ID: 1985-04.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale, NH 07645

I am writing in response to your letters about the headlamp cleaning systems you intend to install on certain 1986 model year vehicles. Your letters provide information about these systems and their performance. My staff has carefully reviewed the information and how it relates to Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Our finding is that headlamp cleaning systems as proposed would be governed by paragraphs S4.1.1.36(b)(3), S4.1.3. and S4.3.1.1. The intent of the requirements in these paragraphs is 1) to assure mechanical aimability of the lamp as installed in the vehicle, and 2) to assure that all photometric performance requirements are met with and without installation of auxiliary vehicle parts or accessories, (and if performance degradation must occur, to assure that an auxiliary lighting device is provided). Additionally, the "fail safe" requirements of Standard 112, "Headlamp Concealment Devices" provides a precedent for a requirement that a headlamp should meet all photometric performances requirements, should a wiper fail.

In viewing your company's systems relative to the requirements, it appears possible to design a replaceable bulb headlamp for a specific vehicle application which includes a wiper type headlamp cleaning system, that meets the intent of the law. This could occur if the headlamp system and cleaning system were designed to meet the requirements together: i.e., the photometric performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 could be met with the wipers in any achievable position and with any standardized replaceable light source. The system would also have to provide for the wiper to accommodate mechanical aiming. The information presented by you appears to show that the design of your system has taken these needs into account. NHTSA would anticipate that any replaceable bulb headlamp system in such an application would be certified by the vehicle manufacturer to meet the performance requirements using a standardized replaceable light source which has minimum lumen output and which has the filament at the maximum out of position tolerance, any replacement headlamp, and any headlamp cleaning system parts. This would be necessary to ensure that the vehicle would remain in compliance when replacement parts are used.

In consideration of the above, NHTSA believes that replaceable bulb headlamp systems with wiper type cleaning systems designed to be compatible and designed to conform to Standard 108 are permissible under the present Standard.

In summary, NHTSA views the use of the wiper type headlamp cleaning system in conjunction with replaceable bulb headlamps as permissible so long as due care is taken to ensure that the systems are designed to conform together, and can remain in compliance in the event of parts replacement.

Sincerely, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: 1985-04.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 29, 1985 Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for a clarification of requirements for motorcycles equipped with two headlamps. You have informed us that your two-headlamp design complies with the photometric requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (i.e., the at focus and out of focus tests of SAE J584) when the photometric measurements are made with reference to the photometric reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. However, if this measurement is made at the combined axis, the combined maximum value of the upper beam will exceed 75,000 candela. Photometric measurements are to be made with reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. Under Standard No. 108, however, the maximum candlepower of each unit on the upper beam is not to exceed 75,000. The fact that the combined maximum value of your system exceeds 75,000 candlepower. However, if the motorcycle headlamp is one consisting of two bulbs in a single housing, then the measurement is made at the combined axis of the two bulbs and the combined candlepower of this two-bulb single headlamp cannot exceed 75,000 candlepower. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Enere H. Levi, Esq. -- Office of the Attorney General, American Samoa Government

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Enere H. Levi Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General American Samoa Government Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, to Mr. Hal Paris of this agency requesting information on the bumper requirements that apply to small trucks. You also asked about the effect of our standards on vehicles sold in your Territory. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), we have issued Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), a copy of which is enclosed. The Part 581 standard applies only to passenger motor vehicles. Section (2)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901(1)) defines a "passenger motor vehicle" as a vehicle designed to carry 12 persons or less, except a motorcycle or a truck not designed primarily as a passenger carrier. We would not consider a small utility truck to be a passenger motor vehicle since it is not designed primarily as a passenger carrier, but is instead designed primarily to carry cargo. Therefore, under Federal law, a small utility truck may be sold without any rear bumper.

Both the Vehicle Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act apply to motor vehicles manufactured in or imported into the United States. Both Acts define the term "State" to include American Samoa (15 U.S.C. 1391(8) and 1901(16)). Therefore, the requirements of the Part 581 standard would apply to vehicles sold in American Samoa.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 18, 1985

Hal Paris U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Paris:

I am writing to request any information that your office has regarding the application of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC S1381, et seq., to small utility trucks, such as Toyota, Datsun or similar makes.

