ID: nht90-3.73

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Michael Mascho -- Safety & Compliance Specialist, Kenworth Truck Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from J.M. Mascho to T. Vinson (OCC 4988) with photograph

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Kenworth builds a wide truck that is equipped with a sleeper, located behind the cab and extending somewhat above it. On this model, the clearance and identification lamps are mounted on the cab. A customer has asked for an additional set of clearance and identification lamps to be mounted on the sleeper. You have enclosed photographs of this configuration, and asked whetber such a vehicle would be in compliance with Standard No. 108.

The answer is yes. Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment to be installed provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The duplicate clearance and identifica tion lamps that your client wishes Kenworth to provide would appear to enhance, rather than impair, the effectiveness of the original equipment clearance and identification lamps installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

ID: 3156o

Mr. A. L. Bragg
Laboratory Manager
Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
310 East Elmwood Avenue
Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, l988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

It is your understanding that for purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of a lens, the reflex area, if any, must be subtracted from the total lens area. Your company manufactures a combination lamp which "has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area." You have asked if you may advise your customers that this lamp may be used on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more:

"A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?"

Your understanding is correct, that the effective projected illuminated lens area must be determined without reference to any reflex reflector that may be combined with it. If the turn signal function in your lamp is met by one compartment, your lamp is acceptable under "A)." But if the turn signal function is met by more than one compartment, your lamp would not be acceptable as the area of each compartment is less than l2 square inches. With regard to "B)," the lamps could be used in combinations of twos and threes if they are mounted more than 22 inches apart but could not be used if mounted closer than 22 inches. You also asked about the relationship to paragraph S4.1.1.7. This paragraph covers replacement equipment only, without reference to its location on a vehicle. It applies only to turn signal lamps intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, June l966. The current original equipment requirement is SAE Standard J588e September l970.

You should be aware that the Truck Safety Equipment Institute has petitioned for rulemaking the effect of which would be to extend the l2-inch requirement to lamps used on all wide vehicles without reference to the 22-inch spacing. At present the agency is reviewing this petition.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ ref.l08 d:ll/3/88

ID: 3137o

Mr. A. L. Bragg
Laboratory Manager
Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
310 East Elmwood Avenue
Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, l988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

It is your understanding that for purposes of measuring the effective projected illuminated area of a lens, the reflex area, if any, must be subtracted from the total lens area. Your company manufactures a combination lamp which "has four square inches of reflector area and eight square inches of stop, tail and turn area." You have asked if you may advise your customers that this lamp may be used on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more:

"A) Singularly (that is one on each side of the vehicle in the rear) as a stop, turn, tail and reflex reflector?

B) In combination of two's or three's (on each side of the rear of the vehicle), provided that the lamps are separated by at least twenty-two inches?"

Your understanding is correct, that the effective projected illuminated lens area must be determined without reference to any reflex reflector that may be combined with it. If the turn signal function in your lamp is met by one compartment, your lamp is acceptable under "A)." But if the turn signal function is met by more than one compartment, your lamp would not be acceptable as the area of each compartment is less than l2 square inches. With regard to "B)," the lamps could be used in combinations of twos and threes if they are mounted more than 22 inches apart but could not be used if mounted closer than 22 inches. You also asked about the relationship to paragraph S4.1.1.7. This paragraph covers replacement equipment only, without reference to its location on a vehicle. It applies only to turn signal lamps intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, June l966. The current original equipment requirement is SAE Standard J588e September l970.

You should be aware that the Truck Safety Equipment Institute has petitioned for rulemaking the effect of which would be to extend the l2-inch requirement to lamps used on all wide vehicles without reference to the 22-inch spacing. At present the agency is reviewing this petition.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ ref.l08 d:ll/3/88

ID: nht73-1.24

DATE: 12/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 20, 1973, asking whether you may install "lights as set forth in Example 1." In this example identification lamps would be mounted under the rear crossmember of the vehicle while "the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps."

The rear lighting scheme shown in your "Example 1" appears to be seriously at variance with Standard No. 108. There is a clear violation of paragraph S4.4.1 which forbids the optical combination of tail lamps and clearance lamps. Both clearance lamps and identification lamps must be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." The fact that you have developed a clearance lamp that can be mounted in the header area demonstrates that that is the "practicable" location, despite the fact that the header may be too shallow to accommodate the lamps specified by the customer. Further, since the performance required of clearance lamps is identical to that for identification lamps, and three of your clearance type lamps could serve as identification lamps and the header would appear to be the "practicable" location for the identification lamp arrangement as well.

Sincerely,

November 20, 1973

Richard Dyson National Highway Safety Administration, DOT

Ref: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 in the area of rear clearance lamps and identification lamps under the conditions outlined below:

Fruehauf Corporation has been asked to build a large number of van type trailers (over 80 inches in overall width) which incorporate a rear header too shallow to accommodate the identification lamps or clearance lamps specified by the customer.

