ID: nht80-2.30

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1980, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Section S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section specifies requirements affecting school bus signal lamps "when the bus entrance door is opened." Blue Bird is designing an additional entrance door for its buses and you interpret S4.1.4 as requiring the same operational characteristics for the new door.

We confirm your interpretation that "entrance door" means any entrance door on the school bus. Obviously the purpose of the requirement is not achieved if it is restricted to the traditional entrance door on the right front side of the bus and excludes any other entrance door.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

April 14, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of designing an entrance door that will be located behind the driver on the left side of school buses. This entrance door will be in addition to the normal right front entrance door and will operate independently.

FMVSS 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motor-cycles, Section S4.1.4 requires school buses to be equipped with signal lamps that, in addition to other requirements:

"The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

From this statement, we interpret "entrance door" to mean any and all entrance doors. In the case described above, we interpret the standard as requiring the same operational characteristics of both the normal right front entrance door and the new left side entrance with regard to activation and deactivation of signal lamps. This letter seeks confirmation of this interpretation. Your early response will be apprecated.

Thank you!

Thomas D. Turner Supervisor Engineering Services Department

c: WILBUR RUMPH; JIM MOORMAN; BILL PIERCE

ID: nht93-4.20

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: David L. Degenstein -- Manager, Product Safety & Compliance, Kenworth Truck Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/7/93 from John Womack to David Degenstein (A41; Std. 101)

TEXT:

Kenworth Truck Company, a manufacturer of heavy duty Class 7 and 8 trucks and truck tractors, respectfully submits the following request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.

FMVSS 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. One of the vehicle controls regulated by this standard is the automatic vehicle speed system, or cruise control.

Kenworth is in the process of developing a new product that will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob (see the attached photographs). One switch in the console will control the SET and RESUME functions of the cruise control, and the other switches will control the engine brake. The switches are operable by the driver, and the identification is visible to the driver in accordance with S5.1 of Standard No. 101; therefore, Kenworth believes this location to be in compliance. For your information, the switch which controls the ON and OFF function of the cruise control will remain located on the dash panel. Of course, while operating, the cruise control can be disengaged by depressing the brake, or clutch pedal.

Illumination requirements for control identifications are specified in S5.3, and listed in Table 1(a), column 4, of Standard No. 101. Accordingly, Automatic - Vehicle Speed control (cruise control) is listed on Table 1(a) and accompanied by the word "yes" under column 4, indicating illumination is required whenever the headlights are activated. Exception to the illumination requirement is allowed provided the control is mounted to the floor, floor console, or steering column.

Kenworth requests an interpretation regarding the applicability of the illumination requirement to a transmission shift lever mounted cruise control switch. Kenworth believes this cruise control switch location is similar, relative to driver's accessibility and visibility of the control, to an automobile switch located on a floor console, and therefore, illumination should not be necessary or required.

Please confirm that our proposed location for a cruise control switch does not require illumination, and that the location complies with FMVSS No. 101.

We look forward to hearing from you concerning our request. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need additional information, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

(Attached photos and drawing omitted.)

ID: nht73-5.24

DATE: 09/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John Holzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 7, 1973, requesting information concerning possible regulatory action involving plastic or gas filters.

Although we have no regulation concerning gasoline filters, the law under which our regulations are promulgated requires that where possible, our standards be based on performance rather than design requirements. This gives the automotive manufacturers maximum flexibility in conforming with the requirements and provides freedom to select whatever design he prefers in order to meet the requirements of the standard.

Our current fuel system requirements are contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes and Fuel Tank Connections, which was effective January 1, 1968. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information. We have recently issued an amendment to the standard and a proposed amendment which are intended to substantially upgrade fuel systems of motor vehicles between September 1, 1975 and September 1, 1977. Copies of these rulemaking actions are enclosed for your information (38 F.R. 22397 and 22417).

Motor vehicle manufacturers are free to choose the components and designs which they consider most appropriate to their performance requirements. It is quite possible that certain components cannot be used as original equipment because of periodic regulatory actions; for example, a manufacturer may consider a glass fuel filter hazardous when he is attempting the preservation of fuel system integrity incidental to a 30 mile-per-hour, fixed barrier collision.

We would suggest that contact be made with the automotive manufacturers and original equipment manufacturers for a more complete answer to your question.

If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

September 7, 1973

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Secretary,

I would like to know if your department has or will propose any motor vehicle safety standards in the area of plastic or glass gas filters.

I am a distributor of these products and I have heard they will be outlawed or restricted in use in 1974. My name and address are,

John Holzer 217-18 64th Ave. Bayside, New York 11364 Sincerely yours,

John Holzer

ID: 1982-2.24

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

JULY 26, 1982

Mr. William Croix Technical Maintenance, Manager Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. G.P.O. Box 71306 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936

Dear Mr. Croix:

This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency.