In specific, what are the requirements, if any, for such vehicles to have rear bumpers? Here in American Samoa, small trucks are being sold without bumpers. We are concerned about the safety of such vehicles, especially since Samoan families are large and the standard practice is to load the entire family into the back carry area. In the event of a rear end collision, the dangers are obvious.

Our legal research has produced conflicting interpretations of federal law and its application to our Territory. Furthermore, we have been lead to believe that small trucks are presently being sold in the mainland without bumpers.

Could you please enlighten us as to your official position on this issue, and provide the relevant legal authority. We thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, ENERE H. LEVI Assistant Attorney General EHL/fst

ID: 1985-04.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Aslam Khan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 12, 1985 Mr. Aslam Khan Mutual Trading Corporation 222 West Adams Chicago, Il 60606 Dear Mr. Khan: This responds to your letter to this agency, asking how our regulations affect the importation and sale of tires in the United States. There are several applicable requirements set forth in our standards and regulations, which are discussed below. All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. I have enclosed copies of both of these standards for your information. You will see that the standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States. With respect to these performance requirements, you stated that the tires' manufacturers "have our approval for the DOT markings." The United States does not give "approval" for certification markings. For the purposes of our safety standards, a tire manufacturer must itself certify that its tires comply with all the requirements of the applicable safety standard. Once a tire manufacturer determines that its tires satisfy the applicable requirements, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire. For purposes of enforcement of the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing the tires in accordance with the applicable standard. If the tires pass the test, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Your company would be considered the manufacturer of the tires, because you are the brand name owner and the importer. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires that fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either: (1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (2) replace the tire with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire that does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy. It is a simple matter to check the tires to see that the marking requirements of the respective standards are satisfied. With respect to the tire and rim matching information, this information, together with the loading schedules for the tire size (the loading schedules show the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must either be set forth in a current standardization organization publication or be furnished by the manufacturer to each of its dealers and in duplicate to this agency. You may wish to obtain a copy of the most current publication by the American standardization organization to see if your company can use the loading schedules and tire and rim matching information published therein for the particular tire sizes you wish to sell in the United States. That publication may be ordered by sending $8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims listed in that publication for your tire sizes are satisfactory, you need take no further steps to comply with this requirement. However, if your sizes are not listed or your company believes different values should be assigned, you may consult the publications of other standardization organizations or may elect to furnish the appropriate information to this agency and to each of your dealers. I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that applies to the tires you seek to import, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.7 of this regulation requires your company, as the brand name owner of new tires, to furnish an adequate supply of tire registration forms to dealers selling your tires. These forms are used to record the name and address of the first purchaser of each tire. The completed forms will be returned to you, or some party designated by your company. Your company is required to maintain the information on the tire registration forms for a period of not less than three years from the date on which you or some designee receive the information. Further, Part 574 requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see 574.5), including the identification mark assigned to the manufacturer. To get an identification mark, the actual manufacturer of the tires must provide the information specified in 574.6 of the regulation. A different identification mark will be assigned to each of the manufacturer's different plants. Please note that an identification mark will be assigned only to the actual manufacturer of the tires, and not to your company which only imports the tire. This is because S574.5 requires that this identification mark be molded into or onto all new tires. The only party that can mold the mark into or onto the tire is the actual manufacturer. An identification mark is normally assigned within two weeks after the receipt of such a request. However, the identification mark will not be assigned until this agency has received a valid designation of agent from the tire manufacturer, as required by 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). This regulation requires all manufacturers located outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Part 551 requires that the designation of agent contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the foreign tire manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of that manufacturer's tires that do not bear the name of the company; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign tire manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign tire manufacturer, and the agent may be an individual or a U.S. firm or corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. If you need any further information or a clarification of any of the information set forth in this letter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Daniel J. Wacek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Wacek Quality Control Supervisor Viracon, Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Mr. Wacek:

Thank you for your letter of September 30, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the application of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to a street sweeper.

