ID: 17450.nhf

Mr. Joseph Giletto
Northeastern Equipment
150 Brentwood Drive
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Mr. Giletto:

This responds to your inquiry about whether several pieces of construction equipment you intend to import from Italy are motor vehicles that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Specifically, you intend to import minitransporters, dumpers, selfloading truck mixers, and concrete mixers. You state that the equipment operates on public roads in exceptional circumstances only and is transported by a trailer when moved over public highways. On the basis of the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed , it appears that the pieces of construction equipment are not motor vehicles. Since you would not be importing motor vehicles, you would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers the various pieces of construction equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed, it appears that the various pieces of construction equipment you intend to import are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter that the construction equipment is loaded onto a trailer when moved between job sites and will be operated at the work-site area only. It is also based on the statement that the equipment will be on the road only when operated at the work-site. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the construction equipment on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of construction equipment are not motor vehicles, they would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that the construction equipment uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis, the agency would reassess this interpretation.

If you have further questions regarding NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/2/98

ID: 17693.drn

Mrs. June Becklin
397 Jesse James Lane
Mahtomedi, MN 55115

Dear Mrs. Becklin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether dealers may sell new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars that they know will be used to transport school children. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV or car for such a purpose.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards.

We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A passenger car is a motor vehicle "except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3). An MPV or passenger car is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to their vehicle type. Dealers selling new MPVs and passenger cars must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the applicable standards.

We do not have a policy either for or against the use of MPVs and cars for school transportation. These vehicles must meet safety standards that provide high levels of crash protection. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), that establishes minimum recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. To the extent that the guideline distinguishes between vehicles, it does so by distinguishing school buses from non-school buses. For instance, among the recommendations is

Paragraph IV.B.1.h., in which NHTSA recommends that all buses regularly used for pupil transportation should "[c]omply with all FMVSS applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture." That is, if a bus is regularly used to transport pupils, it should be a school bus. The provision does not apply to MPVs and passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only"
d.7/6/98

ID: 11499ZTV

Mr. Bernard Caire
DBM Reflex Enterprises, Inc.
1620 boul. Dagenais ouest
Laval, Quebec H7L 5C7
Canada

Dear Mr. Caire:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 25, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for two interpretations of paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they relate to your specific lighting array, for which you enclosed two drawings. These depict a housing containing a "turn signal" and a "daytime running light." You clarified your request in a telephone conversation with Rich VanIderstine of this agency on February 23, 1996.

Paragraph S5.3.1.7 modifies luminous intensity requirements for turn signal lamps "on a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp." You ask, with respect to each of your drawings, whether the optical center of the turn signal is the same as the filament position. You note that there will be a higher light intensity in front of the bulb location.

Your first question appears to relate to turn signal/headlamp spacing, but we believe that your true concern is with the spacing relationship between a turn signal and a daytime running lamp (DRL). Because your DRL is a dedicated lamp serving only the DRL function, paragraph S5.3.1.7 does not apply.

The correct reference regarding the spacing between DRLs and turn signal lamps is paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4). This, in pertinent part, places the DRL "so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the nearest turn signal

lamp is not less than 100 mm . . . ." To determine the optical center of the turn signal lamp, we must refer for an answer to SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width. The answer depends on the design of the turn signal lamp. If the lamp primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens, spacing is measured from the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the lower beam headlamp (paragraph 5.1.5.4.2, SAE J588 NOV84). The "geometric centroid" is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the front turn signal is a direct light source type design, that is a lamp primarily employing a lens and not a reflector to meet photometric requirements, spacing is measured from the light source to the lighted edge of the DRL. The filament center of the light source is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the distance is less than 100 mm, the requirements of S5.3.1.7 apply and the minimum intensity of the turn signal must be at least 2.5 times that normally required.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/14/96

ID: 1983-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mohawk Rubber Company -- T.J. Brown

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T.J. Brown Mohawk Rubber Company Roanoke, Virginia 241017

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in response to your March 28, 1983, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the effective dates for the recent suspension of treadwear grading under this agency's Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards.

Your understanding of the effective dates is correct. Tires produced in molds manufactured on or after August 8, 1983, must have the new grading format which excludes treadwear information. Tires produced in molds manufactured before which includes treadwater information. We encourage manufacturers to use the new format as soon as feasible, to minimize the dissemination of misleading information with regard.

With regard to labels, the requirement that such labels must contain information regarding treadwater grades was suspended effective February 7, 1983. The preamble to the final rule states that manufacturers will be permitted to exhaust inventories of labels which were in existence as of the date of the suspension. Thereafter, manufacturers should begin using labels without treadwear information.

