ID: nht87-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hiromi Hori

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 10, 1987

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hiromi Hori Manager, Certification Regulations Section Technical Department Ichikoh Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara-City Kanagawa Pref. 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Hori:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1987, with reference to a lamp that is used as both an identification lamp, and as a clearance lamp. Currently the lamp projects its amber beam forward as much of the remainder of the lens is painted black. You have asked if it is permissible to remove the black paint, as a result of which the lamp will emit light in other directions.

Standard No. 108 does not prohibit removal of the black paint. The lamp, of course, must meet the photometric requirements for a clearance lamp, or for an identification lamp if it is used as part of the three lamp array. We call your attention to paragr aph 3.4 of SAE Standards J592e, July 1972, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. It states that "The H-V axis of a clearance or identification lamp shall be taken as parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." The lamp depicted in your s ketch appears to conflict with this requirement. Further, if the lamp is mounted as shown in the sketch, it would appear that no light will be visible, except in that half of the pattern on the lens side of the lamp base.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

L62/01 January 12, 1987

Subject: Front identification lamp and front clearance lamp.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We would like to inquire about the front identification lamp and front clearance lamp.

The color of illumination from the above lamps is amber. which is stipulated in the FMVSS 108. table I "Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment".

Our devices are designed to illuminate amber light to the forward only as shown in the following page.

SECTION A-A

The back side of the lens is black painted as shade to prevent the illumination to the rearward.

Question:

Is it permissible to remove the black paint from the lens? (In this case, amber light is emitted to the rearward, too.)

We appreciate your effort in responding to our inquiry.

Best regards,

Hiromi Hori, manager Certifications Regulations Section Technical Department

CC.: Mr. F. Takata. manager of representative office in Washington

ID: 11303

Mr. Jim Young
Wheeled Coach
P.O. Box 677339
Orlando. FL 32867-7339

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 17, 1995, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as in relates to "customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting." You have described these options as:

"Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights. The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc. . .)"

As you clarified in a phone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on November 2, the "rear facing warning lights" are part of the ambulance lighting system which is not a system required by Standard No. 108. This option is permissible. Although there is no Federal legal requirement that governs the performance of ambulance warning systems, we recommend that the rear facing warning lights be red, the required color for stop lamps, inasmuch as the intent seems to be to provide an additional indication that the brakes have been applied.

"Brake Enhancer. Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning.

"Back -up alert strobes. Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear."

Optional equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have not indicated the color of the strobe lamps. If they are red or amber, they could cause confusion in the eyes of an observer when operated simultaneously with the steady burning white backup lamp. There is a lesser possibility of confusion if they cast a white light, as long as they do not mask the steady burning backup lamp. In that event, the strobes could be fitted to the ambulances.

"Taillight flashers. Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work if the rear doors on the ambulance are open."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires taillamps as well as stop lamps to be steady burning, under all circumstances.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/17/95

ID: nht95-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/27/94 LETTER FROM JOHN E. GETZ TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10462; P.567)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you somet imes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10-year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making th e trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ow nership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trail ers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Ins tead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute tr ailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10462-2

Mr. John E. Getz
Director, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, Ohio 45103

Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you sometimes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10- year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making the trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ownership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trailers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for

purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute trailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:3/2/95

ID: nht92-8.14

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Gerald A. Guertin

TO: Samuel Skinner -- Secretary of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Gerald A. Guertin (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to inquire as to the likely hood of a response to the attached letter which I wrote eight months ago. I am a school teacher and coach, and continue to wonder why vans are prohibited in Florida for the transport of school children. I am told that it has someting to do with safety.

The kindness of a reply from you would be appreciated.

Attachment

To: National Highway Traffic & Safety Assoc.

400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

July 26, 1991

Dear Folks:

I am a school teacher in FLorida. The purpose of this letter is request that you verify or modify what I believe to be the reasons we cannot use 9- to 15-passenger vans in the transport of school children.

Background:

a. Presently, 7-person rifle teams, 8-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, etc. are prohibited from van transport (as are all Florida school children), forcing them to be transported in gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school busses at a gas-consumption rate of 4 miles per gallon. These clubs have to raise their own gas money through fund raising. Naturally, we'd get more trips for the buck if we were travelling in more economical vans.

b. Lore has it that seven years ago a van tipped over in southern Florida, killing a cheerleader. Prior to that, we travelled in vnas. Apparently, van roof standards were not what they should be. Your office then came forward with the need for "acceptability of crash-worthy tests" for vans, but the cost of developing and performing such tests were placed on the MANUFACTURER. (Seems strange to me).

