ID: 86-5.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Westfalische Metall Industrie, KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Federal Republic of Germany

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, to August Burgett of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a center highmounted stop lamp that your firm has developed. Your design contains "a large number of integrated fixed miniature bulbs...a device with a small height and a large width." It has been reported to you by a prospective purchaser that the device may not be permissible because the height is too low in relation to the width, and because the use of fixed bulbs is prohibited.

Standard No. 108 does not establish permissible dimensions for center high-mounted stop lamps, and a manufacturer may establish whatever height/width relationship it wishes, as long as the effective projected luminous area is not less than 4 1/2 square inches. However, the agency's research which substantiated the efficacy of the concept was limited to lamps of a rectangular design narrower than the one you contemplate. Some agency research has indicated that the width of the device should not be more than seven times its height.

As for the issue of fixed or replaceable bulbs, this question arises in the context of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e) of Standard No. 108 which requires that the lamp "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools". This paragraph was written with the thought that center high-mounted stop lamps would be equipped with a single bulb or light source. If your lamp is sealed, so that the individual bulbs cannot be replaced in the event of burnout but is nevertheless designed so that the entire unit may be replaced with a new lamp without the use of special tools then your lamp design would appear to meet the intent of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject ACTION: Interpretation of Sealed Bulb Date

Reply to Attn of Burgett 426-1351

From Barry Felrice Attn of Burgett Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The attached request for interpretation has been received from Hella. The issues are similar to those that have been raised in she request from Stanley Electric Company for interpretation relative so use of Light Emitting Diodes. If feasible, we suggest combining both interpretations into a single response.

Attachment

Mr. Dr. August Burgett c/o National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 USA

K1 DrE/lb 7300

February 18, 1986 High Mounted Stop Lamps

Dear Dr. Burgett,

Long before High Mounted Stop Lamps became mandatory in the US, we were concerned with this subject. We now understand from Mercedes Germany that your agency does not approve of our design.

In order to keep vision through the rear windshield as unimpaired as possible we have developed a design with reduced dimensions and, in particular, with a reduced height.

This design makes use of special miniature bulbs with increased durability. These special bulbs have been used in a display, produced by our company, with excellent results for many years. They have a life of more than 2000 hours.

We are sure that this is much more than the expected durability of a car.

For safety, technical, and cost reasons we designed a HMS with a large number of integrated, fixed miniature bulbs. This enables us to realise a device with a small height and a large width. The attached drawings show this design.

The objections of NHTSA to a design of this type, as reported by Mercedes, are

1. The relation Width: Height must be fixed within certain limits.

If this is true, it would prohibit our design.

2. The use of fixed bulbs is prohibited, replaceable bulbs being obligatory.

We cannot find any paragraph concerning these matters, neither in MVSS 108 nor in any other regulation or standard.

Moreover, we argue that signal lamps with fixed bulbs in sealed units are known and available on the market. They are approved by US testhouses. Examples are described in the attached copies of catalogues.

We should be grateful if you would kindly consider this matter and give us binding information.

With best regards

Westfalische Metal Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co.

ppa. Dr. Ernst

ID: aiam0517

Dear Mr. Latzer: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1971, to Mr. Sta Haransky, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning the mounting height of lamps and reflectors on your motorcycle trailers.; A copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment' is enclosed for your information. The minimum mounting height for lamps and reflectors listed in Table IV of this Standard is 15 inches. We do not have the authority to exempt any motor vehicles from meeting these requirements.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2641

Dear Mr. Alderson: This responds to your June 3, 1977, request for confirmation that 572.7(b) of Part 572, *Anthropomorphic Test Dummy* (49 CFR 572), specifies a minimum time period during which the pendulum used in testing may not reverse direction rather than an exact time.; Your interpretation is correct. The specification that the pendulu 'shall not reverse direction until T=123 ms' means that reverse travel must not occur earlier than 123 milliseconds after chordal displacement begins. The agency believes that this language can be improved and intends to clarify it at the next opportunity.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1339

