ID: 2844o

Oral Interpretation of Standard No. l08:
Optical Combination

Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

Interpretations Files

Recently a lamp manufacturer phoned to ask whether a replacement lighting device it had developed for installation on trucks and trailers in use would be allowable under Standard No. l08.

The lamp as described is an amber-lensed wrap-around lamp incorporating a clearance lamp to the front and a marker lamp to the side, with one bulb for each function. I replied that the prohibition in S4.4. applicable to clearance lamps forbade their combination only with identification lamps and stop lamps, and that if his combination lamp met photometric and mounting requirements applicable to each function, it appeared to be permissible under Standard No. l08.

# ref:108 d:4/6/88

ID: 20690.ztv

Mr. Darrell R. Young
Sr. Partner
Learn Technology!
8967 Estebury Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80920

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your email of September 16, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to strobe lighting on motorcycles. You "propose to enable the owners of motorcycles to install strobelights on their motorcycle that can be lit by pressing a button on the handlebar." The operator would use the light as needed to alert drivers of other vehicles to his or her presence.

Your research indicates that we would consider the use of the lights to be legal if they were installed by the owner of the vehicle and "the application does not deter or impact the original intent and use any of the required lighting already in place on the vehicle, i.e., headlights, brake lights, turn signals as it relates to Standard #108." You have asked for assistance in the interpretation in your request.

I enclose a letter of this Office, dated March 25, 1996, to Cybernet Services Incorp. which is relevant to your concern. You will see that a strobe light is impermissible as original vehicle equipment because it is not one of the lamps that Standard No. 108 permits to flash. When a strobe light is sold in the aftermarket, its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 because the addition of a non-steady burning lamp creates a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, the statutory prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, while it is not quite correct to say that we would consider the use of the lights to be "legal" if they were installed by the owner of the vehicle, it is correct to say that installation of strobe lights by the vehicle owner does not violate Federal law. However, as the 1996 letter indicates, use of strobe lights is subject to local laws.

If you have any questions you may email Taylor Vinson again.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: 2414y

Ms Margaret Schmock
Dept K2/ELE2
Robert Bosch GmbH
Postfach 42
7410 Reutlingen
W. Germany

Dear Ms Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, l990, with respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, 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. l08 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. l08 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

ref:l08 d:4/25/90

ID: nht95-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Don Bearden -- Director, Governmental Affairs, Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM DON BEARDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bearden:

This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1995, in which you state that Subaru of America, Inc. is considering the use of an optional rear bumper-mounted spare tire carrier on a future vehicle, and request this office to confirm your understanding th at the tire and carrier are to be removed before the vehicle is tested for compliance with the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581.

Your letter states that this equipment "would be mounted to the bumper beam and face bar." As your letter notes, bumper test conditions at 49 CFR 581.6(a)(5) specify that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are remo ved from the vehicle if they are optional equipment." In light of this requirement, if the spare tire carrier your letter describes is only to be offered as optional equipment, it would have to be removed before the vehicle is tested for compliance with the Bumper Standard.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5263.

ID: 17497.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
FAX 9-011-49-7121-35-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your fax of March 12, 1998, commenting on our letter to you of March 10 with respect to the visual/optical headlamp aiming provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In response to your question, our letter advised that it would not be permissible to install on new vehicles a mixed headlighting system in which a headlamp on one side of the vehicle would have a VHAD for vertical aim and on the opposite side a visually aimable headlamp. We also advised that the VHAD appeared to allow for vertical aim only and did not include a horizontal aiming feature. You comment that it was not the intent to have a headlamp with only a vertical VHAD but "to replace the vertical VHAD (bubble level) by means which allow optical/visual aim and to leave the horizontal VHAD as it is." We understand from your remark that both headlamps would have a horizontal VHAD and that one would have a vertical VHAD as well while the other would substitute for the vertical VHAD a means allowing optical/visual aim. This clarification, then, moots our previous comment.

You have also commented that "mixed installation should only be permitted in the case of replacement of a damaged headlamp as indicated in my FAX of 1/14/98," and asked whether our advice that the headlamps on both sides of a new vehicle have to be identical "really only applicable for new vehicles."

We do not seem to have received your FAX of January 14, 1998, in which you indicated that your question pertained to replacement headlamps rather than original equipment. While the prohibition against mixed headlamp aiming systems that was the subject of the March 10 interpretation applies only to new vehicles, the agency is concerned that the ability to correctly aim all headlamps on a vehicle could be lost as a result of certain mixes of replacement headlamps. Accordingly, the agency expects to propose shortly rulemaking that will address this issue.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98

ID: 11281

Mr. B`rje Kukka
Humalistonkatu 5
00250 Helsinki
FINLAND

Dear Mr. Kukka:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether NHTSA's statutes and regulations would apply to a process you intend to market, in which two horizontal parallel grooves are etched into the lower portion of motor vehicle windshields. The groves apparently facilitate windshield cleaning by scraping water and debris off the windshield wipers as the wipers pass over the grooves. You provided a videotape on the process and a portion of a windshield etched with the grooves.