GMC, Ford, Chrysler, as van manufacturers, decIded that they were already selling enough vans to the private consumer sector, and didn't need the school van business - at least not enough to fund heretofore unneeded tests.

c. What is holding up progress, the, is not a determination that school vans are unsafe, but rather that there are no standards to say that they ARE safe.

Question:

Does that pretty well describe the status quo? I want to push for the return of school vans, but want to be sure of the background before I begin. Please write me an explanation of events to date so I may more accurately begin my quest. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Guertin 6800 Kitty Hawk Dr. Pensacola, FL 32506

ID: nht80-2.28

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Ruitenbeek:

This responds to your March 28, 1980, letter to this office in which you inquired about permissible markings on motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked whether you could insert language in addition to that specified in Standard No. 119 when labeling the load rating and inflation pressure on certain tire sizes. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119) specifies certain requirements which all motorcycle tires offered for sale in this country must meet. One of these provisions is the labeling requirement set forth in paragraph S6.5 of the standard. Subparagraph (d) of S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on the tire in the following words: "Max load lbs at psi cold." The language of the subsection is mandatory and does not permit any variations. Therefore, the insertion of the phrase "in USA and Canada," as you suggest, would mean the tire would not comply with the labeling requirement of Standard No. 119.

The reason for this strict wording requirement is to ensure that the information labeled on motorcycle tires conveys necessary safety information to the purchaser of the tire in a clear, straightforward manner that is uniform with all motorcycle tires. Adding language which suggests that the maximum load of a tire depends on the country in which the tire is being used could confuse the user of the tire. Further, it suggests that the printed maximum load is not really the maximum. Either of these results frustrates the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Continental Products Corporation

March 28, 1980

Mr. Steve Kratzke U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Nat'l. Hwy. Traffic Safety, Rm 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

On three of our motorcycle tire sizes we plan to have the following inscription on the sidewall:

450H(V)17: Max Load in USA and Canada 835 lbs at 42 PSI Cold

120/90H(V)18: Max Load in USA and Canada 805 lbs at 42 PSI Cold

MT90S16: Max Load in USA and Canada 960 lbs at 42 PSI Cold

The underlined part will all be on one line on the sidewall of the tire. Besides the above information, all the other required DOT information will, of course, appear on the tire.

What sets these apart from our other sizes is the notation that this load is in USA and Canada.

We would appreciate it if you could let us know latest 4/11/80 whether or not your department has any objections.

Very truly yours,

Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President

AVR/sms

ID: nht90-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: GARY R. BALANZA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-11-89 TO NHTSA FROM GARY R. BALANZA ATTACHED.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation whether your invention "will interfere with the standard equipment" required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret the delay in responding.

Your invention, "Pinlights", is described as an auxiliary lighting system designed to fit an automobile's side contours. Its purpose is to light up the entire length of a vehicle, so that it will be more conspicuous at night. We note your uncertainty a s to "number of stripes allowed on Bcar", "colors allowed on a car", and "maximum brightness allowable."

There are two ways to approach your invention under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, our authority for the issuance of the motor vehicle lighting standard, Standard No. 108. The first is as an item of original equipment, in place on th e vehicle at the time it is bought by its first owner. You have asked the correct question: does the invention impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108? The equipment most likely to be impaired are the side marke r lamps and reflectors. These items are located near the front and rear of the vehicle, to enhance vehicle conspicuity by affording an approximation of vehicle length, and an indication of the vehicle's front and rear. The lamps are amber to the front, and red to the rear. Your invention would be located along the side of the vehicle, from front to rear. This suggests that the color of your device should similarly be amber to the front and red to the rear, so as not to impair the effectiveness of th e directional function of the side marker lamps.

The second way to approach your invention is as an item available in the aftermarket. Standard No. 108 does not apply to a vehicle in use. However, as it applies to your question, the vehicle Safety Act prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distribu tors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the required lighting equipment. In most cases, we consider an impairment of new vehicle equipment to be equivalent to a partial inoperability. Fu rther, if installation of aftermarket equipment directly affects the performance of original equipment (such as a reduction of light output through an interference with the wiring), that would certainly be considered a partial inoperability.

Lighting equipment that is not covered by Standard No. 108 remains subject to the requirements of each State in which a vehicle on which it is installed is registered and/or operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for an o pinion, you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: 2397y

Mr. Gary R. Balanza
P.O. Box 88112
Honolulu, HI 96830

Dear Mr. Balanza:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation whether your invention "will interfere with the standard equipment" required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. I regret the delay in responding.

