ID: nht94-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to a letter dated 7/14/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A42; STD 108)

TEXT: We request an interpretation of S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS 108 which requires "A strip of sheeting in alternating colors across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device. Grade DOT C2 material not less than 38 mm wide m ay be used." and S5.7.1.4.1 which states in part, "Element 3 is not required for trailers without underride protection devices."

NHTSA has not issued a final rule on rear impact guards and protection (rear underride guards) and even when it is issued, it is not likely to become effective until two years later. However, in the meantime, we published on April 1, 1994 TTMA Recomm ended Practice No. 92, "Rear Impact Guard and Protection," which closely resembles the NHTSA proposed rule. Does the term "underride protection device" as you have used it in FMVSS 108 only include the device yet to be required by NHTSA or would it incl ude the device described in TTMA RP No. 92?

2

TTMA RP No. 92 recommends in section 5.1.4 that "The vertical dimension of the guard's horizontal member shall not be less than 4 inches (101.5 mm)." Some trailer manufacturers are installing on refuse and chip trailers guards with round cross section s and square at 45 degrees (diamond) cross sections (see sketch) to shed any debris which may fall on the guard. In addition, some trailers are restrained by a curved hook which grabs and holds the round cross section guard while trash is loaded into th e trailer. If a 38 mm retroreflective strip of sheeting is applied to these guards, will such installations comply with FMVSS 108?

ID: nht90-1.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1990

FROM: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to J.R. Mitzenberg (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Flxible Corporation is a city transit bus manufacturer and requests an interpretation concerning FMVSS 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment".

An air brake system is used on our bus. As the driver starts to apply the service brake pedal to stop the bus, a service brake stop lamp switch is activated. The stop lamp switch is installed to comply with Section S5.1.7 of FMVSS 121, "Air brake syste ms". The stop lights are activated by the stop lamp switch.

The Flxible Corporation offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking, to increase brake lining life. This retardation is over and above the normal service brake system. The transmission retarder is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and the service brakes are activated.

A ruling is requested on whether a non-compliance with Section S4.5.4 of FMVSS 108 would result, if the stop lamps were activated by engagement of the retarder, prior to the activation of the service brakes. Section S4.5.4 states: "The stop lamps on eac h vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". The driver is depressing the service brake pedal to stop or slow down the vehicle. However, if the stop lights are activated by the retarder, the stop lights could be illuminated wit hout the service brakes actually being applied during that initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time air is actually emitted from the brake pedal and into the service brake system.

ID: nht92-9.35

DATE: January 29, 1992

FROM: J. Yoshimoto -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: James G. White -- Surface Group, Transport Canada

TITLE: Subject: CMVSS 108 "Lighting Equipment"; Reference: Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 125, No. 26 dated December 18, 1991

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to James G. White (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your kind consideration which you have always extended to us through SAE meeting.

We have studied the amended CMVSS 108 "Lighting Equipment" by Canada Gazette Part II Vol. 125, No. 26 dated December 18, 1991. And we would ask for your kind interpretation about "O" Mark on vertical/horizontal aim indicator of integral headlamp aiming device, specified in paragraph 108(28)(b)(ii)(A) and 108(28)(c)(ii)(A).

108(28)(b)(ii) a scale that has (A) a "O" mark that represents the vertical aim of zero degrees, ----------. 108(28)(c)(ii) a scale that has (A) a "O" mark that (I) presents the horizontal aim of zero-degrees ----------.

For these descriptions, it is unclear for us whether a mark of figure "O" be literally required for indicating zero degrees on vertical/horizontal aim indicator, or not.

In FMVSS 108 (U.S.), vertical/horizontal aim indicator of integral headlamp aiming device is required to have a zero mark, which does not necessarily mean a mark of figure "O", but may be just a reference mark. (Please refer to the attached copy of FMVSS 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2).

Size of indicator is so small, that there is no space to add a figure "O" on it. Moreover, from the viewpoint of harmonization to FMVSS 108, CMVSS 108 should not require a figure "O" on the indicator, we think.