Dear Mr. Wood: This is in response to your November 29, 1973, request to know i urethane bonding material must be used in the installation of windshields in new motor vehicles not yet sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale.; Standard 212, *Windshield mounting*, is a performance standard for ne motor vehicles. We do not require the use of specific bonding materials such as urethane, but only that the vehicle conform to Standard 212, whatever material is used. The New York suit you mentioned may involve a question of due care in the installation of the windshield, separate from the question of meeting a Federal minimum performance standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 2784y

Mr. Takahiro Maeda
Assistant to the Vice President
Engineering Division
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.
P.O. Box 6555
Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, l990, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Table IV of the standard establishes a minimum "edge to edge separation distance" between turn signal lamps and tail or stop lamps installed on motorcycles. You have asked whether the edge in question is the outer edge of the lamp assembly itself, or the edge of the reflector in the lamp.

The minimum edge to edge separation distance is measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of one lamp to another, that is to say, from the edge of the effective projected luminous area of one lens to the edge of the effective projected luminous area of the other. It is unclear from the drawing you enclosed of the "tail/brake lamp" whether the edge of its effective projected luminous area of the lens is at the edge of the reflector, or at the edge of the lamp (as appears to be the case with the "turn signal"). If the former, the distance is measured between the edge of the tail/stop lamp reflector to the edge of the turn signal lamp assembly as you have initially indicated.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:l2/7/90

ID: 9151

Mr. Ray Paradis
Manufacturing Manager
Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.
Box 1188
Mitchell, SD 57301

Dear Mr. Paradis:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/16/93

ID: nht90-4.77

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by S.P.W.

TO: Takahiro Maeda -- Assistant to the Vice President, Engineering Division, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-28-90 to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Takahiro Maeda (OCC 5275)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1990, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table IV of the standard establishes a minimum "edge to edge separation distance" between turn signal lamps and tail or stop lamps installed on motorcycles. You have asked whether the edge in question is the outer edge of the lamp assembly itself, or th e edge of the reflector in the lamp.

The minimum edge to edge separation distance is measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of one lamp to another, that is to say, from the edge of the effective projected luminous area of one lens to the edge of the effective projected luminous a rea of the other. It is unclear from the drawing you enclosed of the "tail/brake lamp" whether the edge of its effective projected luminous area of the lens is at the edge of the reflector, or at the edge of the lamp (as appears to be the case with the "turn signal"). If the former, the distance is measured between the edge of the tail/stop lamp reflector to the edge of the turn signal lamp assembly as you have initially indicated.

ID: nht93-8.35

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Ray Paradis

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps. breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht74-1.22

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1974, request for a determination of whether two of your motorcycle treadwear indicator designs conform to the S6.4 requirements of Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The treadwear indicator requirements have been amended by deleting all of that portion of S6.4 that begins "The indicators shall, as a minimum". This means that the manufacturer determines for himself the location and design of the six treadwear indicators required (three in the case of motorcycle tires). He must assure himself that when the indicator is reached, the tread at that point on the tire is worn to a depth of one-sixteenth of an inch (or one-thirty-second of an inch in the case of motorcycle tires).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation, att: Asst Chief Counsel Richard Dyson -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Dear Mr Dyson.

Trelleborg Gummifabriks AB has exported motorcycle tires to U.S.A. for a couple of years. With referens to FMVSS-119, S 6.4 Tread Wear Indicators. We have a little question:

If you look on the two enclosed drawings, G-3053-2, you find two different designs for treadwears: "Forslag I" and "Forslag II".

Please, inform me if you think the one or both of the two designs are in accordance with your stipulations.

Yours sincerely TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG -- Tire Department; Erik Sundelin

ID: aiam5449

"This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA' regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles will have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the 'original Vin Plate'). As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished--and not newly manufactured--used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important safety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered 'new' under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle. Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are 'trucks' under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a 'truck' as a motor vehicle with motive power 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' 'Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow' signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are 'trucks' under 571.3. You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), 'scrap' the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and suspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and 'attenuator mounting hardware with braces.' After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be approximately 25,500 lbs. As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for 'used' vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registered for use on the public roads to be a 'used' vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produce to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle. As you note, in an interpretation letter of May 24, 1993 to the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. In the letter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the refurbished truck. As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a 'new' vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle. You also asked that NHTSA 'approve' your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles 'self-certify' that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Likewise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";