You have asked about Federal requirements for lighting of portable containers secured to flat bed trailers. As those containers are the cargo of the trailers and not an integral part of them, the Federal lighting requirements (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) apply only to the trailer. However, the individual States in which the trailers are operated may impose their own lighting requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

PUERTO RICO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC. SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00936

July 9, 1982

Department of Transportation Mr. Elliogt, Safety Standard Eng.

400-7th. Street South West, Room #5307 Routing NRM-11 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Elliogt:

I refer to our telephone conversation on July 7, 1982, in which my question pertained to lighting on the chassis of a container and chassis comnbination.

In transit our containers are secured to the cahssis for safety purposes. My prime question is are we in conformance with the lighting regulation set forth by your department with proper lighting on the chassis only, when the container is secured to the chassis.

Per your request I put in writing the substance of our conversation. Your response to this subject will be appreciated.

Cordially yours,

Mr. William Croix Technical Maintenance Manager

WC/umc

c: SAN JUAN - A. Colon, Executive J. Dillon, Corp. Maint.

W. Smith, Corp. Maint.

ID: GF004887

Mr. Palmer Robeson
1832 Birch Road
McLean, VA 22101

Dear Mr. Robeson:

This is in response to your e-mail of June 14, 2004, and subsequent phone conversations with George Feygin of my staff regarding a "tire traction device" you have invented. You also provided a CD-ROM with additional information on the device and its intended use. You ask whether your invention is subject to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and other regulations. In short, there are no FMVSSs applicable to your device.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, 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.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B) defines motor vehicle equipment as:

"any component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle;"

According to your letter, the tire traction device is akin to "snow chains" that are attached to wheels in order to provide better traction. This device attaches to wheels in a similar fashion and is designed for the same purpose. Your traction device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B), because it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle.

There are no FMVSSs applicable to the traction device described in your letter. Nevertheless, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer of your device or NHTSA determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please be advised that some states regulate the use of snow chains and similar equipment. You may wish to contact appropriate state authorities to ascertain state regulations pertaining to your device.

Enclosed please find an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 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

Enclosure
ref:110
d.8/30/04

ID: nht76-4.33

DATE: 05/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Free Enterprise Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 12, 1976, request for a listing of Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacturer of a fiberglass hardtop for installation on a Jeep. I am assuming that this top is an aftermarket item and is not incorporated by the Jeep Corporation as the vehicle roof of its product.

The only Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to this item of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205. Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including a vehicle top such as you describe. Any glazing material used in the construction of your Jeep top must be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 205, even though the top itself does not have to be certified. Generally, the prime glazing manufacturer or the glazing fabricator certifies the glazing, so your main concern as manufacturer of the Jeep top is to make certain that you use glazing that has been certified as being in compliance with the standard. If you obtain sheets of glazing from a prime glazing manufacturer and fabricate or mold the glazing yourself, you must mark and certify the glazing as specified in paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your information.

Enclosure

ATTACH.

March 12, 1976

Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Fiberglass Jeep Top - Safety Requirements

Dear Chief Council:

Our company is presently preparing to mass produce and market a fiberglass hardtop for Jeep Model CJ-5. The top will include five windows, three of which open, two side doors, and one rear lift-up door.

Before we market any tops or commit ourselves irretrievably to a particular form, we need to find out what safety regulations might apply to our product. Therefore, please send us a listing of what requirements for general construction and materials (reinforcement, glass, crash tests, etc.) would apply. In particular, what do the regulations have to say about "suicide" doors (or, doors hinged at the back).

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Paula J. Redford (Mrs.) -- Manager, Free Enterprise Company

ID: 22556.ztv

Mr. Gary L. Johnson, Sr.
Trintex Corporation
P.O. Box 309
Bowdon, GA 30108-0309





Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 2000, (apparently mailed later, as we did not receive it until January 8, 2001). You ask for a legal interpretation regarding your "Safety Light Cord," an example of which arrived shortly after your letter.

As you describe it, "the light cord attached to a battery activates four-way flashers" on trailers. When installed, "the cord will allow the emergency four-way flashers to blink to improve the visibility of disabled trailers." The cord apparently also can be used to provide power to trailer lighting systems in the event there is a disruption in the electrical connection between tractors and trailers.

Under our regulations, the Safety Light Cord is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," but there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to it. This means that its manufacture and use are subject to any standards that may apply to it in any state in which it is sold or used, rather than it being subject to any Federal standards.

We are puzzled by your remark that the Cord activates "the emergency four-way flashers." On motor vehicles other than trailers and motorcycles, the front and rear turn signal lamps activated simultaneously by a vehicular hazard warning system operating unit comprise the hazard warning system required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment." However, Standard No. 108 does not require trailers to have either front turn signal lamps or a hazard warning system operating unit. We believe you mean to tell us that the Cord activates both rear turn signal lamps simultaneously in a flashing mode.

You also mentioned that "all the assembly parts . . . are already D.O.T. approved parts." We do not know what you mean by this statement. The Department of Transportation neither approves nor disapproves parts. Please understand that, even though we have informed you that none of our standards apply to the Safety Light Cord, Trintex may not represent that the Cord is "D.O.T. approved;" you must not use this expression in any manner in connection with this product.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson with whom you have talked previously (202-366-5263). We are returning the sample Cord under separate cover.

We appreciate your efforts to enhance the conspicuity of disabled trailers.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/21/01

ID: nht91-3.51

DATE: May 14, 1991

FROM: Norman H. Dankert

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Norman H. Dankert (A37; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of law. We have a newly issued patent # 4,922,225 that relates to the high-mounted stoplamp. The device covered by this patent offers several different operations for this light. In question here is the one dealing with the input from the service brakes to the high-mounted stoplamp.

Our device never activates the stoplamp directly. A sensor that responds to the movement of the accelerator pedal serves to maintain the activation initiated by the brake pedal until the accelerator pedal is depressed, regardless of any speed. This effect removes the error in the present method of signaling.

The present stoplamp sends three messages: (1) when the lamp is activated during normal driving conditions, the vehicle is impeding the flow of traffic. (2) when the lamp is activated on a steep decline, the driver is braking to controll his speed. This control could impede traffic flow. (3) when the lamp is off, the vehicle has joined the flow of traffic.

The discrepancy in the present signaling system occurs when the lamp if off. When the lamp is off, the driver is not always joining the flow of traffic. This discrepancy is no hazard if the following driver has good visibility and is following at the proper number of car lengths. However, on the expressways where drivers seldom follow at the proper number of car lengths, as soon as the lamp goes off the drivers may accelerate. This is why in Chicago, 56% of automobile accidents were rear-end collisions, 72% of which happened on dry pavement, and 62% on clear days.

Our system, with its sensors and circuitry, serves to enhance the existing signaling system to the degree necessary to eliminate error. It in no way inhibits or changes the meaning of the present 3rd brake light. It changes no circuitry; and if it becomes inoperative, it reverts back to the 3rd brake light system.

It appears that this manner of operation conforms to the wording of the regulation governing the high-mounted stoplamp. In # 571.108, S4.5.4, it states: "The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

ID: 18398.wkm

Mr. W. Randolph Schlegel
MEGA Corporation
700 Osuna Road, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87113-1037

Dear Mr. Schlegel:

This responds to your letter faxed to this office on September 17, 1998, to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the stand tank that your company produces would be excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You enclosed with your letter pictures and a drawing of the water tank in question. It can be described as a large, portable, tubular-shaped tank trailer that is raised on its platform when in use and lowered for transport. You stated that the tank is used by contractors on off-highway construction sites and stays at the site for the duration of the job, which could be a few days or some years. You stated that you feel that you "are in compliance with the 49 CFR Chapter V Section 571.121(f) as our stand tank has an unloaded vehicle weight which is 100 percent of its GVWR." We assume that you are referring to paragraph S5.3(f) of Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121). If so, you are correct.

Paragraph S5.3(f) of Standard No. 121 excludes from the requirements of the standard "any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating], . . ." Accordingly, since your standing water tank is filled only when being used at its work site and is completely emptied before being transported to any other location, it would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 by virtue of paragraph S5.3(f).

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.12/21/98

ID: nht92-2.14

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. LESLIE DOBSON -- OWNER, MCKINNEY VEHICLE SERVICES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-27-92 FROM J. LESLIE DOBSON TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7923); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3-19-91 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO JERRY TASSAN (PART 567); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7-1-92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO GENE FOUTS

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 27, 1992, in which you asked how your company would go about lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) assigned to some "Bobtail" trucks. Your letter explained that your company is a truck rental company that owns about 50 Bobtail trucks with a GVWR of approximately 28,000 pounds each. According to your letter, your company's rental business has decreased dramatically since the State of California's requirement for a commercial driver's license to operate vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 pounds took effect. You would now like to lower the GVWR of your trucks to 26,000 pounds so that the trucks would no longer be subject to the commercial driver's licensing requirements.

In a March 19, 1991, letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, the owner of a truck rental company in San Francisco, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the vehicle's original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. In a July 1, 1992, letter to Mr. Gene Fouts, I explained that modifications to an assigned GVWR should be made only when the manufacturer had made an error regarding the originally assigned GVWR, not for reasons related to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. I have enclosed copies of both these letters for your information. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any way whereby your leasing company could lower the GVWR assigned to your Bobtail trucks.

If you have any further questions about the subject of GVWR, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.