ID: nht88-4.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SA FETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the siping of tires. You asked whether "there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires," under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is respond ed to below, to the extent that it concerns regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We note that your letter indicates that you have also discussed this issue with officials of the Federal Highway Administration.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that it s motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

As noted by your letter, the term "siping" should be distinguished from "grooving." You stated that grooving is a "process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release." You stated that siping is "a process of cross c utting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, 1/32" or less, with a fine knife -- either four or five cuts to the inch -- that does not remove rubber."

Section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale, introducting or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States, any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The prohibitions of section 108 (a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. (Section 108(b)(1).)

NHTSA has issued several safety standards for tires. Standard No. 109 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; Standard No. 117 specifies performance and

labeling requirements for retreaded pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars; and Standard No. 119 specifies performance and labeling requirements for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The siping of new tires (including retreaded tires) is permissible only if that operation does not adversely affect the compliance of the tire with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable. If a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires (including ne w retreaded tires) that have been siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. 109, 117 or 119, as applicable, the dealer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each tire that did not comply.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in an item of motor vehicle equipment in compli ance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, any persons or businesses within the above categories that perform siping should ensure that the siping does not render inoperative the compliance of tires with applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standards.

You should also be aware that the agency's regulation on regrooved tires (49 CFR Part 569) specifies requirements concerning regrooved tires and regroovable tires which have been siped. See section 569.7(a)(2)(vii) and 569.7(b).

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-4.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C. I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SALES MANAGER, WESBAR CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-11-88, TO ERIKA 2. JONES, FROM C.I. NIELSEN III -- WESBAR, OCC-2789.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1988, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you find unclear the "minimum square inches required of a turn signal lens for a trailer/vehicle, 80" or more in o verall with, using a single compartment lamp assembly".

As you stated, the applicable standard is SAE J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970. This standard does not set minimum area requirements per se for turn signal lenses, but it does specify minimum requirements for "effective projected luminous areas" o f turn signal lamps. With respect to a single compartment turn signal lamp, section 3.2 of J588e requires this area, when measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, to be at least 8 square inches for a rear lamp, and at least 3.5 squar e inches for a front lamp.

As you are probably aware, on September 9 of this year the agency proposed adopting SAE J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032mm or More in Overall Width. Its section 5.3.2 requires "the functional lighted lens area of a single lam p" to be at least 75 square centimeters (12 square inches). The agency is currently reviewing the comments received on the proposal.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht88-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANK J. TRECY -- GENERAL MANAGER - MANUFACTURING MILLER STRUCTURES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/14/88 FROM F. J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC 2811; LETTER DATED 10/04/88 FROM FRANK J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trecy:

I am writing in response to your request for an interpretation of whether Standard No. 115; Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR @ 571.115) would apply to your company's portable commercial use structures. In your letter to me, you stated that Miller Structures, Inc. manufactures offices, storage buildings, classrooms, laboratories, branch banks, medical clinics, and other related commercial buildings on axles. This allows the structures to be transported to the desired location by attaching them to a truck tractor and moving them over the roads. You state that a "considerable" amount of your units go to a location and are placed there permanently. You inform us that other buildings are placed on a location "for varying length s of time" and are then relocated.

In a subsequent television conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my office, you stated that the structures are not self-propelling but must be towed by a semi-trailer or truck. Some of these structures have removable running gears. You also stated that th e structures are constructed very much like mobile homes, and that the structures are intended to go on the public roads at least once, in order to get to their designated sites. You also stated that your structures are not regulated by the U.S. Departm ent of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because they are not homes.

Standard No. 115, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). The term "motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act as follows:

"Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles design ed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use on the public roads is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-ro ad operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact use d on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Based on the information you have provided, it appears that your mobile structures are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 115 or any other of our safety standards. This conclusion is based on our judgment that the vehicles seem analogous to mobile construction equipment -- i.e., the on-road use of the vehicles appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which the vehicles are manufactured. Please no te that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination.

Additionally, you should note that this interpretation applies only to Federal requirements. The individual States may establish their own identification requirements for vehicles that are not subject to the Federal identification requirements, such as your mobile structures. Thus, the State of South Dakota could establish identification requirements applicable to your mobile structures sold in that State.

I hope the information provided is useful. If you need further information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992 or write to me again.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/88

FROM: JAMES A. LUTES -- KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/88 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. LUTES; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 102; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 10/28/88 FROM THOMAS A. COZ TO JIM LUTES RE CALIFORNIA CITATIONS HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS

TEXT: Dear Erika,

Kentucky Manufacturing Company at the request of numerous customers, including North American Van Lines of Fort Wayne, Indiana has been installing high mount stop and turn lights in the rear doors of van-type trailers; the height of these lights is appro ximately 12'-0" above ground level.

The above lights are in addition to the standard stop, tail, and turn lights that are located within the specified dimension range of 15" to 72" above ground level, as specified by F.M.V.S.S. #108.

Our interpertation of F.M.V.S.S. #108 is that all lights that are required by law have a specified location within given dimensions; extra lights may be installed on a trailer in any location as long as the extra lights do not obscure or hinder the ident ification of the lights required by law.

We are attaching a photograph showing the extra stop and turn lights in the rear doors. We are also attaching copies of citations issued to North American Van Lines drivers by California Highway Patrol. Also enclosed is a letter addressed to myself fro m North American Van Lines dated October 28, 1988 and signed by Mr. Thomas A. Coz, Senior Attorney at North American.

As stated on the citations, stop & turn signals mounted higher than 72" above ground are in violation (24603CVC).

We would appreciate very much your interpretation and/or clarification of the above situation.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures

[PHOTOGRAPHS OMITTED]

ID: nht88-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/88

FROM: RICHARD R. LENDER -- PRESIDENT COACHLAND INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY STANDARDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO RICHARD R. LENDER, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Sir:

In June of 1985 we imported some windshields from Mexico for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. These windshields fit only these buses and no others. At that time we conferred with Francis Armstrong of the U.S. Department of Transportation. We were given permission for this import because they were for buses built prior to 1-1-68.

We now have another shipment at the border ready to be imported. The same windshields that were imported in 1985 Since they do not have the DOT stamp but do meet all other regulations and since Mr. Armstrong is no longer with the department Mr. George S hifflett requested that we write to you for an interpretation of the law regarding these windshields. These windshields have the following markings on them:

GET Glass

NOM - 1015 -1

Clas Made in Mexico

I would like to reemphasize that these windshields only fit buses built from 1955 to 1962.

These windshields are now at the border and to prevent a large storage bill your expedite in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Should you have any questions in this regard please do not hesitate to call me collect.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 1988

FROM: C. I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT, WESBAR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, D.O.T., NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-30-88, TO C.I. NIELSEN, FROM ERIKA 2. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 108, REDBOOK A33

TEXT: Thank you for your November 3 letter to our A1 Cunningham clarifying the definition of single compartment and multiple compartment lamps. It is most helpful to understand these terms to assure we comply with applicable D.O.T. requirements.

We now write you to please clarify for us the minimum square inches required of a turn signal lens for a trailer/vehicle, 80" or more in overall width, using a single compartment lamp assembly. We believe the answer should lie in J588e, but we find the text not only unclear, but confusing.

Your response on this clarification will be most appreciated.

ID: nht88-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/88

FROM: F. J. TRECY -- GENERAL MANAGER, MANUFACTURING MILLER STRUCTURES INC

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO FRANK J. TRECY, REDBOOK A33 (4), VSA 102 (3), STANDARD 115; LETTER DATED 10/04/88 FROM FRANK J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On October 4, 1988 I wrote asking for an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Subpart S2, Titled: Application.

I need your interpretation before January 1, 1989 whether or not our unique and specialized products require the VIN identification numbering system. I am enclosing a copy of my October 4, 1988 letter.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/89 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARK JANSEN -- CHEVY DUTY PICKUP PARTS

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-03-88 TO M.J. MIZEJEWSKI, FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC., FROM E.Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1988, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You would like to have parking lamp and tail lamp lenses "remanufactured" for use on 1947-66 Chevrolet and GMC pickup trucks, and have requested our views.

