ID: 86-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: S.H. Jacobs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. S. H. Jacobs Product Manager Robert Bosch Corporation P.O. Box 4601 North Suburban, IL 60198

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

This responds to your letter dated December 6, 1985, inquiring whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to spark plugs. regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act), this agency has the authority to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and their equipment. At this time, none of these standards is applicable to spark plugs.

You should note that under Part B of the Act and our regulations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as spark plugs, have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects in their products. I have enclosed an information sheet outlining our defect and other regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590

December 6, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

As per our letter dated October 9, 1985, it is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations governing the sale of spark plugs (copy attached). However, we require a written reply from your department confirming the non-existence of any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Our customer requires a written confirmation as soon as possible. Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely, Attachment

S.H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: ASD - L. Milligan

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590 October 9, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

The Robert Bosch Corporation sells spark plugs through K-Mart stores across the country. One of the conditions for this sale is that our product conforms in all respects with all applicable federal, state and local laws, orders and regulations, including but not limited to those regarding occupational safety and health".

After conversations with various DOT and NHTSA personnel, It is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations covering the sale of spark plugs.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter from K-Mart requesting such documentation for your review.

We request a written reply confirming the non-existence of any DOT/ NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

S. H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: AMA J. Crowley ASD L. Milligan

ID: nht87-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/87

FROM: BERTHA HAMMER -- PRINCIPAL ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL

TO: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD, DATED 5/16/89, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 4/3/89 FROM THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD OF AGAPE PLASTICS TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL ON FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARD NO 108 - HEATED SAFETY LIGHTS FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN WINTER WEATHER; LETTER FROM GLENN M. MAKI, DATED 1/28/87 TO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; LETTER FROM KENNETH R. HAMMERBERG, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, UNDATED; LETTER DATED 3/2/88 FROM RO NALD R. MITCHELL SUPERINTENDANT, MORAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS TO VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT LENS CO; BROCHURE, UNDATED, OF VAN STRATEN COMPANY ON HEATED SAFETY LIGHT

TEXT: THE ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL HAS RECENTLY PURCHASED THE NEW VANSTRATEN HEATED TAILLIGHTS FOR THEIR BUSES. THE BUS DRIVERS AND MECHANIC ARE VERY PLEASED WITH THE PRODUCT. WITH OUR LAST SNOWSTORM THE TAILLIGHTS REMAINED SNOW FREE AND VISIBLE TO OTHER TRAFFI C.

WE FEEL THE HEATED TAILLIGHTS ARE AN IMPORTANT SAFETY FACTOR FOR OUR STUDENTS AND DRIVERS.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht92-8.19

DATE: March 24, 1992

FROM: George F. Reuss -- Reuss Engineers, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rule Making, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to George F. Reuss (A39; VSA 102 (3))

TEXT:

Reuss Engineers Has received a patent for a propietary vehicle to pick up and transport autombiles. We have produced a practical prototype and are ready to produce commercial models for sale. We are interested in knowing which specific regulations and standards apply.

The complete vehicle consists of a purchased chassis with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. Between the cab and the rear wheels is inserted a structural frame including moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath an automobiles' tires. The forks are raised, carrying the automobile with them, and retracted into the frame work. The vehicle containing the automobile is driven to any destination and the proceedure reversed.

Enclosed are 2 pages of the patent giving a pictorial representation.

We appreciate any help and guidance. Thank yo for your prompt attention.

Attachment

Copy of patent number 5,067,869, dated 11/26/91. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Roger W. Bruett -- Chief; Signed by Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Carol I. Morton (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It has come to our attention, new headlamps are being installed on BMWs, 750 models. These lamps are called XENON and are "Hella SSB 352 (lower beam) and Hella SSB 328 (upper beam) with replaceable bulb headlamp with glass lens and plastic reflector.

This office received a complaint from a BMW Dealership indicating an owner of one of these vehicles is being continually stopped by law enforcement because of these headlamps. The reason for concern from the officers, is the intensity of the light beam from these lamps is much whiter and appears to be stronger.

We would like to know if these headlamps are legal for use on motor vehicles. A report was sent to us stating they meet all the requirements of the FMVSS 108. This report was generated by ETL Testing Laboratory in New York.

I would appreciate your response on this subject as soon as possible.

ID: nht94-7.22

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Roger W. Bruett -- Chief; Signed by Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Carol I. Morton (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It has come to our attention, new headlamps are being installed on BMWs, 750 models. These lamps are called XENON and are "Hella SSB 352 (lower beam) and Hella SSB 328 (upper beam) with replaceable bulb headlamp with glass lens and plastic reflector.