If you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 28, 1983 Mr. Roger Fairchild Re: 49 CFR Part 575, Docket No. 25, Notice 52

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

Mr. C.D. Frame of Mohawk contacted you on March 28 pertaining to the ruling included in the Federal Register dated Monday, February 7, 1983.

Our particular concern is in interpretation of the treadwear stamping to be included, or not included, in the tire mold. We understand the ruling to state that tires which are produced after August 8, 1983, are not to have the treadwear information only if the molds themselves were manufactured after this date.

On tires produced in molds which were manufactured prior to August 8, 1983, the treadwear information is permitted on the molded tire. It is further our understanding that tire label are to have the treadwear grade and the explanation as to how it was obtained removed from them as new labels are procurred after the date of February 7, 1983. Existing inventories of labels containing he treadwater information are permitted to be used until such time as thi inventory is depleted.

We would appreciate a letter from you in response to our interpretations as to whether they are indeed correct.

Very truly yours

MOHAWK RUBBER COMPANY

T. J. Brown General Manager, Product Services

ID: 01931.ztv

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 2002, with respect to the flash rate of hazard warning signal system flashers. You have invented a flasher "which is designed to produce a hazard signal consisting of repeating cycles of a number of short flashes followed by a longer pause." Your question, in essence, is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires "a uniform flash rate" for hazard warning signal system flashers or permits a varying one. It is your opinion that the standard does not require a "uniform flash rate."

Standard No. 108 requires that hazard warning signal flashers be designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash rate and percent Current On" Time" measurements." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. SAE J945 also requires that "flashing rate and percent current on time . . . be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles."

We have examined the diagram in your letter relating to your flasher invention.It shows that this design would not comply with Standard No. 108. We calculate that its flash rate would be 136.8 flashes per minute, exceeding the maximum permissible 120 flashes per minute. Specifically, the diagram shows two consecutive cycles of 160ms "on" followed by 200ms "off." These cycles are followed by a third cycle of 160ms "on followed by 620ms "off." The first two cycles equate to 166.7 flashes per minute, while the third cycle equates to 76.9 flashes per minute. The average of the three cycles is 136.8 flashes a minute.

While you might be able to modify your invention to reflect a complying flash rate for three specific cycles, we interpret the standard as requiring compliance over any three cycles chosen at random. The drastic change that would appear required for you to comply at three specific cycles would sharply reduce (and possibly eliminate entirely) the ability to comply at another three cycles chosen at random. Further such a change in your design would, we believe, affect the ability of the flasher to meet the percent on-time requirements. The need to fulfill both flash rate and percent on-time requirements may explain why industry has always chosen a uniform rate for flashers. Thus, while you are correct that SAE J945 does not specify that all cycles of flash be of the same duration, it is likely that the only way to meet the specification is to provide a "uniform flash rate."

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/14/02

ID: 10574

Mr. David O'Neil
Hehr International Inc.
3333 Casitas Avenue
Post Office Box 39160
Los Angeles, CA 90039-0160

Dear Mr. O'Neil:

This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the labeling of glazing installed on transit buses. You stated that the passenger and driver side window glazing on certain transit buses will be a glass-plastic composite consisting of 1/4 inch tempered glass with DuPont Spallshield 307 plastic laminated to the interior surface. You asked whether this glazing must be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B glazing or whether it is possible to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3. You also asked whether taping the required cleaning instructions to the glazing satisfies the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10.

Question One: Must the glazing be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B or is it possible to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3?

The glazing described in your letter is tempered glass-plastic and therefore must be certified and marked as either Item 15B or 16B glazing. Item 2 and Item 3 glazing refers to glass, not glass-plastic glazing. It would be incorrect to certify and mark a glass-plastic item of glazing as glass.

Question Two: Does a label containing all required instructions which is taped to the glazing satisfy the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10?

Paragraph S5.1.2.10(a) states that

Each manufacturer of glazing materials designed to meet the requirements of S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.6, S5.1.2.7, or S5.1.2.8 shall affix a label, removable by hand without tools, to each item of such glazing material. The label shall identify the product involved, specify instructions and agents for cleaning the material that will minimize the loss of transparency, and instructions for removing frost and ice, and at the option of the manufacturer refer owners to the vehicle's Owners Manual for more specific cleaning and other instructions.

S5.1.2.10(a) applies to your Item 15B/16B glazing since the glazing is required to comply with S5.1.2.6 or S5.1.2.8. S5.1.2.10(a) requires a manufacturer to "affix a label, removable by hand without tools..." Taping the instructions to the glazing is one way to affix a label to glazing that could be removed by hand without tools. Therefore, a manufacturer could comply with the requirements in S5.1.2.10(a) by taping the instructions to the glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:2/14/95

ID: 06-006238as

ID: 1984-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/29/84

FROM: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/14/85 EST, FROM BARRY FELRICE TO FRED W. BOWDITCH, REDBOOK A27, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Miss Steed:

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * files this petition under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

* MVMA members are AM General Corporation, American Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, M.A.N. Truck and Bus Corporation, PACCAR Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volvo North America Corporation.

MVMA requests removal from section 4.1.1.36(a)(2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens. So long as the aiming pads are accessible to the adjustable legs of the aimer locating plates described in Figure 9, there is no motor vehicle safety need to limit pad placement to the face of the lens. Adoption of this requested amendment would remove an unwarranted design restriction. By allowing the aiming pads to be located on a part of the headlamp other than the lens, e.g., the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint, such amendment would facilitate, for example, the design of lower profile replaceable bulb headlamps. Use of such headlamps could enhance the aerodynamic properties of future vehicle designs. Accordingly, we request substitution of the following text for the current section 4.1.1.36(a)(2):

"S4.1.1.36(a)(2) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads on the front surface of the lamp which form an aiming plane for mechanically adjusting and inspecting headlamp aim. In the front view of the lamp taken in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the three pads shall be positioned to match corresponding locations, for either Group I or Group II, that are specified in Figure 9 (front view) for the adjustable legs of the locating plate. The pads shall be designed to permit use of a mechanical aimer conforming to SAE Standard J602 October 1980 "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units", together with an adjustable locating plate described in Figure 9, to check the aim of the Headlamp. Group I aiming pad locations are those prescribed for the 2B1 sealed beam headlamp unit and Group II aiming pad locations are those prescribed for 1A1/2A1 sealed beam headlamp units. Each lens face shall have molded into it the settings, appropriate for that headlamp, of the lengths of the three legs of the adjustable locating plate. Each setting is to be located adjacent to the aiming pad to which it applies. The molded characters specifying the settings shall have a minimum height of 4mm".

If you would like to discuss this petition further, please call on us.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht87-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James E. Campbell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James C. Campbell 2719 So. 29th Street Ft. Pierce, FL 33450

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you have asked the following question:

"If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?"

The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issued by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard o n all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defin ed as minimum standards for motor vehicle performance; to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (e.g., no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.

The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree of specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses , tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standards are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle eq uipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Sir or Madam;

If someone has a patent on an invention, in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to than invention, or does he lose those right s once it becomes mandatory?

Sincerely;

James E. Campbell

ID: 8838

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, to school buses you wish to sell to a customer in the United States Virgin Islands. You stated that these buses will be built as right hand drive vehicles with the entrance door located on the left side, since vehicles are driven on the left side of the road in this jurisdiction. You asked whether you can install, on the right side of the bus, the stop signal arm that is required by FMVSS 131. The answer is yes.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, "Safety Act") requires new school buses sold in this country and in the U.S. Virgin Islands to comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. (See, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8) for reference to the Virgin Islands.) Standard No. 131 requires school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm "on the left side of the bus." (S5.4) The purpose of this standard is "to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the school bus." (S2)

When NHTSA specified that the stop arm must be placed on "the left side of the bus," the agency meant the driver's side. Comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and preamble of NHTSA's final rule all assumed that the left side of the bus meant the driver's side. (56 FR 20363, 20367). For example, while endorsing the proposed requirement for the stop arm, several commenters stated that an arm is needed near the driver's window. Moreover, S5.4.1(b) states that, for locating the arm, "the top edge of the stop signal arm is parallel to and not more than 6 inches from a horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge of the frame of the passenger window immediately behind the driver's window." (Emphasis added). This provision indicates that the agency assumed that the "left" side is the driver's side. Further, a stop arm would not be needed on the non-traffic side of the vehicle.

Since the left side is not the driver's side for the school buses in question, the agency's general assumption was incorrect. In light of your letter, we will issue a technical amendment of Standard 131 so that S5.4 will require the stop signal arm on the driver's side of the bus. Until the amendment is issued, we will not take enforcement action regarding a manufacturer's locating a right hand drive school bus with a stop signal arm on the bus's driver's side.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:131 d:8/l6/93