ID: nht89-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: DAVID S. HUGHES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAVID S. HUGHES; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones

In speaking to Mr. August Bergett, I was instructed to write to you concerning a lighting fixture I would like to put on the rear of my Tractor Trailer.

The fixture is an open faced box with measurements of 31 x 5 x 2 inches in size, and is made of 21 gage steel. The face is a separate piece made of plastic and is dark tint in color. This plastic face will have lettering on it, and will illuminate when the inside of the box is lit up. The lettering will spell "THANK YOU" or "THANKS DRIVER" as a courtesy message to passed motorist whom have motioned me to return to the right lane of traffic whether by turning on or off their headlights or slowing down etc. Most truck drivers when passing one another will turn on and off a regulated taillight, clearance light, identification, or hazard light to get this message across. This light is simply expressing a short message of thanks rather than turning on and off a regulated light.

It is designed to light up from a toggle switch which would be installed in the cab of the truck. All electrical wiring, connections and components would be consistent with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, as would be the red lettering on t he face which will be the only illuminated part of the box. The box would be mounted on the rear of the trailer between the safety bar under the floor of the trailer. It could also be mounted directly behind the mud flaps. Either location for mounting would be out of the way of any regulated light.

There is also a possibility of selling the box. If so, I need to know the parameters to follow, as far as the NHTSA is concerned, and the liability factor to me that a light like this would have if sold to another. I suppose what I am asking for in thi s letter is some sort of proof of acceptance or approval, or simply an acknowledgment of the box, its design, and purpose etc.

Thank you for your time and efforts, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-2.20

DATE: 05/13/74

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

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 12, 1974, question whether a permanently attached steerable axle on a trailer is required (1) to meet the S5.3.2 stopping distance requirement with no uncontrolled lockup of any wheel above 10 mi/h, and (2) to meet the parking brake requirements for trailer converter dollies or for all other vehicles.

The answer to your first question is yes. The steerable axle(s) of any trailer must meet the stopping distance requirements of S5.3.2 with no uncontrolled lockup of wheels above 10 mi/h.

In answer to your second question, the permanently attached steerable axle you describe is not a separate vehicle which would qualify as a trailer converter dolly. Therefore the axle is simply part of a trailer which must meet the parking brake requirements of either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. Neither of these options specifies that there be parking brakes on steerable axles, although in satisfaction of S5.6.2 (grade holding), the manufacturer could utilize parking brakes on the steerable axle.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 12, 1974

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

Dear Sir:

We manufacture a complete line of semi-trailers. Among these is a doubles grain trailer setup. In this doubles grain setup the lead trailer is a 24 foot, single axle semi-trailer which connects to the truck-tractor by means of a standard kingpin. The second trailer is a two axle, four wheel type of trailer, 21 foot long, which is connected to the lead trailer by means of a pintle hook-lunette eye attachment. The front axle on the second trailer is part of a dolly, which is steerable, and is permanently attached to the trailer by means of a bolted 360 degrees turntable.

Our question is one of interpretation. Is the front axle dolly a "converter dolly" in the sense that it would be exempt from having "antilock" and spring brakes as outlined in S5.8 of standard 121? Or is it to be classed so that it will require anti-lock and spring brakes? Your expeditious answer as to interpretation is appreciated.

Sincerely, Al Zajic -- Project Engineer, AMERICAN TRAILERS, INC.

Encl:

(Graphics omitted)

LEAD TRAILER

SECOND TRAILER

PERMANENT 360 DEGREES TURNTABLE

ID: 1983-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 10, 1983, letter asking whether the requirement for audible alarms at school bus emergency doors applies only to emergency exit doors or to both doors and emergency exit windows.

Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states specifically that the alarms shall be installed for emergency exit doors. There is no similar requirements for alarms at emergency window exits. Accordingly, alarm devices need be provided for emergency doors only.

SINCERELY, TRUCK BODY & EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION

March 10, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attn: Roger Tilton

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This will confirm our telephone conversation of March 10th regarding FMVSS 217. One of TBEA's members would like a written interpretation of whether or not buses (not school buses) with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds require an audible alarm system for emergency exits, in this case push out windows so designated, other than doors.

The confusion is caused by S5.2.1 of FMVSS-217 which states in part -- "by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". S5.3 specifically requires the audible alarm for emergency doors only. The standard clearly and consistantly delinates between emergency doors and emergency exits.

Is it reasonable to assume that on buses (not school) with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds that the audible warning system applies only to emergency doors and does not apply to emergency exits?

Your kind assistance in this matter will be appreciated.

