signal lamp would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You also asked whether your proposed lower beam headlamps visual/optical aiming mechanism would meet the standards requirements. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant requirements of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Your letter described and depicted your proposed vehicle frontal lighting system as having a turn signal with a single reflector illuminated by a PY21W filament bulb. According to your letter, the housing containing the turn signal has two lenses, a primary lens (with an area of over 22 cm ²) and a smaller secondary lens which emits light but does so in a manner that is "superfluous to the performance and is primarily an aesthetic embellishment".(Looking at the exterior of the vehicle, the two lenses have the appearance of two separate lamps with a small amount of space between them.)You stated, however, that this second lens is necessary to meet European requirements that the turn signal be 400 mm or less from the extreme outer edge of the vehicle. In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108.

Furthermore, your letter shows a pair of headlamps with two separate adjustment mechanisms for the lower beam. You described the system as having visual/optical aiming, with two adjustment mechanisms: (1) a vertical/horizontal adjustment and (2) a horizontal adjustment. Your letter stated that vertical aim is adjusted by rotating the vertical/horizontal adjustment, and horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. According to your letter, the system is not equipped with a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108 or whether a VHAD would be required. Alternatively, you asked whether compliance could be achieved by disabling or removing the horizontal adjustment, but while retaining the vertical adjustment.

FMVSS No. 108 sets forth requirements for turn signals (see S5.1) and their location (see S5.3) on a vehicle, as contained in Tables I-IV of the standard. (We note that although these tables distinguish between vehicles less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width and those greater than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width, the requirements for the number and location of turn signals are essentially the same for the purposes of the present analysis.)For front turn signal lamps, the standard requires the vehicle manufacturer to install one amber lamp at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable.

In paragraph S5.3.2(b)(1), the standard states, "When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 19 of this standard [including front turn signal lamps], each such lamp must provide not less than 12.5 square centimeters of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 19 for each such lamp".Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of the standard further provides, "On a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5".

While we cannot provide a determination as to whether your proposed frontal lighting system would comply with FMVSS No. 108, we can offer certain observations based upon the photograph accompanying your letter. It appears that the front turn signal is amber, as required under the standard, and its location in the assembly suggests that it is capable of being mounted at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable. Your letter states that the primary lens has an area greater than 22 square centimeters, which is the minimum size for front turn signal lenses on passenger cars required by the standard (see S5.1.1 and SAE J588 Nov. 1984). Further, you must ensure that the lamps effective projected luminous lens area would meet the standards visibility requirement of at least 12.5 square centimeters, as installed with all obstructions considered. Alternatively, you could design this lamp to conform to the visibility requirements specified in S5.3.2(b)(2).

We would bring two matters to your attention. First, if our understanding of your photograph is correct, this lamp would be mounted on the drivers side of the vehicle, in which case it appears that the upper beam is more outboard than the lower beam. However, Standard No. 108 requires the lower beam to be at a more outboard location, relative to the upper beam. Unless your photograph is mislabeled, your proposed design would apparently not meet that requirement.

Second, the standard necessitates that careful attention be paid to the spacing between the turn signal and the lower beam headlamp. Again, if this turn signal lamp is located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, paragraph S5.3.1.7 requires the intensity of the turn signal to be multiplied by 2.5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the above issue related to upper/lower beam location is resolved and presuming that the primary lens meets all other requirements for a turn signal under FMVSS No. 108, we do not believe that the presence of a separate and discrete embellishment provided by the secondary lens would violate S5.3.1.7, because the turn signal provided by the primary lens would meet the requirements of the standard without being masked by the headlamp. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the illumination provided by the secondary lens would impair the vehicles required lighting equipment.

As to the issue of the horizontal aim of the lower beam headlamp, paragraph S7.8.5.3(b), Horizontal aim, lower beam, of FMVSS No. 108 provides, "There shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. If the headlamp has a VHAD, it shall be set to zero".In the 1997 final rule amending Standard No. 108 to permit headlamps that are visually or optically aimed, the agency adopted this requirement for horizontal aim to either be fixed and nonadjustable, or have a horizontal VHAD, because the lower beam would not have any visual cues for achieving correct horizontal aim, and it would not be possible to add such visual features without damaging the beam pattern (see 62 FR 10710, 10712 (March 10, 1997)). Visual/optical aim headlamps became part of FMVSS No. 108, but they were required to meet new beam pattern photometric requirements, with a beam pattern relatively insensitive to modest horizontal misaim.