Your invention, "Pinlights", is described as an auxiliary lighting system designed to fit an automobile's side contours. Its purpose is to light up the entire length of a vehicle, so that it will be more conspicuous at night. We note your uncertainty as to "number of stripes allowed on a car", "colors allowed on a car", and "maximum brightness allowable."

There are two ways to approach your invention under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, our authority for the issuance of the motor vehicle lighting standard, Standard No. l08. The first is as an item of original equipment, in place on the vehicle at the time it is bought by its first owner. You have asked the correct question: does the invention impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08? The equipment most likely to be impaired are the side marker lamps and reflectors. These items are located near the front and rear of the vehicle, to enhance vehicle conspicuity by affording an approximation of vehicle length, and an indication of the vehicle's front and rear. The lamps are amber to the front, and red to the rear. Your invention would be located along the side of the vehicle, from front to rear. This suggests that the color of your device should similarly be amber to the front and red to the rear, so as not to impair the effectiveness of the directional function of the side marker lamps.

The second way to approach your invention is as an item available in the aftermarket. Standard No. l08 does not apply to a vehicle in use. However, as it applies to your question, the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the required lighting equipment. In most cases, we consider an impairment of new vehicle equipment to be equivalent to a partial inoperability. Further, if installation of aftermarket equipment directly affects the performance of original equipment (such as a reduction of light output through an interference with the wiring), that would certainly be considered a partial inoperability.

Lighting equipment that is not covered by Standard No. l08 remains subject to the requirements of each State in which a vehicle on which it is installed is registered and/or operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for an opinion, you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:VSA#l08 d:4/9/90

ID: nht76-1.29

DATE: 12/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 1, 1976, letter to Mark Schwimmer of my staff, concerning the marking "V1" on passenger car tires.

The marking "V1" is not required by any Federal statute, motor vehicle safety standard, or other regulation to appear on the sidewall of passenger car tires. Furthermore, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides in pertinent part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard establshed under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, prohibits any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements for passenger car tires other than those contained in that standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements, including the "V1" that you have mentioned, are thus preempted and void.

SINCERELY,

NOVEMBER 1, 1976

Mark Schwimmer N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel

The marking V1 on passenger car tires, as you know, signifies compliance to the "minimum performance requirements and uniform test procedures for new tires for passenger cars and station wagons" issued by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission on May 14, 1965 and later revised on October 11, 1965 and September 17, 1966.

To my knowledge no further revisions have been made, because the FMVSS 109 went into effect as of January 1, 1968. I assume, therefore, that the marking V1 should be applied only on the tires listed in the tables 1 - 6 of the regulation as follows: Table 1 - Domestic bias tires of the following series: Low Section (ex. 6.50-14) 4 & 8 P.R.

Super Balloon (ex. 6.70-15) 4 & 8 P.R.

Super Low Section (ex. 6.95-14) 4 & 8 P.R.

Table 2 - 70 Series, alpha numeric bias construction (ex. E 70-14) Table 3 - Domestic radial millimetric series from cross section Table 4 - European bias tires of the following series: Table 5 - European bias tires of the millimetric series (ex.

Table 6 - European radial tires of the millimetric series up to the cross section 155 (ex. 145 R 13) version A (32 psi)

I would like to know if the above is correct and therefore the marking V1 is no longer requested on the tires not included in this list.

If the requirements do not apply to every state in the United States, please notify me.

Thank you in advance for your reply on this matter.

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

Galileo Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

ID: nht90-4.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1990

FROM: Fred Ciampi -- Fred's Welding Service

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from P.J. Rice to F. Ciampi (A37; Part 571)

TEXT:

I own and operate a small welding shop in southern West Virginia and recently asked for and received information pertaining to the manufacture of utility trailers.

Not being a lawyer, literary professor, or physic, nor being able to afford hiring one, I am unable to interpret the information I received.

I am asking for your help. I need to know what is needed with regard to lighting requirements, brakes, length, width, and any other requirements pertaining to trailers only. I don't need any information relevant to the manufacture of automobiles, truck s, or any other motor driven vehicle, foreign or domestic. (I have already sent for VIN information from SAE.)

I also would like to have this information written in such a way that is easily understood by someone such as myself.

This information would not only be of great benefit to me but potentially to the economy of this depressed region. I have the possibility of manufacturing a great number of trailers, both commercially and for the general public.

Any help that you can provide me with will be greatly appreciated.