James E. Forrester Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht74-1.37

DATE: 06/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawerence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Western Scooter Distributor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1974, advising that the State of Virginia refuses to register the Ciao Moped "because there is no high beam."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, through its incorporation of SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, allows motorcycles of 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with either one single beam or one multiple beam headlamp. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits a State from having requirements that differ from Federal ones where the same aspect of vehicle performance is concerned. Therefore, a State law or regulation under which a motor driven cycle is barred solely because it is equipped with a single beam headlamp would be preempted and void, by Federal law.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 14, 1974

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Our firm imports Piaggio motor vehicle products for distribution through the United States. We are currently importing the Vespa Motorscooters and the Ciao Mopeds.

We have recently encountered problems on registration in the State of Virginia concerning the Ciao Moped. The only area in question concerns the headlight. The State of Virginia has refused to register these vehicles because there is no high beam.

It is our interpretation of Standard 108 that "motor driven cycles" do not require a high beam on their headlights.

We request clarification on this matter.

Very truly yours,

R. H. Remensperger -- President, WESTERN SCOOTER DISTRIBUTORS

ID: nht94-6.25

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Russ Fuller; Everett Fuller; Cliff Cook

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John Womack To Fred Benford (A42; Std. 211)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womac:

The Chief Counsel of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association (SEMA) reviewed all regulations covering wheel covers and suggested that we contact Mr. Truman Vincent. We explained our situation to Mr. Vincent who in turn, suggested that we address our request to your attention.

We are a manufacturer of Aluminum Wheel Covers. They are a standard type and do not have any protrusions (e.g., spinners, etc.). With the assistance of the Chief Counsel at SEMA, the current regulations were reviewed and it was determined that our Aluminum Wheel Covers are similar in design to the Steel and ABS plastic type and are not covered by any regulations, except for # 211 which prohibits protruding objects such as spinners, etc. Our wheel covers do not have any protruding objects.

At the current time, we are the only manufacturers of Aluminum Wheel Covers. Because they are made of a different material from the current steel and ABS models, a major retailer has asked us to confirm that aluminum, like the ABS and Steel wheel covers, do not violate any federal safety standards. Considering information from our SEMA counsel, and Mr. Truman Vincent, we do indeed not violate any federal safety standards. However, the major retailer (and possibly others) has requested a confirmation in writing from the Department of Transportation. We would appreciate a statement from you with wording to this effect to present to the retailer.

Thank you for your assistance. We would appreciate hearing from you quickly. If desired, you may fax your response to the phone listed below.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John W. Kourik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, incorporates by reference the SAE Recommended Practice J941 as of November 1965 or as amended through February 1975.

As you note in your letter, Part 571.5 (49 CFR 571.5) of our regulations establishes guidelines for materials incorporated by reference. That section states that materials which are subject to change, such as the SAE Recommended Practice you mention, are incorporated by reference as they are in effect on the date of adoption of the standard unless otherwise specified. Standard No. 107 refers specifically to the 1965 version of the SAE Recommended Practice. Subsequent amendments of that document by the SAE Technical Committee have no effect upon the Federal standard.

Thank you for your offer of assistance in amending Standard No. 107 to reflect more recent changes in the SAE Recommended Practice. We will keep your offer in mind should we determine that a change in the standard is warranted.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Roper Tilden

We discovered a typographical mistake on the second line of the original March 24, 1977 letter mailed to the Office of the Chief Counsel and would appreciate your substituting this attached copy for the original if it doesn't create any delay in processing the request for interpretation.

John W. Kourik

March 24, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would appreciate a statement of interpretation concerning the use of SAE Recommended Practice J941, November 1965 in S571.107 Standard No. 107; Reflecting Surfaces.

Standard No. 107 was promulgated on February 3, 1967 [32 FR 2411] and in accordance with "S571.5 material incorporated by reference" the November 1965 J941 material was designated therin. Since that time the basic SAE 1941 document has been revised as follows: J941a August 1967 J941b February 1969 J941b June 1972 J941d February 1975

In the current Title 49 - Transportation Code of Federal Regulations, Standard No. 107 still identifies the reference as SAE J941, November 1965.

Is it a correct interpretation that the NHTSA is referencing only J941 November 1965 and does not intend J941a or any subsequent revisions to be applicable unless the Standard No. 107 reference is changed by appropriate rulemaking action and final publication of a notice in the Federal Register?

If there is an interest in exploring the rationale for the four (4) revisions to SAE J941, I would be glad to establish a contact with the appropriate SAE Technical Committee.

John W. Kourik

ID: 86-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lewis Quetel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 7, 1986 Mr. Lewis Quetel PMI Inc. 1391 Wright Blvd. Schaumburg, IL 60193 Dear Mr. Quetel: This is in response to your telephone call on October 22, 1985, to Robert Nelson of this agency asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to sell. The product, which you call a "Kumfi-Klip" safety belt comfort device, consists of a plastic device which attached to the upper torso belt anchorage. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt. As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards. Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 152-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review. The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use your product to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the belt. The instructions you provide with the "Kumfi-Klip" do warn users not to introduce excessive slack, but the instructions provide no information to guide a user on what is an excessive amount of slack. We encourage you to provide more detailed guidance. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1982-2.16

DATE: 06/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grebe; Gross; Jensen & Peek; P.C. -- J. Mack Shively

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Grebe, Gross, Jensen & Peek, P.C. 1530 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205

This is in response to your letter of May 11, requesting our views as to the applicability of vehicle identification number requirements and certification label requirements to a semi-trailer to be manufactured by Cranston Diversified Industries. This trailer would have three interchangeable sections.

You are correct in your interpretation of the manner in which our requirements would be applied to the trailers in question. Only one vehicle identification number and one certification label are required. Affixing the label to the left side of the front section would be consistent with our regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel

RE: Manufacturer Identification Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc.

Dear Sirs:

My client, Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc., is currently negotiating with the patent holder to construct a semi-trailer which can be converted from a "flat" to a "drop center" trailer configuration. The design utilizes interchangeable front, rear, and center sections.

I have concluded that pursuant to 49 C.F.R ampersand 571.155, Standard No. 115, S4.1, each vehicle manufactured requires only one vehicle identification number. I have also concluded that the label to be attached to each trailer should be affixed to the left side of the front section (the hitch structure) and that only one label is required pursuant to 49 C.F.R. ampersand 567.4(d).

Please advise me as to whether my interpretation of your Regulations is correct. I have enclosed a copy of the Letters Patent of the United States issued for the trailer which include a detailed description of its structure.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

J. Mack Shively JMS:vs Enclosures cc: Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc.

ID: nht74-4.23

DATE: 08/12/74

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

TO: The Weatherland Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1974, request to modify the hose labeling provisions of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, to permit DOT labeling of 1/8-inch O.D. nylon tubing.

To the best of our knowledge 1/8-inch O.D. tubing is not used as brake hose as it is defined by the standard:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The tubing is used for pressure gauge lines and in two-speed differentials, but is apparently not used to transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. As it is not considered to be brake hose under the standard, it should not be labeled with the DOT symbol.

Aside from this prohibition on the use of the DOT symbol, you are free to label 1/8-inch O.D. nylon tubing as you choose.

The Weatherhead Company

July 10, 1974

Ref. MUE: 468

Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Air Brake Hose Labeling 571.106

The Weatherhead Company manufactures nylon air brake tubing (hose) covered by FMVSS 571.106 (effective September 1, 1974). The DOT labeling requirements for this product specified in the safety standard calls for at least 1/8 inch high letters. One of the common sizes of tubing (hose) (1'8 inch outside diameter) used in truck air brake systems does not have adequate outside surface area to accomodate 1/8 inch high lettering.

A specific exemption of this label requirement is requested to allow The Weatherhead Company to DOT label nylon air brake tubing (hose) of 1/8 inch outside diameter with letters smaller than 1/8 inch high.

Since this standard becomes effective September 1, 1974 for manufacturers of hose and because a lead time is necessary to obtain new DOT labeling equipment, a prompt reply to this request would be greatly appreciated.

JOHN H. MUELLER

Manager - Engineering

Standards & Specifications

ENCL.-SAMPLE

ID: nht87-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Assistant General Counsel Fruehauf Corporation, Law Department 10900 Harper Avenue P.O. Box 238 Detroit, MI 18232

Dear Mr. Bourbeau:

This letter responds to your earlier inquiry where you ask whether NHTSA would object to your Company's changing "its model year designation from September 1 to July 1." I apologize for the delay in responding.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs vehicle manufacturers to place a discrete identifying number (VIN) on each vehicle. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN- Content Requirements, states that a VIN must include a character indi cating the manufacturer's designated model year. Neither Standard 115 nor Part 565 prohibits your company from changing the model year in the manner you-suggest. Therefore, such a change does not violate our-regulations.

We note that this change apparently concerns model year as a marketing concept. The Federal Trade Commission has published guidelines concerning model year as a commercial concept, and you may wish to contact the Commission for whatever assistance it may provide. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590 ATTEN:Ms. Joan Tillman

Dear Ms. Jones & Ms. Tillman:

As indicated in my telephone conversation with Joan Tillman on April 29, 1987, Fruehauf Corporation desires to change its model year designation from September 1 to July 1.

This change means that a trailer manufactured by Fruehauf on or after July 1, 1987 would be considered a 1988 model trailer. Thereafter, each successive model year would begin July 1.

This proposed change would in no way effect the Fruehauf Vehicle Identification Numbering scheme currently used and on file with your office.

Would you please respond, by way of a letter, indicating that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to this change.

Your prompt reply would greatly be appreciated.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Lawrence C. Bourbeau,Jr. Assistant General Counsel