ID: aiam1928

Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about th existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has th responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids* (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR Part 571.121)).; There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by state law.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1390

Dear Mr. Volberding: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which yo ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the 'lowest seating position' for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to 'lowest seating surface' in proposed 'Fields of Direct View' (Docket No. 70-7, Notice 2, 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.; The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (3 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase 'lowest seating position' to be synonymous with 'lowest seating surface' with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 205 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4727

Dear Ms Schmock: This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, l990, wit respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and 'CAC Title 13, Article 9'. You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. 108 has been changed. We understand that 'CAC' refers to 'California Administrative Code'. The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustment range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement. We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pierce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3312

Dear Mr. Packard: This is in response to your letter of May 28, 1980, in which yo requested approval to use Indiana's Certificate of Title as a substitute for the Federal Odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.; Because the Federal odometer requirements that became effective as o January 1, 1978, contain a good deal of wish to include odometer information on their titles to use a shortened form that was adopted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). We consider the AAMVA form to include the minimum amount of information necessary for an adequate disclosure. In addition to the information included on the Certificate of Title which you submitted to our office, the following information is also required:; >>>(1) a reference to State or Federal law, (2) a statement that the odometer reading reflects the amount o mileage over 99,999 miles,; (3) a statement that the odometer mileage is not actual, (4) the signature of the buyer.<<< Without these four items the title cannot be used in lieu of a separat Federal form. If this information is included, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will approve the title for use in lieu of the Federal form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 19437-1.pja

Mr. Robert Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P.O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter to James Jones of our Safety Assurance Office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Your letter was forwarded to my office because the Office of the Chief Counsel responds to requests for interpretation. AmTran manufactures a school bus with a rear push out window, and you want to know whether the window is large enough to meet the specifications in Standard No. 217. As explained below, your window is not big enough.

From the drawing you enclosed, it appears that the height of the window opening on the interior wall of the bus is about 41.9 centimeters (cm) high. The window is hinged at the top, and when opened the bottom edge swings upward and outward with the assistance of "gas springs." When fully opened, the plane of the window inclines at its outward edge toward the ground at approximately 15 degrees. At the top and bottom of the window, there is a frame that projects toward the interior of the bus, perpendicular to the window surface. As the window rotates open, the interior edge of the frame rotates outward and downward, reducing the window opening by 3.1 cm, to 38.8 cm.

The pertinent part of S5.2.3.1(b)⁽¹⁾ specifies "a push out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance of 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide  . . .." (emphasis added). We cannot agree with your suggestion that the window opening constitutes the "hole in the body with trim." The words "opening clearance" mean that the exit must meet the clearance specification when the emergency exit window is open. We would measure the exit with the window open during compliance testing because that is the actual opening that would be provided to the passengers in an emergency. The opening needed to comply with the standard must be at least a 41 cm by 122 cm rectangle extending from the interior wall of the bus all the way through to the exterior when the window is opened.

The opening on the rear emergency exit window of your bus is only 38.8 cm high when the window is open, 2.2 cm less than the specified minimum height. Thus, we conclude that your emergency exit window design does not comply with S5.2.3.1(b) of Standard No. 217. The additional fact that you mention, that the window may satisfy the separate requirement of S5.4.2.1(c) involving the passage of the ellipsoid, does not have any bearing on its compliance with S5.2.3.1(b).

I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/1/99

1. Although your letter referred to S5.2.2.2(b), we assume you meant S5.2.3.1(b), which corresponds to the quotation you included.

ID: 10948

Mr. John C. Golden
Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical
Federal Mogul Corporation
P.O. Box 1966
Detroit, MI 48235

Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices...take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously- certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in

FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

bcc: Mr. Larry Minor Office of Motor Carrier Research & Standards FHWA, Rm. 3107

ref:vsa(a)(2)(A)#125 d:10/16/95

ID: nht92-1.48

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. KOUCHI -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT, DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-8-92 FROM T. KOUCHI TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7857)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

ID: nht94-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in Accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c)

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/25/94: Letter from John Womack to William Willen (Part 555 & 591)

TEXT: This petition is being sought by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 1919 Torrance Blvd, Torrance, CA, 90501, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Honda." Honda plans to field test no more than twenty (20) electric vehicles ("HONDA-EV") over a three (3) year period, in order to gather field information. These HONDA-EV's will not be sold, however; they will be driven by various drivers, including, but not limited to: electric utilities, media Honda employees, commercial fleet drivers and, po ssibly, consumers. The field test is necessary to obtain "real world" usage patterns as well as overall field experience with electric vehicles. The technical and qualitative feedback from these field tests will enable Honda to develop and market a bet ter electric vehicle.

In accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c), the basis for this petition includes: "the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle." The HONDA-EV for which Honda seeks an exemption meets all applicable regulations except the following FMVSS standards:

FMVSS Description Impact 103 As described in Attachment 1, a Operator instructions will make limited area on each side of clear the need to wait until the the windshield is only 87.5% clear, front glass is adequately compared to a standard of 95% defrosted prior to vehicle operation. The vehicles will clear, within the specified 40 be minute start period. This is operated mainly in California primarily due to the electrical where the milder weather should consumption requirements. minimize this concern. Additionally, vehicle parking is primarily indoors due to recharging requirements, where defrosting is even less of a concern. While these eight components do 302 PP plastic was used for several not prototype parts in order to meet the standard, all other minimize the tooling costs needed vehicle components do meet the to produce these few vehicles. PP standard, and the overall risk does not meet the fire-retardant of fire is not significantly increased. Additionally, the standard set forth in 302. risk of fuel-fed fire is greatly These components are described reduced in Attachment 2, and include: since there is no on-board gasoline or diesel fuel with Cover, Right Front Door; Cover, which Left Front Door; Console, Front; to contend. Lining, Rear Panel; Lining, Right Side, Lining, Left Side; Lining, Right Cowl Side; Lining, Left Cowl Side

These minor "non-compliances" will have no significant adverse affect on vehicle safety.

By providing this temporary exemption, field testing and evaluation will proceed rapidly. In addition, the full production version of this vehicle, currently scheduled for the 1998 model year, is planned to fully meet all FMVSS requirements, including t he above standards.

Enclosed: Attachment 1 (1 page) Attachment 2 (6 pages)

ID: nht93-8.14

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Ray Paradis to Pat Boyd (OCC-9151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, to Pat Boyd of this agency with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed literature and photos of several of your trailers, and ask for our comments in several areas.

Your first remark is "Deck heights are from 22" to 39 1/2"." We understand this to ask whether these are acceptable heights for mounting conspicuity treatments. Standard No. 108 was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting range as close to 375 to 1525 mm as practicable, i.e. approximately 15 to 60 inches. Your "deck heights" are within this range.

Your second remark is "(t)he rear design does not allow for continuous tape all models." Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. 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.

Your third remark is (t)he side extension model has fold-up sides #2." We understand this to ask whether striping must be applied so as to be visible only when the extension is folded, or whether striping must also be visible when the extension is in use, i.e., whether striping must be applied to both surfaces of the extension so that it is visible regardless of the position of the extension. Although Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question, we believe that motor vehicle safety requires visibility of conspicuity treatment at all times. The standard does require that striping not be obscured by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo, reflecting the agency's intent that striping be visible when the trailer is performing its intended work-related functions. This means that side extension model trailers should be equipped with conspicuity treatment that is visible both when the extensions are folded and unfolded.

Your final remark is "((d)oes the front require any stripe." Under the assumption that you refer to the front side of a trailer and not the front that is hidden behind the towing vehicle, the answer is yes. Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires conspicuity treatment to be applied as close to the front of a trailer as practicable. Goosenecks and tongues are part of the trailer front and are portions of a trailer requiring conspicuity treatment if practicable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht93-3.45

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (Signature by Stephen P. Wood)

TO: St. F. Steiner -- Consultant, AET Network

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-4-93 from St. F. Steiner to John Womack (OCC 8626)

TEXT: We have received your "Dear Mr. Van Orden" letter of May 4, 1993, which was addressed to me. You wish to import 3- and 4- wheeled vehicles from Europe "for research and exploration", and have asked several questions relating to U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements.

Your first question is: "Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?"

The answer is yes. All 3-wheeled motor vehicles are considered "motorcycles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Depending upon their configuration, but not upon their weight, 4-wheeled vehicles are either "passenger cars", "multipurpose passenger vehicles", "trucks", or "buses" for purposes of the safety standards.

However, motor vehicles intended solely for purposes of research may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the safety standards under the terms and conditions that the agency has set out in 49 CFR Part 591.

Your second and third questions are whether there is a minimum speed standard regulation or weight limitations for the vehicles you wish to import. The answer is no. However, a motorcycle with 5-horsepower or less is considered a "motordriven cycle", and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

Your fourth question relates to the conversions required to meet U.S. specifications and standards. As indicated previously, no conversion is required when the importation is solely for the purpose of research. If you wish to import vehicles that have been originally manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, the manufacturer will find those standards at 49 CFR Parts 571, 581, and 541, respectively. If you wish to import nonconforming vehicles for conversion after importation, then the agency must determine that the vehicles are eligible for entry pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593, and importation and conversion accomplished through a Registered Importer pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592.

Your final question is whether the vehicles will be permitted on highways. This is a question that is not answerable under Federal law. Each State determines the criteria for licensing motor vehicles for use on the roads under its jurisdiction. If a State does not license a vehicle for on-road use (all terrain vehicles, minibikes, golf carts are examples), a basis exists for a manufacturer to determine that its vehicles are not "motor vehicles." If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, i.e. one manufactured primarily for on-road use, then no Federal safety standards apply to it.

If you have any further questions about the importation process, you should refer them to Mr. Van Orden at our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement.