ID: 2629y

Ms. Carol Zeitlow
Manager, Engineering Services
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
P.O.Box 2566
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Ms. Zeitlow:

This in reply to your letter of August 1, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

You ask for confirmation that "the hazard warning light should always over-ride the stop lamp" when they are "together on a vehicle." I am pleased to provide that confirmation. Under the relevant SAE materials on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08, when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. Because the hazard warning system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use.

You have also noted that in your version of Standard No. l08, no reference is made to SAE Standard J1395. It was not until May l5 of this year that Standard No. l08 was amended to incorporate SAE J1395 (with an effective date of December 1, l990). I enclose a copy of that amendment for your information.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:l08 d:8/27/90

ID: nht72-3.18

DATE: 05/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: GO Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1972, requesting an opinion as to whether "Abcite," a product of the Dupont Company, may be used in campers and "mini-mobile homes."

Whether a particular glazing material may be used in motor vehicles or campers depends upon whether the material meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (49 CFR 571.205), which incorporates, as you indicate, the American National Standards Institute Standard Z26.1-1966. That standard also specifies the locations in motor vehicles where specific materials may be used.

Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers. While we are not familiar with the phrase "mini-mobile home," we consider mobile homes to be trailers, and the standard does not apply to them. With respect to campers, Standard No. 205 allows the use of any material meeting the requirements of Z26 in any location except for forward-facing windows. Forward-facing camper windows may not be manufactured of item 6 and item 7 material (AS6, AS7), but may be manufactured of any of the other materials (AS1-AS5, AS8-AS11) that meets the requirements of Z26.

Whether Abcite conforms to the requirements for glazing allowed to be used in campers is a determination that should be made in the first instance by its manufacturer, Dupont. If the manufacturer determines that such use is within the requirements of Standard No. 205, he is required by section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that the material conforms to the requirements of the standard. He is also required by the marking requirements in Section 6 of Z26.1-1966 to indicate on the material its AS designation. Any material that is so certified can be used in the camper locations listed on the standard as appropriate for that designated type.

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: 2512y

Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki
Executive Vice President
Mazda Research & Development
of North America, Inc.
1203 Woodridge Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Oseki:

This is in reply to your letter of April 10, l990, with respect to the use of the hazard warning system concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear. You enclosed two interpretations of the agency which appear to be conflicting, and you have asked for a clarification.

In our letter of June 16, l983, we informed Safety Alert Company that its flashing deceleration warning system could operate through any rear lighting system that Standard No. l08 allows to be used for signalling purposes, such as the turn signal or hazard warning system, provided that the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed. However, in our letter of December 8, 1986, we informed Flxible Corporation that their flashing deceleration warning system was unacceptable under Standard No. l08 because "simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3."

We do not believe that there is a conflict. The system described in the Safety Alert letter would utilize a vehicle's original lighting equipment that is intended to flash, and that the motoring public is accustomed to seeing flash. The system described in the Flxible letter, on the other hand, would employ a series of new lamps, not required by the standard but supplemental to the required lighting equipment, and whose presence and function would be unfamiliar to motorists following. Thus, that unfamiliar system, if flashing, could have a confusing effect, as we stated in our l986 letter.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:6/5/90

ID: 1984-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Terralab Engineers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas MacGregor Terralab Engineer 3585 Via Terra Salt Lake City, Utah 84115

Dear Mr. MacGregor:

The Administrator has asked me to respond to your letter of June 6, 1984, regarding the modification of fuel systems conforming to Standard No. 301, Fue1 System Integrity. You were concerned about the installation of motor vehicle accessories, such as cab and engine block heaters, which utilize fuel from the fuel system of the vehicles. You are concerned that if the installation of those accessories invalidates the manufacturer's certification as to Standard No. 301, the installer would have to do crash testing to verify the installed system conforms with the standard.

You requested the agency to set requirements for "interconnection systems" which would allow the accessories to be connected to the primary fuel line and the fuel tank and to permit the use of those interconnection systems in lieu of crash testing. We do not believe it is necessary to set requirements for "interconnection systems" since a person altering a fuel line or fuel tank can recertify the system without having to do a crash test.

I have enclosed an information sheet which provides a detailed discussion of the implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks and systems in vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Please note that Standard No. 301 does not require testing; it only requires that the vehicle meet the performance requirements that are specified. The test procedures do, however, state how the agency will test a vehicle to determine compliance. A vehicle alterer's legal responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that a vehicle it has altered does in fact comply with these performance requirements. An alterer can rely upon such things as engineering analyses and computer simulations, rather than crash testing, in making the determination that the vehicle meets the specified performance requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

6 June 1984 Diane Steed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

REQUEST FOR RULING

Dear Administrator Steed:

A problem which needs to be solved by a ruling by the Administration is that of interraction of two fuel systems in a single vehicle.

Specifically, motor vehicle accessories such as cab heaters and engine block heaters which utilize fuel from the fuel system of the vehicle are installed by manufacturers other than the vehicle manufacturer.

An example would be the installation of an engine block heater or a cab heater by an OEM who has purchased a chassis certified to MVSS301.

Even though the block or cab heater may be certified to 301, the insertion of a "T" in the fuel line, or the addition of a second dip tube into the gas tank, invalidates the vehicle manufacturer's 301 certification.

The expense of crash testing to 301 is extreme, and presents a serious burden to manufacturer, the heater manufacutrer of the OEM is difficult to determine.

We therefore request that the Administration determine allowable interconnection systems whereby the primary fuel line may be entered as a fuel source for accessories, and also an allowable method for entry into a fuel tank for a fuel line to such an accessory, and proper test procedures for the acceptability of such connections, and issue, based upon its findings, a ruling which would allow the use of conforming interconnections without the necessity of crash testing.

Sincerely,

Douglas MacGregor DMG:hm

ID: 77-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 28, 1977, letter asking whether it is legal to certify a school bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, if the bus is painted a color other than National School Bus Glossy Yellow.

The certification requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are found in Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567). This part requires that a manufacturer certify that the vehicle he manufactures complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381). No safety standard promulgated under the Act requires that school buses be painted school bus yellow. Therefore, failure of a manufacturer to produce a school bus of that color would not be a violation of the Act, and his certification of the bus compliance with motor vehicle safety standards would not be affected.

Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17, promulgated under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), controls the color of school buses. This standard requires that all vehicles operating as school buses be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow. Since this standard applies to the operation of school buses and not their construction, compliance with its requirements is not a prerequisite to motor vehicle safety standard certification.

ID: 18756.ztv

Mr. Hardy Huber
President
DiBlasi of America, Inc.
2633 Lantana Road, Suite 19
Lantana, FL 33462

Dear Mr. Huber

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1998, to the agency asking "whether mopeds are required to have a speedometer, and, if the answer is yes, does the speedometer [have] to be lighted."

The agency has not adopted the term "moped" in regulating two-wheeled motor vehicles. However, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less is called a "motor driven cycle," and we believe that this definition encompasses mopeds. The many Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "motorcycles" will also apply to "motor driven cycles" unless an exception is specifically made within the text of the standard.

However, this distinction is not important in terms of your questions. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays, does not require motorcycles of any sort to be equipped with a speedometer. However, if a manufacturer chooses to provide a speedometer, Standard No. 123 requires that it be illuminated whenever the headlamp is activated. It also requires that the speedometer be marked "m.p.h," increasing in a clockwise direction. The standard further requires that major graduations and numerals to appear at 10 mph intervals and minor graduations at 5 mph intervals.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:123
d/11/20/98

ID: nht90-3.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8-1-90 to T. Vincon from C. Zeitlow; (OCC 5067); also attached to photocopies of Federal Register (text omitted)

TEXT:

This in reply to your letter of August 1, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You ask for confirmation that "the hazard warning light should always over-ride the stop lamp" when they are "together on a vehicle." I am pleased to provide that confirmation. Under the relevant SAE materials on stop lamps that are incorporated by ref erence in Standard No. 108, when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. Because the hazard warning system operates through the turn sig nal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use.

You have also noted that in your version of Standard No. 108, no reference is made to SAE Standard J1395. It was not until May 15 of this year that Standard No. 108 was amended to incorporate SAE J1395 (with an effective date of December 1, 1990). I en close a copy of that amendment for your information.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: GF005203

Mr. Graham Wells, IV
Whites Tire & Rubber Company
PO Box 1469
Wilson, NC 27894

Dear Mr. Wells:

This is in response to your e-mail of August 2, 2004, in which you seek clarification of certain regulations pertaining to retreaded tires. Specifically, you ask what information is required on the sidewalls of retreaded tires for use on vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating greater than 10,000 pounds.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

There is no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. However, 49 CFR 574.5 does require each tire sold in the United States, including retreaded tires, to be labeled with Tire Identification Number (TIN) in order to facilitate a recall in the event of a defect. Under 574.5 (a) through (d), each TIN consists of (a) the manufacturers or retreaders identification code, (b) the tire size symbol, (c) optional tire type code, and (d) the date code; i.e. the week and year of manufacture.

With respect to maximum load and maximum pressure, no regulation requires retreaded tires (for vehicles other than passenger cars) to show this information.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:574
d.9/10/04

ID: nht72-6.28

DATE: 12/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Goldwater and Flynn

COPYEE: ROBERT F. STONE -- REGION II

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert F. Stone of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regional office has asked us to respond to the questions you raised in your telephone conversation with him on December 4.

As I understand it, your three questions are:

1. Has the Secretary established standards for vehicles in use?

2. What are Federal sanctions if the first purchaser of a domestically-manufactured motor vehicle removes safety equipment, and if he subsequently sells the vehicle lacking such equipment?

3. Is the answer to question 2 any different if the vehicle is a used one of foreign manufacture imported in full compliance with 19 CFR @ 12.80?

The answers provided you by Mr. Stone are essentially correct. No standards have been established for vehicles in use. The first purchaser of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale or any subsequent purchaser, may remove any item of Federally-mandated safety equipment on the motor vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's place of manufacture, and he may sell the vehicle as altered, without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

SINCERELY,