I am enclosing two interpretation letters, one dated March 1, 1985 and another dated October 28, 1988, both addressed to Mr. Andrew P. Kallman of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Kallman asked NHTSA's opinion of a process that is very similar to your process. The letters explain how NHTSA's regulations would apply if your process were used on new vehicles or windshields and on windshields of a used vehicle.

Please also note, NHTSA has no authority to "approve" or certify your process. If you understood any previous correspondence from agency personnnel to mean that NHTSA approves of your product, has endorsed it in any manner, or has made commendations about it (e.g., it "can improve a driver's ability to drive safely"), that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion.

State laws may affect operations that you conduct in that State. If you decide to do business in a particular State, you should seek legal advice on requirements for conducting your type of business in that State, including requirements the State may have for persons modifying windshields or for vehicles with modified windshields.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions concerning NHTSA's legal authority, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366- 3820. I am, under separate cover, returning your videotape and windshield portion.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:104#205 d:11/13/95

ID: nht87-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: SEBASTIAN MESSINA -- NJ DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION CHIEF MOTOR CARRIER INSPECTIONS & INVESTIGATIONS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K. BROCK. TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217; OCC 1009

TEXT: Dear Mr. Messina,

I am writing regarding the 25 passenger Diamond VIP bus sold by Mr. Fred Sarlo of Wolfington Body Company. It was brought to our attention that we had not provided adequate emergency escapes per F.M.V.S.S. Code #217.

It was our pleasure to speak to your inspector, Mr. Vince LaBosio, yesterday via the telephone. He requested that I follow up our conversation with this letter to your attention.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the F.M.V.S.S. Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door as an emergency side exit. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why it is unacceptable to use this as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have, in the past, considered th e driver's window, which is 20"x20" clear opening or 400 square inches, as an additional side emergency exit. Again, it is our desire to meet the F.M.V.S.S. requirements, as well as, your own New Jersey requirements.

Please respond as soon as possible, in as much as, the customer has a very limited amount of time left on the 60 day extension permit that you extended to him. It is our desire to correct this problem prior to that permit expiring. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht74-2.24

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of S5.3.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. That section permits certain vehicles to avoid the stopping distance requirement if their brakes conform to a retardation formula and values found in another section of the standard (S5.4.1).

The language of S5.3.1.2 makes clear that any truck in the described category need not meet the stopping distance requirements if its brakes satisfy the retardation formula and values of S5.4.1, and therefore none of the exceptions found in S5.4.1 apply to vehicles subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.2.

This interpretation also appears in the preamble to Notice 2 of Docket No. 73-10, and is enclosed for your information.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation of Standard 121, Docket 74-10; Notice 2, Section 5.3.1.2

Dear Dr. Gregory:

The amended standard, Section @ 5.3.1.2 states that a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1975, that has a front steerable axle with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more, or a front steerable drive axle, need not meet the stopping distance requirement if its brakes conform to the retardation formula and values of @ 5.4.1 applied to the vehicle as a whole and to the front axle system separately.

However, Section @ 5.4.1 as now amended, applies only to "each vehicle designed to be towed by another vehicle equipped with air brakes" and, therefore, there are no retardation requirements applicable to either a towing vehicle or to a vehicle which is used by itself. Under the circumstances, it would appear that such vehicles would not be required to meet any specific retardation requirements.

We request an interpretation of the applicability of @ 5.4.1 to these special classes of vehicles for the interim period where no stopping distance requirements are in effect.

Sincerely, WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION; J. W. Lawrence -- Manager Safety and Environmental Engineering

ID: 8088

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "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." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce ref:109#119#571#574 d:2/11/93

ID: nht78-1.19

DATE: 03/29/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms the discussion held among you, Mr. Roger Tilton, Mr. Guy Hunter, and Mr. Martin Paliokas on February 14, 1978, concerning the applicability of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, and Standard No. 113, Hood Latch Systems, to your vehicles.

In your first question, you asked whether the joint connecting a piece of metal that is attached to a body pillar and which is covered by the exterior body panels is a joint regulated by Standard No. 221. The standard regulates a "body panel joint" which is defined as "the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, . . . ." "Body panel" is defined as "a body component. . .used to enclose the bus' occupant space." The piece of metal to which you refer becomes a part of the pillar and serves no purpose in enclosing occupant space. Therefore, the joint connecting these two body members is not a body panel joint and is not subject to the standard.

In your second question, you ask whether a hood latch system can utilize two pin-type latches, one on each side of the hood, to comply with Standard No. 113. The standard specifically permits the use of two hood latch systems. The use of these two distinct pins would appear to comply with the requirements.