We would greatly appreciate if you would give us your kind interpretation to the above matter.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply in anticipation, we remain, With best regards.

ID: nht78-1.23

DATE: 03/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 22, 1977, letter asking whether the tire information label required by Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, must contain the rim size of the rim that is mounted on the vehicle.

Paragraph S5.3.2. of the standard states that the label must contain "the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for those tires." This paragraph specifically permits a manufacturer to equip a vehicle with rim sizes that differ from those listed on its tire information label.

SINCERELY,

December 22, 1977

Frank A. Brendt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Brendt:

On the behalf of the members of the Trailer Manufacturers Association, we request an interpretation in the matter following relative to FMVSS No. 120.

S5.1.2 permits the tire size mounted on the vehicle not to be disclosed on the certification label providing the tire mounted falls within GAWR requirements.

Boat trailer manufacturers commonly provide a number of tire options and often these tires have different rims. It is not clear if FMVSS No. 120 requires the rim which is mounted on the trailer to be disclosed on the certification plate. For example, at the customer's wish, a given trailer might be equipped with 12, 13 or 14 inch wheels.

We have sought clarification of this subject from Department of Transportation compliance personnel, but were told that this specific point had not been raised previously, and therefore we would have to seek a formal interpretation which we now do.

Executive Secretary

Donald I. Reed

ID: nht75-3.1

DATE: 09/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha International Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 5, 1975, asking whether a prototype "stiff rubber supported turn signal" would comply with S4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1 requires lighting equipment to "be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle." Your proposed turn signal lamp is mounted at the end of a stiff rubber bracket which is attached to the vehicle. The bracket must be considered part of the vehicle. Obviously, even with a metal mounting there will be some vibration transmitted from the motorcycle to the lamp when the engine is running. We would consider the prototype mounting to be sufficiently "rigid" to conform to the standard if the rubber mount is stiff enough so that there is little or no amplification of vibration when the engine is running.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

August 5, 1975

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

We are considering using a stiff rubber supported turn signal on some of our future model motorcycles.

We are not sure, however, if this device complies with the requirement of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 108, which states each lamp must be mounted on a "rigid part of the vehicle".

We would like to request an interpretation of FMVSS 108 to determine if this stiff rubber supported turn signal complies with the requirement for mounting of the lamp on a rigid part of the vehicle, as specified in S4.3.1.

We are sending, under separate cover, a sample of the device in question.

If you require any additional information or materials please contact me.

Sincerely,

Russ Jura -- Legislative Analyst, Engineering Division YAMAHA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

ID: nht90-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/19/90

FROM: SHUICHI WATANABE -- GENERAL MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SUICHI WATANABE; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 108

TEXT: We are now developing the following new combination rear lamp which we would like to know whether it is permitted under FMVSS No. 108 or not.

Transformation Lamp

Characteristics: In this new lamp, the color and lighted area varies as shown in the figures below.

i) When tail lamp and/or stop lamp are activated, the whole lens luminous area (1, 2, 3) emits red light. When turn signal lamp is activated, the red light on the turn signal lamp area (1) disappears, and the amber light is emitted. RED RED RED --> AMBER RED RED 1 2 3 1 2 3

ii) In the same manner, when the back up lamp is activated, only the area for the back up lamp (3) changes its color from red to white. RED RED RED --> RED RED WHITE 1 2 3 1 2 3

iii) And when the turn signal lamp and reversing lamp are activated simultaneously, the turn signal lamp and back up lamp area (1 and 3) change their color as follows. RED RED RED --> AMBER RED WHITE 1 2 3 1 2 3

The requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. 108 and related SAE Standards. As for stop and tail lamp, when 3 lamps (area 1, 2 and 3) are activated, comply to 3 compartment requirement, and when 1 lamp (area 2) is activated, complies to 1 compartment requirement of FMVSS No. 108.

Kindly let us have your advice whether the above new combination rear lamp is allowed or not as soon as possible.