As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 205 applies only to vehicles classified as motor vehicles by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from this classification despite their use on the highway. Vehicles such as highway lane strippers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles which have a low maximum speed capability and whose unusual configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet prepared by the agency which discusses additional factors we consider in determining whether a vehicle meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle." In your phone conversation of October 25, 1985, with Mr. Oesch you explained that you currently do not have definite information on the configuration, speed capability and other design characteristics of the street sweeper. We cannot provide you with an answer about whether we would consider the sweeper to be a motor vehicle without that information.

I hope this background information is of assistance to you. We would be glad to provide you with a specific interpretation concerning your vehicle after we receive more information about its design characteristics. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 30, 1985 Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. Southwest Washington, D C 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

We have come up with some questions recently regarding the application of safety glazing standards for motor vehicles. We are a glass fabricator and would like to know what criteria are used to determine whether ANSI Z26.1 is applicable. Specifically this came up regarding an unlicensed street sweeper.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Respectfully, Daniel J. Wacek Q.C. Supervisor DJW:si

ID: 1985-04.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas C. Bielinski, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas C. Bielinski, Esq. 33 N. Dearborn Street Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60602

Re: Bartlett v. Wards

The National Transportation Safety Board has forwarded to us for reply your letter of August 29, 1985, asking for information on standards and other regulations regarding the design and manufacture of mopeds.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which all motor vehicles must meet upon manufacture and initial sale. "Moped" is not a defined vehicle category under the safety standards but the defined category of "motorcycle" covers all two-wheeled vehicles such as mopeds. These standards will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571 and the applicability section of each standard (either paragraph S2 or S3) will tell you whether it applies to "motorcycles". Standards have been adopted for motorcycle brake hoses, (571.106), lighting, (571.108), mirrors (571.111), vehicle identification number (571.115 and Part 565), brake fluids (571.116), tires (571.119), rims (571.120), braking systems (571.122), controls and displays (571.123) and glazing (571.205). Manufacturers must certify compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Part 567).

You will find that sections of some of these standards impose a lesser degree of performance upon "motor-driven cycles". These are motorcycles producing 5 horsepower or less, and thus include most mopeds of which we are aware.

The individual States are not preempted from having their own standards for area of performance not covered by Federal standards (for covered areas, however, State standards must be identical), and you may also wish to examine the laws of the jurisdiction in which the moped in your case was licensed or being operated.

A manufacturer is required to file an information statement with the agency within 30 days of commencing production (Part 566). If a vehicle fails to conform to a safety standard or contains a safety related defect, its manufacturer must notify the agency, owners, and dealers, and remedy the problem (Part 573 and 577).

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 29, 1985

National Transportation Safety Board 2300 E. Devon Des Plaines, Illinois

RE: Bartlett vs. Wards

To Whom It May Concern:

Could You Please provide the undersigned with any rules, standards, or regulations concerning the design and manufacture of mopeds.

Please bill me for any costs involved.

Thanking you for your cooperation, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Thomas C. Bielinski

TCB/dm

ID: 1985-04.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Scottie Brown Jones -- comfit Designs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Ms. Jones: Thank you for your letter dated July 29, 1985 inquiring about Federal requirements applicable to children's car seat covers which you manufacture for sale as accessories to child restraint systems.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, the agency has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Paragraph S5.7 of that standard requires each material used in a child restraint system to conform to the requirements of S4 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR Section 571.302). These flammability resistance requirements apply to new child restraint systems used in motor vehicles or aircraft. The flammability resistance requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers for child restraint systems only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install a seat cover for a child restraint system which does not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

However, aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed by child restraint owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, the agency urges all manufacturers of such seat covers to comply voluntarily with our safety standards.