We assume that you wish to have lenses manufactured to replace original equipment lenses on the trucks produced in the years indicated. Essentially, your operation appears unaffected by the requirements of this Department. The Federal motor vehicle lig hting standard applies only to lenses intended to replace original lenses on vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972, and would not cover lenses for use on 1947-66 trucks. However, if the lenses you intend to manufacture are interchangeable w ith those on vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972, you may have an obligation to ensure that they meet Federal requirements. If this is the case, we would be pleased to advise you further.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, all replacement lenses are equipment that is subject to Federal notification and remedy provisions if they incorporate a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. In your case, this likelihood may be remote as the item concerned is a simple one, but attention should be paid to quality control.

ID: nht89-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/89

FROM: WILLIAM D. FALCON, PROGRAM MANAGER

TO: RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER FROM STEVE CROWELL; DATED 11/02/88 EST; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH D ENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISSIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETTS

TEXT: I am enclosing two letters received in June and November 1988 by the Commission from Mr. Steven Crowell. Citing federal legislation and correspondence from NHTSA, he is suggesting, on page 2 of his November letter, that the Commission amend the commenta ry to one of its law enforcement standards--specifically, the commentary to Standard 71.4.1 (enclosed), which states that vehicles used for transporting prisoners should have the driver separated from the prisoner by a safety barrier.

Mr. Crowell recommends that, rather than stating that the barrier may be made of wire mesh or heavy gauge plastic, the commentary should specify that the barrier be one bearing a label or tag certifying the barrier's compliance with all applicable safety standards and requirements established by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

To support his recommendation, Mr. Crowell cites several sections of the Act (pages 1-2 of the June letter and page 2 of November's) and quotes from the 1985 letter he received from the chief counsel "for the United States Department of Transportation Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jeffrey R. Miller" (page 1 of the November letter).

I would very much appreciate an answer to this question: Does the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or any other legislation or regulation require or recommend that interior vehicle safety barriers--whether installed by the vehicle's manufacturer or by someone subsequent to the vehicle's first sale--be certified that they comply with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and, if so, where, if any place, must the certification appear (on the barriers or somewhere else on the vehicl es)?

Any other comments that you may have would be most welcome, too.

We are most appreciative of your help. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. (Abrochure describing the Commission is also enclosed.)

ID: nht89-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/89

FROM: ROD WILLAREDT -- DIAMOND CROSS LIGHTS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROD WILLAREDT; REDBOOK A33[B][2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WAYNE APPLE; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/19/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CHARLES WILSON -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 07/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

In reference of our phone conversation of early May, I would appreciate a letter of confirmation reguarding the D.O.T. codes and regulations concerning Diamond Cross's Safety Light.

As I mentioned to you on the phone, upon my personal visitation to Washington over a year ago, I received an oral approval of the Chief Council that our safety light was not in any violation of codes or regulations. We are presently at the stage of marketing this product and have been advised that confirmation of such D.O.T. approval should be of record on file.

The safety light itself shows left/right directional signals and when the caution light/emergency light appears, the formation of such lights indicates a diamond. Please note again, this safety light is an "auxiliary" truch light and does not replace any origional equipment.

As time is of essence to us, I will give you a call later today to confirm receival and confirmation of written approval to follow. Thank you for your time and readiness concerning this matter.

Sincerely yours,

DC (trademark) Lights

(c) -- 1988 P.O. Box 3696 Rapid City, SD 57709 (605) 341-2331 Rod

DIAMOND CROSS(trademark), INC.

Truck Safety Light (DIAGRAM OMITTED)

SEE ILLUSTRATION ON ORIGINAL * Auxiliary truck light.

* Increase rear end visibility by 100%

* Gives an extra turn signal that is a safety feature.

* Gives an extra caution signal in a diamond shape