ID: 2806yy

Ms. Rebecca Flint
Polymeric Systems, Inc.
Wheatland and Mason Streets
Phoenixville, PA 19460

Dear Ms. Flint:

This responds to your letter asking whether this agency must approve your product, an epoxy putty that could be used to repair leaking gas tanks. You said a customer would like to market your product "for fleet (buses and truck) maintenance." The answer is no, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve or certify products.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA regularly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's as part of its enforcement program. In addition, the agency also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

There isn't any FMVSS that directly applies to repair putty for fuel tanks. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity, sets performance requirements for new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less and school buses. The standard does not apply to products sold to repair fuel tanks on vehicles already in use.

Repair of a damaged fuel tank in a new vehicle would be affected by the statutory requirement that the vehicle, when first sold to a consumer, must comply with FMVSS 301. If a new vehicle's fuel tank is repaired prior to such sale, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567, copy enclosed). As an alterer, the person must certify that the fuel system, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard 301.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, repairs to a vehicle are potentially affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a FMVSS. However, the agency does not view that prohibition as applying to the repair of a fuel tank which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency considers the event that damaged the fuel tank and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged tank in a used vehicle as the event that "rendered inoperative" the compliance of the fuel tank with the standard. Thus, a person in one of the aforementioned categories may use the putty to repair a damaged fuel tank on a used vehicle without regard to the render inoperative prohibition. Of course, however, NHTSA urges all persons repairing motor vehicles to ensure that the repair is done safely.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may use the repair putty regardless of its effect on the performance of fuel tanks. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

An issue raised by your inquiry is whether the putty is "motor vehicle equipment" under the Vehicle Safety Act. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. As discussed below, we believe the putty is not motor vehicle equipment.

Section 103(4) of the Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA applies not only the relevant statutory language, but also two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). If the product satifies both criteria, the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to your inquiry, the first criterion appears to be satisfied because a substantial portion of the expected uses of the putty is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second criterion, however, does not appear to be satisfied. In a December 21, 1990 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff, you stated that the putty would be sold to professional mechanics only. Since your product is not intended for use by ordinary vehicle users, the putty is not considered to be motor vehicle equipment.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. We will forward a copy of your letter to the FHWA for information about those requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:301, VSA#108 d:l/l4/9l

ID: nht91-1.20

DATE: January 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rebecca Flint -- Polymeric Systems, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from Rebecca Flint to Paul Rice (OCC 5167)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether this agency must approve your product, an epoxy putty that could be used to repair leaking gas tanks. You said a customer would like to market your product "for fleet (buses and truck) maintenance." The answer is no, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve or certify products.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA regularly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's as part of its enforcement program. In addition, the agency also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

There isn't any FMVSS that directly applies to repair putty for fuel tanks. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity, sets performance requirements for new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less and school buses. The standard does not apply to products sold to repair fuel tanks on vehicles already in use.

Repair of a damaged fuel tank in a new vehicle would be affected by the statutory requirement that the vehicle, when first sold to a consumer, must comply with FMVSS 301. If a new vehicle's fuel tank is repaired prior to such sale, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567, copy enclosed). As an alterer, the person must certify that the fuel system, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard 301.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, repairs to a vehicle are potentially affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the vehicle safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a FMVSS. However, the agency does not view that prohibition as applying to the repair of a fuel tank which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency considers the event that damaged the fuel tank and not any

subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged tank in a used vehicle as the event that "rendered inoperative" the compliance of the fuel tank with the standard. Thus, a person in one of the aforementioned categories may use the putty to repair a damaged fuel tank on a used vehicle without regard to the render inoperative prohibition. Of course, however, NHTSA urges all persons repairing motor vehicles to ensure that the repair is done safely.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our require- ments, individual owners may use the repair putty regardless of its effect on the performance of fuel tanks. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

An issue raised by your inquiry is whether the putty is "motor vehicle equipment under the Vehicle Safety Act. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. As discussed below, we believe the putty is not motor vehicle equipment.

Section 103(4) of the Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any ACCESSORY, OR ADDITION TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA applies not only the relevant statutory language, but also two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). If the product satisfies both criteria, the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to your inquiry, the first criterion appears to be satisfied because a substantial portion of the expected uses of the putty is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second criterion, however, does not appear to be satisfied. In a December 21, 1990 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff, you stated that the putty would be sold to professional mechanics only. Since your product is not intended for use by ordinary vehicle users, the putty is not considered to be motor vehicle equipment.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. We will forward a copy of your letter to the FHWA for information about those requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: Strauser_ltr

Mr. Dan Strauser
Manager--Research and Development
Federal Signal Corporation
1300 West Bartlett Road
Elgin, IL 60120-7529





Dear Mr. Strauser:

This is in reply to your letter asking how various models of Ravo street sweepers would be treated under our current regulations and interpretations. Specifically, you have inquired about the Ravo 3-series, 4-series, and 5-series models, which are more fully described in the brochures you enclosed with your letter.

From the brochures, it is apparent that these Ravo street sweepers are 4-wheeled vehicles that vary considerably in terms of maximum speed capacity. The Ravo 3-series street sweeper is available in two speed versions: one with a maximum speed capacity of 32 kilometers per hour (km/h) (20 mph) and one with a maximum speed capacity of 40 km/h (25 mph). The Ravo 4-series (Ravo 4000) street sweeper appears to be available in only one speed version with a maximum speed capacity of 30 km/h (19 mph). The Ravo 5-series street sweeper is available in three speed versions: one with a maximum speed capacity of 32 km/h (20 mph), one with a maximum speed capacity of 40 km/h (25 mph), and one with a maximum speed capacity of 62 km/h (39 mph).

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined in part as one which is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." 49 U.S.C. 30102(6). Vehicles that operate on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses ("on-road vehicles"), are generally subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). This agency has used various tests for determining whether an on-road vehicle is a motor vehicle. For example, NHTSA has consistently determined that on-road vehicles with a maximum speed capacity greater than 32 km/h (20 mph) are motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSS. With regard to certain low-speed on-road vehicles, we have, in past interpretations, concluded

that those with a maximum speed capacity of 32 km/h (20 mph) or less and an abnormal configuration that distinguished them from the traffic flow were not subject to the FMVSS. During the 1997 low-speed vehicle rulemaking ⁽¹⁾ and in at least one subsequently-issued interpretation, ⁽²⁾ however, this agency announced its intention to abandon "abnormal configuration" as a test for future interpretations.

It is against this backdrop that we consider whether the Ravo street sweepers about which you inquire are subject to the FMVSS. This agency has consistently stated, over the years, that street sweepers are "motor vehicles" because they are manufactured for the purpose of cleaning city streets and spend their entire functional life on public streets. The next question to be addressed, therefore, is whether they are subject to the FMVSS and, if they are, how they are classified for compliance purposes.

Consistent with past interpretations, we consider the Ravo street sweepers with a maximum speed capacity greater than 32 km/h (20 mph) to be subject to the FMVSS. This conclusion is based on long-standing agency policy subjecting all on-road vehicles with a maximum speed capacity greater than 32 km/h (20 mph) to the FMVSS. As to the proper classification of these vehicles, we consider them to be "trucks" because they are four-wheeled vehicles designed primarily for the transportation of street sweeper brushes, which we have long considered to be "special purpose equipment." (A "truck" is defined as a "motor vehicle . . . designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." See 49 CFR Part 571.3(b).)

With respect to the Ravo street sweepers with a maximum speed capacity of 32 km/h (20 mph) or less, we are currently in the process of considering what tests should be applied in determining whether on-road vehicles are motor vehicles. In the meantime, since we have previously concluded that street sweepers with a maximum speed capability of 32 km/h (20 mph) or less are not motor vehicles and therefore not subject to the FMVSS under the old line of interpretations, we are re-affirming that conclusion. We will maintain that position unless, and until, the agency announces a change in policy.

If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.9/5/01





---

1. ¹ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 62 FR 1077 (January 8, 1997).

2. ² See November 20, 1997, letter to Mr. Gary Starr of ZAP Electric Bikes.

ID: 09-007712 lavigne jul28