A copy of Standard No. 302 is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Scottie Brown Jones July 29, 1985 Comfit Designs 1721 S. La Rosa Dr. Tempe, AZ 85281

Mr. Steve Oesch NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC, 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Please advise as to the Federal requirements an/or regulations in regard to children's car seat covers (removable cloth covers sold in children's departments as an accessory to a car seat). I have been in contact with Shirley Barton at NHTSA (202/425-9294) who was unable to supply me with this information over the phone and suggested that I direct my inquiry in writing to you.

I have a small cottage industry. I have designed a children's car seat cover using 9 oz. terry cloth (86% cotton, 14% polyester) and gingham (35% cotton, 65% polyester) which I intend to market. This cover was originally intended to protect a child in the summer from the extremely hot plastic and vinyl used in many car seats. It fits any size toddler or infant car seat, is removable and would be purchased as a car seat accessory. Unlike covers already on the market, my design dose not use a fill and is, therefore, exempt from a bedding lisence. Other than that, it uses materials not unlike those already on the market (terry cloth and gingham). The major difference is that it covers more of the car seat than any other product presently available.

I appreciate your quick response to this inquiry. If you should have any further questions. I would be glad to answer them. I can be reached before 10:30 a.m. EDT at 602/967-1547. after that time please call 602/965-6163. Sincerely, Scottie Jones cc. Mr. Radovich

ID: 1985-04.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85

FROM: TAKESHI TANUMA -- CHIEF OPERATING OFFICE; NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: W-139-H

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/21/86 TO TAKESHI TANUMA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (3), PART 543

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., herewith requests interpretation of the term "standard equipment" with respect to the vehicle theft prevention provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information & Cost-Savings Act. Our request follows:

Sections 2025 (a) (1) & 2025 (a) (3) of the Motor Vehicle Information & Cost-Savings Act read as follows:

"(a) (1) Any manufacturer may petition the Secretary for an exemption from the application of any of the requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard under Section 2022 of this title for any line or lines of passenger motor vehicles which are equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device which the Secretary determines is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the requirements of such standard." (Emphasis added)

"(a) (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 'standard equipment' means equipment which is installed in a vehicle at the time it is delivered from the manufacturer and which is not an accessory or other item which the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed." (Emphasis added)

In consideration of these two citations, would the antitheft device be considered "standard equipment" in the following example?

Example -

99.9% of "A" model vehicles are equipped with an antitheft device, and this same rate is projected for the 1987 model year. Of all of "A" model sales, only rental cars destined for Hawaii, Guam and Saipan are not equipped with an antitheft device. Sales figures from October, 1984 through September, 1985 for the "A" model are shown in the table below.$ MO3,18,15,16 With or Without Sales Sales Volume Antitheft Device Destination (10/84 - 9/85) Without Hawaii, Guam 96 & Saipan (Rental cars only) With U.S. -- 101,758 EXCEPT Ren- tal cars in islands above TOTAL 101,854 Thus the non-equipped rate of model "A" is less than 0.1%: (96/101,854) x 100 = 0.094%

We at Nissan thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to your response at your earliest possible convenience. If you have questions or if you require further information, please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi in our Washington, D.C. office at (202) 466-5284.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-04.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. A. France -- President, Converto Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. A. France President Converto Manufacturing P.O. Box 287 Cambridge City, Indiana 47327

This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Converto produces the "Leav-A-Tainer." As you describe it this is "a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers" The hoisting mechanism is mounted on top of regular truck or trailer frame rails. Converto has placed the rear lamps "as near the end of the...frame rails as practicable," but law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota state that the lamps must be placed at the extreme end of the hoisting mechanism. You believe that is not feasible because the lamps will be destroyed when the hoist is In the dump position, and have asked for our opinion.

The basic location requirements established by Standard No. 108 for most truck or trailer rear lamps is, first, that they be "on the rear" and, second, that they be "as far apart as practicable." In these positions they afford the visual and signalling cues associated with their respective functions. Among those cues are the location of the rear end of the vehicle and indications of its width. However, there are configurations of commercial vehicles where literal compliance with the requirements so as to provide both of those cues is a physical impossibility, calling for a compromise. In those instances, it may be possible to locate the lights at the rear of the vehicle, but not to provide any indication of the vehicle's width or any lateral separation between the left and right sets of lights. Alternatively, it may be possible to place the lights so that they indicate the vehicle's width and are laterally separated, but at a location forward of the rear of the vehicle. In the case of your vehicle, there is the additional complication that locating the lights at the rear of the vehicle would appear to result in their being damaged or destroyed during the operation of the work performing equipment. You have interpreted Standard No. 108 as permitting mounting at the end of the frame rails, although the work-performing structure extends as much as 32 inches beyond the frame rails. The lamps, as you have located them, are "as far apart as practicable." The two States, as we understand it, are insisting that the lamps be mounted at the end of the work-performing structure where they would be "on the rear"; in that location, the lamps would appear to have to be bunched together because of the narrow width of the work-performing structure, and therefore would not be "as far apart as practicable" in the sense that Standard No. 108 intends. That is, there would be essentially no lateral separation between the sets of lights and no indication of the width of the vehicle.

We have concluded that the primary location requirement that the lamps be on the rear is more important than the secondary requirement of width location in the event of a conflict. In their present location, we question whether the lamps meet the requirement that they be visible throughout an angle from 45 degrees to the right to 45 degrees to the left. Further, with a container in place providing the 32-inch overhang, there may be certain angles of approach in which the lights become obscured and cannot be seen by a driver following too closely. Under paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, if motor vehicle equipment such as the hoist prevents compliance with the visibility requirements of the standard, an auxiliary lamp meeting the visibility requirements may be provided. We suggest that you examine the possibility of installing lamps on the side of the hoist, close enough to the rear that they are not damaged when the hoist is in operation.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 18, 1985 Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel - N.H.T.S.A. Room 5219 #400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: Request for ruling for the location of lighting devices for truck mounted and semi-trailer "roll-off" tilt frame hoists under FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

Converto Mfg. Co., Inc. manufactures roll-off tilt frame hoisting mechanisms commonly referred to as "roll-off tilt frame hoists"" under the trade name of "Leav-A-Tainer" This is a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers of varying sizes and types. This system utilizes a frame that tilts hydraulically and a reeving cable system to power the container on and off the frame.

This hoisting system is either mounted on an existing truck chassis frame or is manufactured as a semi-trailer unit. In either event, the hoisting mechanism itself is mounted on top of the regular truck or trailer frame rails.

Converto has always believed it was complying with Federal lighting standards by placing the rear lights as near the rear end of the truck or trailer frame rails as practicable. However, several of our cutomers have encountered problems with local law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. These agencies state the lights must be placed at the extreme rear end of the hoisting mechanism rather than at the end of the truck or trailer frame. This would seem to be impracticable to us since the design of the equipment is such that is necessary to extend the hoisting mechanism beyond the end of the truck or trailer main frame. When the hoist is in its fullest raised position to either discharge or to take the container aboard, the hoist must pivot at the rear of the truck so that the rear end of the hoist positions itself on the ground for both stability and control of the container. To attempt to locate lights on that part of the hoist would result in destroying the lights when the hoist was in the drmp position. For this reason, we presently locate the lights approximately 32" inward from the end of the hoisting mechanism itself.

Photographs of actual hoist showing this product in both the extended and retracted positions are included for your information. Several pieces of product literature are also enclosed to help you better understand the product, how it operates, and to depict what our problem is.

We certainly hope you will be able to give us a ruling for this application so that we may assist our customers with the problems they have encountered.

Should you have questions or need additional information or clarification of any point, please contact me.

Sincerely, C.A. France President CAF/bc

Enclosures 85-97

ID: 1985-04.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Susan B. House -- House Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan B. House House Enterprises 1450 Woodscliff Drive Anderson, IN 46011

Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8" diameter acrylic dish which is of optical quality and tinted. The second products is a 4" x 4" sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected ny section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel