ID: nht90-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JACK RADEMACHER -- CHIEF ENGINEER, POLAR TANK TRAILER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 5-8-90 TO S. P. WOOD FROM J. RADEMACHER; (OCC 4776)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, asking for reconsideration of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 108.

We assume you mean our letter of January 9, 1990, to Howard Kossover of Oklahoma City. That interpretation stated that if rear lamps on a semi-trailer were mounted 27 inches forward of the rear edge of the vehicle, they were not mounted "on the rear", t he location specified by Standard No. 108. We also observed that compliance with the 45-degree visibility requirements in that location appeared questionable. You say that it has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TT MA) and its members that "if the 45 degree visibility requirement of these lights were met 'on the rear' of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard." You inform us that the liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by this interpretation because of reasons of practicality unique to tank transports. On these vehicles, you state that the rear lamps have been "mounted as far as 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper", but that, in this loca tion, they "still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements." You therefore ask for reconsideration of the interpretation if the 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

The lamps in your letter (and Mr. Kossover's) are stop, turn signal, and tail lamps. Only the tail lamps are presence lamps. The stop lamps and turn signal lamps operate independently of the headlamps. That is to say, they are intended for use at all times and not just at night or under other conditions of reduced visibility. They indicate actions taken by the vehicle operator to signal his operational intentions to other drivers and pedestrians. Problems with depth perception of following drivers could result if the lamps are not mounted "on the rear" as the standard requires. We are willing to interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, which may not extend as far rearward as the bulk tank container, provided the vi sibility requirements are met, but we conclude that a mounting location for stop and turn signal lamps that is 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper is not "on the rear" as the standard requires.

ID: 2623y

Mr. Jack Rademacher
Chief Engineer
Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.
12810 County Road 17
Holdingford, MN 56340

Dear Mr. Rademacher:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, l990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, asking for reconsideration of a recent interpretation of Standard No. l08.

We assume you mean our letter of January 9, 1990, to Howard Kossover of Oklahoma City. That interpretation stated that if rear lamps on a semi-trailer were mounted 27 inches forward of the rear edge of the vehicle, they were not mounted "on the rear", the location specified by Standard No. l08. We also observed that compliance with the 45-degree visibility requirements in that location appeared questionable. You say that it has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and its members that "if the 45 degree visibility requirement of these lights were met 'on the rear' of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard." You inform us that the liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by this interpretation because of reasons of practicality unique to tank transports. On these vehicles, you state that the rear lamps have been "mounted as far as 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper", but that, in this location, they "still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements." You therefore ask for reconsideration of the interpretation if the 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

The lamps in your letter (and Mr. Kossover's) are stop, turn signal, and taillamps. Only the taillamps are presence lamps. The stop lamps and turn signal lamps operate independently of the headlamps. That is to say, they are intended for use at all times and not just at night or under other conditions of reduced visibility. They indicate actions taken by the vehicle operator to signal his operational intentions to other drivers and pedestrians. Problems with depth perception of following drivers could result if the lamps are not mounted "on the rear" as the standard requires. We are willing to interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, which may not extend as far rearward as the bulk tank container, provided the visibility requirements are met, but we conclude that a mounting location for stop and turn signal lamps that is 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper is not "on the rear" as the standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: Weight_preemption_000160-3

Mr. David Hirsch
International Ecological Systems, Inc.
24599 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite B201
Malibu, CA 90265




Dear Mr. Hirsch:

This responds to your letter in which you asked what impact a proposed amendment to the Federal definition of low speed vehicle (LSV) would have on a State definition if the Federal proposal were published as a final rule. Your question is addressed below.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low speed vehicles, to ensure LSVs are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, except a truck, whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but less than 25 mph (49 CFR 571.3(b)). On December 8, 2003, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the definition of LSV, in part to limit the class to small vehicles (68 FR 68319). We proposed to limit the class of LSV to vehicles whose gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds). That proposal has not been published as a final rule.

In your letter you noted that California has a definition of LSV that limits the class to vehicles that have "an unladen weight of 1,800 pounds or less[. ]"CA Vehicle Code 385.5. You also noted that under California State law, an LSV operated or parked on a public roadway must comply with FMVSS No. 500. See, CA Vehicle Code 21253. You then asked what impact the proposed amendment to the Federal definition of LSV would have on the California law, if the proposed amendment were published as a final rule.

We note that if we issued our proposed amendment as a final rule, there would be an inconsistency in the definition of "low speed vehicle" between the California statute and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under the California statute, the weight limitation aspect of the definition of LSV would be dependent on the unladen weight of the vehicle, while under Federal law it would be dependent on GVWR. This would create the possibility of vehicles being considered different types of vehicles under State and Federal law.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. Different motor vehicle safety standards apply depending on how a vehicle is classified, i.e. , its vehicle type. If a State law classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an issue under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) the State classification results in the vehicle being subject to a State standard applicable to the same aspect of performance regulated by a FMVSS, and (2) the State standard is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance the State safety standard would be preempted.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.3/17/05

ID: GF000333

Mr. Joe Isaac
Production Group Leader
Duncan Manufacturing
100 E. Halliburton Blvd.
Duncan, OK 73533




Dear Mr. Isaac:

This responds to your January 10, 2005, e-mail regarding certification issues pertaining to certain trailers.

In your e-mail to Jeff Woods, you explained that your company purchases trailers that are already equipped with lights, brakes, tires, and rims. You indicated to us that the trailers are not certified, but come equipped with "incomplete vehicle documents" or "IVDs" that usually specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), and tire information. Your company installs engines, transmissions, pumps, and driveshaft components in order for these trailers to perform oilfield services. You ask whether the trailers being purchased by your company are considered "completed vehicles" pursuant to 49 CFR 568.3, and whether the modifications performed by your company constitute "addition of readily detachable components".

Briefly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations vehicle certification regulations state that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle need not re-certify the vehicle, if the alterations are limited to addition, substitution, or removal or readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting (see 49 CFR 567.6). Because the trailers purchased by your company are not certified when you receive them for the purpose of performing further modifications, the provisions of 567.6 would not apply to you. Instead, under Part 568.3, you are considered the final stage manufacturer of these trailers, and you are required to certify that these vehicles meet the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our answers to your specific question follow.

The trailer modifications performed by your company do not constitute the addition of "readily attachable components". As specified in 567. 6, components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies are considered "readily attachable components". Other similar changes, including minor finishing operations or painting, that do not affect the vehicles stated weight rating would not require re-certification of the vehicle. In the present case, however, you permanently attach onto each trailer a sizeable quantity of work-performing equipment. Based on the information provided in your e-mails and the attached photograph, the trailers stated weight rating is affected by these modifications. Thus, the modifications performed by your company do not constitute the addition of "readily detachable components", even if the trailers purchased by your company were certified when you received them.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:568
d.3/16/05

ID: 10948

Mr. John C. Golden
Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical
Federal Mogul Corporation
P.O. Box 1966
Detroit, MI 48235

Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices...take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously- certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in

FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

bcc: Mr. Larry Minor Office of Motor Carrier Research & Standards FHWA, Rm. 3107

ref:vsa(a)(2)(A)#125 d:10/16/95

ID: 8069

Mr. Shafi J. Keisler
President
One More Run, Inc.
3657 Wildwood Road
Maryville, TN 37804

Dear Mr. Keisler:

This responds to your letter of November 24, 1992, with respect to the manufacture of a replacement taillamp lens for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger. You ask for "all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens", and inform us that you "will use only "current DOT and SAE safety approved material to build this item."

As Taylor Vinson explained to you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment was amended effective January 1, 1972, to apply to replacement lighting equipment for motor vehicles manufactured on and after that date (the standard had previously applied only to original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after January 1, 1969). This means that replacement taillamps designed specificially for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger have never been covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 does require that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, with certain exceptions. Although this could be construed as requiring compliance of plastics used in any replacement taillamp lens, we do not interpret this as mandating compliance of plastic materials for a lens in a replacement lamp that is itself not subject to Standard No. 108. However, S5.1.2 is the Federal requirement that you would be obliged to meet were you manufacturing new or replacement taillamp lenses for contemporary motor vehicles. I enclose a copy of S5.1.2 and J576c for your information.

We appreciate your desire to meet current safety requirements. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.12/16/92

ID: nht91-7.23

DATE: November 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael H. Dunn -- Micho Industries

TITLE: RE: R-Bar Occupant Restraint System

TEXT: This is in response to your letter dated November 3, 1991 to Mr. Charles L. Gauthier updating him on your progress with the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System. The materials that you enclosed with the letter include articles from The Scranton Times and Santa Barbara News-Press. The Scranton Times article states that the Department of Transportation has "evaluated and approved" the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System. The Santa Barbara News-Press article states that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "has gone on record that these devices meet or exceed all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards." Additionally, it has been reported to us that Micho Industries is making similar oral representations to potential customers.

All of these representations are incorrect. Neither the Department of Transportation nor the NHTSA has approved the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System. The NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. Furthermore, to state that the R-Bar meets or exceeds all applicable standards is grossly misleading when there are, in fact, no standards directly applicable to this device.

Therefore, I must insist that you immediately refrain from representing that NHTSA approves the R-Bar Occupant Restraint System, that it meets applicable Federal standards, or that NHTSA has gone on record as stating that it meets any standards. Should you continue such representations NHTSA will have no other choice but to bring the appropriate legal action against you.

ID: nht90-3.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Oscar W. Harrell, Jr. -- Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Facilities Management, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Human Services, Department of Mental Retardation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from George C. Shifflett to Oscar W. Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9-4-86 from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster; Also attached to letter dated 11-26-79 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 1-4-91 from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 49 CFR Chapter V (10-1-89 Edition) Part 567 (text omitted.)

TEXT:

During the past year I have had various contacts with Mr. George C. Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, Office of Vehicle Safety about our concerns for the safety of our residents and staff accompanying them in the vehicles. The vendor who sold the vehicles to the state has converted the vehicles to accommodate the needs of the residents. When contacted last year the vendor stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with state and federal regulations.

While Mr. Shifflett and I have communicated about this at different times and I have received copies of two letters sent to persons addressing similar concerns, I have not received any regulations or rules answering our concerns as outlined and presented to Mr. Shifflett. Therefore, since we are committed to insuring the safety and welfare of our residents and staff, your interpretation of the aforementioned process and its applicability to us will be greatly appreciated.

I would like to take this opportunity in advance to thank you for your attention to this important matter.

ID: nht75-5.40

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Helen Ginley

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter asking whether the odometer disclosure statement which you enclosed has been properly completed.

49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, which was promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under the authority of section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513), prescribes the content and proper procedure for executing mileage disclosure statements at the time vehicles are transferred from one owner to another.

The form of the statement provided to you by Tommy Barrett, Inc. appears in compliance with the provisions of Part 580. The person who completed the statement, however, failed to disclose the vehicle's last plate number. In order to meet the requirements of section 408 of the Cost Savings Act and Part 580, this information must be disclosed in writing to the vehicle purchaser. Although the transferor's address was not correctly filled in, the form has been stamped with what appears to be an appropriate address.

Failure to fulfill the requirements of the Cost Savings Act may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater.

Since the license number may have been inadvertently omitted, I would suggest that you contact Mr. Barrett and inform him of the deficiency in the statement he provided you. You will probably want him to add the information that is currently missing.

For your information, I have enclosed copies of the relevant portions of the Act and regulation.

SINCERELY,

PREVIOUS OWNER'S -- ODOMETER MILEAGE STATEMENT

(Federal regulations require you to state the odometr mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to 109 (a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.) (Odometers may not be disconnected, reset or altered.)

Date: (Illegible Word) 21 1974

I, Tommy (Illegible Words), certify that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below on Nov 21 1974 was 58922 miles, and I further certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the odometer was not disconnected, reset or altered.

(Check the following statement, if applicable)

[] I further certify that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading, for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown to the undersigned. MAKE BODY YEAR MODEL (Illeg.) TYPE (Illeg.) 1968 (Illeg.) VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER LAST PLATE NUMBER H82398H112672 Transferor's address 8706 (Illeg.) Transferor's Signature (Illeg.)

Attached please find copy of my odometer reading which I don't believe is correctly completed - The (Illegible Word) address is my address - not Michael Barrett also last license plate number is omitted. I don't know if this is in violations of the act but would like to find out.

Mrs Helen Ginley 8706 ORCHARD AVE. BROOKLYN, OHIO 44144

ID: 11519DRN

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1350 New York Avenue, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about NHTSA's March 14, 1995 final rule (60 FR 13639) converting English measurements in selected Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the metric system.

Your letter indicates that you believe that the March 1994 final rule's changes apply to all the standards and to Part 567, Certification. This impression is not correct. The final rule applies only to the standards specified in the final rule, not to all of NHTSA's regulations. In the future, NHTSA will undertake rulemaking to complete metrication of the standards and will provide guidance for metric conversion of the remaining standards at that time.

Your first question was: "Does this final rule in any way result in a requirement that the part 567 label have dual metric English measurements? Do current regulations allow dual measurements even if they are not yet required?"

Our answer is that the March 1995 final rule made no changes to Part 567 and dual measurements are not required on the label. If metrication is not specified for a particular safety standard or other NHTSA regulation, the manufacturer may voluntarily provide metric measurements. However, when a final rule specifying metric measurements for a NHTSA regulation is promulgated, measurements (metric or English) for that regulation must be provided in accordance with the final rule.

Your second question was: "Does the final rule require that metric measurements be listed first with the corresponding English measurement listed second?"

For the standards that were amended in the final rule, i.e., Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; and Standard No. 126, Truck-camper loading, the metric measurements must be listed first. The requirement does not apply to other standards.

Your third question was: "What metric and English abbreviations are acceptable to NHTSA? Should the abbreviations be in the plural or singular form? Should any acceptable abbreviations be in all capital letters?" You ask about conversions made by the rule in Standard No. 126, and abbreviations used in Standard No. 120's ATruck Example@ label.

The conversions (and abbreviations) made in Standards Nos. 126 and 120 apply only to the respective standards and are not generally applicable to all the standards. In the March 1995 final rule, NHTSA made the following comment concerning Standard No. 126:

[T]here should be no ambiguity in the metric units of measurement on labels that provide safety information to consumers. If unfamiliar terms are spelled out instead of abbreviated, there is less ambiguity and confusion. Thus, NHTSA is ... specifying the units of measurement as "Liters" and "cubic meters," as proposed, rather than the abbreviations "L" and "M3." (See 60 FR at 13644).

The required use of "liters" and "cubic meters" applies only to Standard No. 126 and is not applicable to other standards.

As for the Truck Example label in S5.3 of Standard No. 120, the words "kilograms" and "pounds" should be spelled out, whereas AkiloPascals@ is abbreviated as "kPa" and Aper square inch@ is abbreviated as "psi." This requirement applies only to the Standard No. 120 label and is not applicable to other standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Harley Holt Director, Automotive Standards Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 1896 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 22090 ref:571 d:3/13/96