In 1999, Federal-Mogul Lighting Products (Federal-Mogul) petitioned the agency for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow visually/optically aimed headlamps to have a horizontal adjuster system that does not have the required 2.5-degree horizontal adjustment range or a VHAD indicator, as required by the standard. As we noted in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, our 1997 final rule permitted visual/optical aim headlamps, based upon comments to the agency stating that vehicles could be built with such close tolerances that no horizontal aim adjustment would be necessary, and we noted that no useful visual cue for horizontal aiming exists (see 66 FR 42985, 42986 (August 16, 2001)). Because no visual cue was available for the purpose of horizontal aiming, the agency did not permit any horizontal movement of such headlamps, with the lamp essentially being correctly aimed as installed. As an alternative, horizontal-aiming VHADs were permitted (but not required) on visual/optical aiming headlamps as a means for manufacturers to meet European requirements for both a horizontal and vertical aim adjustment, but that the horizontal VHAD must be set to zero.

Because visual/optical aim headlamps do not currently have any feature that would allow anyone other than the headlamps manufacturer to objectively assess the accuracy of horizontal aim, a vehicle manufacturer seeking to adjust the horizontal aim of these lamps on a new vehicle would have no objective, repeatable way to assess the impact of its horizontal aim adjustments on real world lighting performance. Because of this limitation, neither the agency nor anyone else, including vehicle dealers and State safety inspectors, could assure correct headlamp aim. As stated in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, we believe that it is incumbent upon the industry to develop a single method for horizontal aiming that could be incorporated into FMVSS No. 108, and we will not assess individual manufacturers petitions for alternatives to installation of a horizontal VHAD.

In light of the limitations that the standard places upon horizontal aiming of visual/optical aim headlamps, your proposed design, as presented, would not comply with the relevant requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard does not permit a horizontal adjustment mechanism for the lower beams of such headlamps, unless it is a VHAD that is set to zero.

Furthermore, we do not believe that elimination of the "horizontal adjustment (2)", as depicted in the diagram accompanying your letter, would suffice to remedy this. Your suggestion to remove the horizontal adjustment and "have only vertical adjustment" would apparently not meet the requirement of the standard, because the remaining adjustment is presented as a "vertical/horizontal adjustment (1)" and the letter states that horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. Thus, elimination of adjustment (2) would nevertheless appear to leave horizontal aim adjustment capability as part of adjustment (1), which is not permitted under the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/4/05

ID: nht68-1.29

DATE: 10/22/68

FROM: Joseph R. Gorman for Francis Armstrong -- NHTSA

TO: Valley Buick Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1968, regarding safety standards applicable to the Austrian "Haflinger" vehicle.

This vehicle will be required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Enclosed are copies of the Act and the Standards and amendments through August 1963.

I have reviewed the prospectus you enclosed with your letter and would conclude that the "Haflinger" vehicle meets the definition of a multipurpose passenger vehicle as specified in Section 255.3 of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, any vehicle of this type, manufactured after January 1, 1963, must conform to the following Standards which have application to multipurpose passenger vehicles of less than 80 inches overall width:

FMVSS #103 - "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging"

FMVSS #104 - "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems"

FMVSS #106 - "Hydraulic Brake Hoses"

FMVSS #107 - "Reflecting Surfaces"

FMVSS #111 - "Rearview Mirrors"

FMVSS #205 - "Glazing Materials"

FMVSS #209 - "Seat Belt Assemblies"

FMVSS #211 - "Wheel Nuts, Wheel(Illegible Words)

In addition, vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, will be required to comply with:

FMVSS #106 - "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment"

FMVSS #112 - "Headlamp Concealment Devices"

FMVSS #113 - "Head Latch Systems"

(Illegible Words)

August 15, 1968

National Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Attention George Nield

Gentlemen:-

The early part of this year we arranged to handle a Vehicle named Haflinger, through Overland Vehicle Corp. of North Miami Beach, Florida, the imported. This vehicle is built in Austria. We are attaching a fly covering the specifications.