The customer contends that due to the shallow header, it is not practicable to mount the identification lamps any higher than below the rear crossmember and that the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps.

EXAMPLE I (Graphics omitted)

Rear Header

Stop & Tail Lamp

Tail & Turn Signal Lamp

Identification Lamp

Fruehauf Corporation has a clearance lamp which could be installed in the shallow header and has proposed that they be installed at the top rear corners, with the identification lamps being installed below the rear crossmember.

EXAMPLE II

Clearance Lamp

Identification Lamp

The customer has refused to accept Fruehauf's proposed installation due to the clearance lamps not being compatible with the existing lamps in his large fleet, thus creating a hardship.

This order will be held in abeyance until we can get a ruling from your department as to whether we may install the lights as set forth in Example I and certify the vehicles as being in accordance with FMVSS No. 108.

Very truly yours,

FRUEHAUF CORPORATION -- R. O. Crider - Manager, Government Safety Standards and Regulation Compliance

cc: E. Chosy

ID: nht90-3.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1990

FROM: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re NCC--01

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from PJ. Rice to W.T. Mullen (A36; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-25-90 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208)

TEXT:

We are having serious problems with the 13, 1990 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars, that we purchased in January 1990.

First: Our officers are experiencing difficulties with the shoulder harnesses, which is very serious. The shoulder harnesses causes a blind spot on the drivers left side, where the strap is connected to the door. There is a definite deficiency with vis ual surveillance.

Second: The shoulder harnesses also prevents left arm movements of our taller officers.

We now have 10, 1989 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars and have not experienced any problems with the shoulder harnesses.

Would it be permissable to install 1989 style shoulder harnesses and lap belts in our 1990 models. If this is acceptable, please notify us in writing as soon as possible, so we may correct these problems.

Thank you for your time and concern.

ID: cox.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
President
Monte Carlo Minis Limited Inc.
2011 Pleasant Hill Church Road
Shelby, NC 28152

Dear Mr. Cox:

On August 31, 1998, we received your faxed manufacturer identification information sheet sent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, and your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions.

You informed us that Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc., wants to build "Mk 1 and Mk II Minis." These vehicles "will have all new parts except for the chassis or subframes." You comment that "if we replace the chassis, we know we would have to meet all the DOT and EPA regs." You ask whether you can "retain the old VIN number if we use the pre 1969 donor cars and chassis." You also state that "if we only exported the Minis to Japan I assume we would have to use the new VIN numbers as described in CFR 49."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other agency regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured for export, and which are so labeled between the completion of their manufacture and shipment from the United States. Therefore, the VIN on vehicles intended to export for Japan should conform with the requirements of that country, if any, for VINs, rather than those of 49 CFR Part 565 for vehicles intended for sale in the United States.

You incorrectly assume that retention of the old chassis alone is sufficient to excuse a vehicle from compliance with the FMVSS. The agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS . The agency did not intend the word chassis to be interpreted narrowly but meant the term to indicate an assemblage that retained the original frame and all vehicle components other than the body, including the power train, brake system, suspension, and tires and wheels.

The vehicles you intend to build would have "all new parts except for the chassis or subframes, including "the new [body] shell," "new suspension," and "new engine and transmission," while "the old chassis, sub frame is retained after being sandblasted." In our view, vehicles assembled using equipment as you have described it to us would be new motor vehicles which must comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect as of the date of assembly, and be certified as complying if they are to be sold for use in the United States. Among other things, such vehicles must have a VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Liz Severe
c/o Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc.
ref:571
d.9/29/98

ID: 19679.ztv

Mr. Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng.
Corporate Manager, Compliance & Recall
Orion Bus Company
P.O. Box 449
Oriskany, NY 13424

Dear Mr. Gornick:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of S5.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have described a "multiplexing vehicle wiring system" designed for transit buses manufactured by Orion Bus Company. Under this design, the system goes into "sleep mode" 15 minutes after the bus is "shutdown and parked." In the sleep mode, only the hazard warning lamps can operate. Remaining lamps are able to operate only when the bus is taken out of sleep mode by use of a "Master Power Switch."

S5.5 of Standard No. 108 is titled "Special wiring requirements," and establishes how certain vehicle lamps shall be wired to operate. S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This means that stop lamps shall be wired to operate when the service brakes are applied. When a bus is in the sleep mode, depression of the brake pedal will not activate the stop lamps. You have asked if this is a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and report that Rich Van Iderstine of the Office of Safety Performance Standards believes that it may be.

We have discussed this matter with Mr. Van Iderstine and have concluded that the multiplexing design, as you have described it, does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Service brakes are applied to slow or halt a moving vehicle. When a bus is parked and its electrical system is in the sleep mode, the service brakes serve no function. In this situation, we do not view depression of the brake pedal as an "application" of the service brakes, because depression of the pedal does not initiate a braking function. Therefore, the fact that the stop lamps do not activate when the brake pedal is depressed, when the bus is in the sleep mode, does not create a noncompliance with S5.5.4.

However, this interpretation does not extend to other situations where a vehicle may be at rest and the brake pedal is applied. For example, a driver of a vehicle stopped at a traffic signal may need to apply the service brakes to prevent inadvertent motion of the vehicle. Depression of the brake pedal in this instance initiates a braking function and therefore the stop lamps must activate, as required by S5.5.4.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/19/99

ID: nht75-3.35

DATE: 09/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; W. T. Coleman, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Bob Packwood - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1975, forwarding a copy of a letter to me from Mr. William G. White, President of Consolidated Freightways Corporation, and asking for early consideration of Mr. White's request. In that letter, Mr. White asks that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require reports from all truck operators and antilock system manufacturers on any malfunction they experience with antilock systems.

I have given full consideration to the important matter of collecting sufficient data on the reliability of antilock systems used on production vehicles, and I have responded to Mr. White with my conclusions. A copy of that response is enclosed to provide you with a complete explanation of my decision.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

August 8, 1975

Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr. The Secretary of Transportation

I am attaching a copy of a letter from William White, Chairman of the Board of Consolidated Freightways, Inc. I am most interested in seeing that Mr. White's request is honored and would appreciate your early consideration of this matter. Could you please advise me of your ultimate decision.

As you may know, I have been following this matter regarding FMVSS 121 for some time. I have expressed my concern to the Administration over the hardships caused by this regulation and am awaiting their response at this time.

BOB PACKWOOD

cc: WILLIAM WHITE

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, INC.

July 31, 1975

Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr. The Secretary of Transportation

I attach copy of Dr. Gregory's letter to me of July 28th and my response to him.

I believe truck manufacturers, antiwheel lock device manufacturers and truck operators should be required by NHTSA to report any and all malfunctions of the antiwheel lock safety devices regardless of whether or not in their opinion the defect is safety related. All such reports should then find their way into the reliability file which has been set up in Room 5307, Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA should not be allowed to screen such reports to determine whether or not they are "suitable for public scrutiny in light of applicable regulations and proprietary considerations".

Truck operators are now required to buy trucks with this equipment and are entitled to know exactly what problems are occurring in the field.

I will very much appreciate your looking into this matter.

WILLIAM G. WHITE -- CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

ID: nht76-4.19

DATE: 02/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Robin Beard - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 29, 1976, question whether an owner of a vehicle manufactured to comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems may legally disconnect portions of the brake system after a vehicle has been delivered for use in his business.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of safety components by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses. Thus, there is no prohibition on disconnection by an owner of his own vehicle's system under the Traffic Safety Act. However, State statutes, or the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that owners not disconnect safety devices without consultation with the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

January 29, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicles Program U. S. Department of Transportation

I have been contacted by a constituent regarding the anti-skid devices on trucks and trailers.

I am informed by my constituent that he has encountered a great deal of expense due to the failure of these devices, such as damaged tires, tow bills, and time spent on repairs. My constituent would like to know if there would be a fine imposed or any type of penalty if these devices were disconnected.

I appreciate your checking on this matter and sending me a reply.

Robin Beard, M. C.

ID: nht72-6.16

DATE: 12/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Center for Auto Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of 20 November, 1972, concerning alleged non-compliance of the Defect Information Report regarding Volkswagen Windshield Wipers, submitted by Volkswagon of American on October 12, 1972, with the requirements of NHTSA's Defect Reports Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. We agree that Volkswagen has failed to supply information required by sections 573.4(c)(2) and 573.4(c)(8) of the Regulation, specifically, the months of manufacture of the affected vehicles and a chronology which includes warranty claims, field service bulletins, and other such information. We are contacting Volkswagon to determine why the Company has failed to furnish that information and to attempt to obtain it. We also agree with your conclusion that 100% of 1948-1949 Volkswagens are potentially affected by the windshield wiper defect. However, Volkswagen's statement that 'no information is available" as to either the total number of such vehicles operating in the United States, or the percentage potentially affected satisfies the disclosure requirement of the regulation (49 CFR 573.4(c)(3, 4)).

We cannot agree, however, with your remaining assertions of non-compliance with the Regulations. While the Volkswagen Information Report is lacking in detail and is a poor example of an informational communication, it does contain minimal responses to the enumerated requirements of the Regulations.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.