The Haflingers we have sold were 1967 Models, ie; built prior to January 1, 1963. All have been sold to operators of Ranches, such as the King Ranch. This vehicle is designed for cross-county, off the highway use. It has a maximum speed of forty-seven miles per hour.

The 1967 models we received were equipped with Seal-Beam Headlights, Parking and Stop-Lights. Directional Signals with Amber Side Lights mounted on each side at the front of the vehicle, tail and licence plate lights and windshield wipers.

About ninety days ago we placed an order with Overland Vehicle Corporation for twenty Haflingers accompanied by a letter of Credit. One of the conditions of the Letter of Credit, was that the vehicle would meet the Federal Safety Standards. We have been unable to contact any one during the last thirty days with the Overland Vehicle Corporation, and it appeared they had closed their office in North Miami Beach.

We have now been in communication with the Manufacturer of the vehicle in Austria and they advise that their contract with Overland expires August 31, 1963 and they have offered to sell us direct. This vehicle has created a lot of interest among farmore and ranchers in the area, as well as hunters.

It will be appreciated if you will give us an official ruling as quickly as possible of the Safety Standards necessary to enable us to import this vehicle for sale in the United States.

Thanking you, we are

Yours very truly,

VALLEY BUICK COMPANY -- Carl A. Murphy

ID: nht92-6.3

DATE: June 19, 1992

FROM: Tim Flagstad

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tim Flagstad (A39; Std. 115; Part 591)

TEXT:

I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel, regarding the FMVSS 115 Standard and exemption from the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number requirement.

On February 12, 1990, I imported a 1981 Kenworth from Canada where it was manufactured by Kenworth of Canada. At the time of manufacture the vehicle complied with all applicable United States Federal Safety Standards and was labeled from the factory as such. I am faxing you a letter from Kenworth of Canada stating this, along with a letter form Catapillar Inc., the United States manufacturer of the motor, stating that the motor was in compliance with E.P.A. requirements.

The truck was brought into the United States through a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted. The vehicle was given Entry Number 551-1346915-3 by U.S. Customs.

I am faxing you another letter from Kenworth of Canada which states that until January 1, 1983 and the implementation of CMVSS 115, a seventeen digit vehicle Identification Number was not required in Canada. As this truck was manufactured prior to this date, it was given the seven digit Vehicle Identification Number M911042.

At my request, Joyce Chapman at the NHTSA office in Seattle faxed me a copy of the FMVSS 115. In paragraph S2, it states that "Vehicles imported into the United States under Article 591 are exempt from requirements of S4.2" which states "each Vehicle Identification Number shall consist of seventeen characters".

Does paragraph S2 of the FMVSS 115 exempt this vehicle from the seventeen digit number requirement and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number?

United States Customs didn't question the number at time of entry. I subsequently titled the truck in California and the California Department of Motor Vehicles had no problem with the 1981 year model and the seven digit identification number. I have since sold the truck to someone in another state and he is having a problem registering it because the identification number consists of only seven digits.

On June 18, I discussed this situation with Mr. Taylor and his opinion was that the truck was exempt and could be legally imported into the United States with the seven digit number. When I asked for a written statement to that effect, he told me the procedure was to submit a written request for clarification and address it to your attention.

I also discussed with Mr. Taylor whether this truck should have been imported through a "registered importer". He told me that as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required. Could you please also address this matter in your written reply?

I would appreciate anything you could do to process this request for clarification as quickly as possible. Please call me at (619) 477-2515 if you have any questions.

P.S. Please fax your written response to this letter to (619) 477-6249 and mail me the original at this address:

Tim Flagstad 220 West 14th Street National City, CA 91950

Attachments

Letter from Tracy Muncaster, Kenworth Company regarding Canadian Kenworth S/N 911042.

Letter dated 3/6/91 from Jean-Guy Urbain, Kenworth, to Jacques Beauchemin.

Letter dated 3/26/92 from Marvin Monroe, Caterpillar Inc.

(Text of attachments omitted.)