This office received a complaint from a BMW Dealership indicating an owner of one of these vehicles is being continually stopped by law enforcement because of these headlamps. The reason for concern from the officers, is the intensity of the light beam from these lamps is much whiter and appears to be stronger.

We would like to know if these headlamps are legal for use on motor vehicles. A report was sent to us stating they meet all the requirements of the FMVSS 108. This report was generated by ETL Testing Laboratory in New York.

I would appreciate your response on this subject as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-3.41

DATE: May 10, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH, BOSCH Reutlingen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to rapifax/fax dated 3-5-93 from Margaret Schmock von Ohr to Tylor Vinson

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of May 3, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors.

Under Standard No. 108, the front side marker reflex reflector must be amber in color. You have asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted.

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J594f REFLEX REFLECTORS, January 1977. Neither J594f nor the text of Standard No. 108 itself prohibit an amber painted reflex reflector lens. As with any item of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108, its manufacturer must ensure that the product as manufactured has been designed to comply with applicable Federal requirements. Thus, the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f.

ID: nht95-4.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1995

FROM: Terence J. Kann

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Terence J. Kann (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am writing to you concerning Standard No. 108, which amended 49 CFR Part 571 to require application of retro-reflective sheeting or reflex reflectors to provide for greater conspicuity of the sides and rear of trailers. I have the following question. Section S3, Application (a) provides that the standard applies to ". . . trailers (except pole trailers) . . .". Section S5.7 provides that "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with GVWR over 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after 12/1/ 93, except a trailer designed exclusively for living or office use, shall be equipped with either retro-reflective sheeting . . . reflex reflectors . . . or a combination . . .".

My question is, are pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, required to have retro-reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination? If not, did the NHTSA issue any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole t railers? If yes, could you please provide a copy?

Thank you for your assistance. Please don't hesitate to call or write if you have any questions or comments regarding the above.

ID: nht95-7.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1995

FROM: Terence J. Kann

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Terence J. Kann (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am writing to you concerning Standard No. 108, which amended 49 CFR Part 571 to require application of retro-reflective sheeting or reflex reflectors to provide for greater conspicuity of the sides and rear of trailers. I have the following question. Section S3, Application (a) provides that the standard applies to ". . . trailers (except pole trailers) . . .". Section S5.7 provides that "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with GVWR over 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after 12/1/93, except a trailer designed exclusively for living or office use, shall be equipped with either retro-reflective sheeting . . . reflex reflectors . . . or a combination . . .".

My question is, are pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, required to have retro-reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination? If not, did the NHTSA issue any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole trailers? If yes, could you please provide a copy?

Thank you for your assistance. Please don't hesitate to call or write if you have any questions or comments regarding the above.

ID: nht79-1.44

DATE: 04/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Leyland Cars

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978, letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.

You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.

You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those item. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.

SINCERELY,

Engineering and Product Planning Division

British Leyland UK Limited

The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

JULY 17, 1978 Dear Madam,

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS FMVSS 101-80

B.L.Cars Ltd., manufacturers of Jaguar, Triumph, Rover, M.G., Austin and Morris passenger cars and Land Rover and Range Rover M.P.V.'s petitions for reconsideration of FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays under CFR 553.35.

We wish to adopt common specifications to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and EEC Directive 78/316 for the identification of controls and displays, and we find this is not possible with the two Regulations as currently written. We therefore request that FMVSS 101-80 be amended in the following respects to enable common specifications to be arrived at.

1. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by substituting for symbol shown in the line titled "Headlamps and Tail lamps" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/111-1975 for Master Lighting Switch, namely

if Separate Switch (Illegible Words)

Alternatively add the ISO symbol as an option.

2. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Manual Choke" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/11-1975 for Choke.

3. Amend Table 2, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Brake System" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/DAD 2 for Brake Failure.

These three amendments would be a step towards the accomplishment of the objective of the Notice published on 21st October, 1976 to identify these controls and displays with specified symbols which

(Graphics omitted) are internationally standardised. It is anticipated that the Brake System symbol will be adopted by ISO before the effective date of FMVSS 101-80; it has already been adopted by EEC and is under consideration by ECE.

An additional advantage would be to remove the anomaly present in FMVSS 101-80 which specifies the same symbol for two different functions namely Headlamps and Tail lamps control and High Beam telltale.

The preamble to FMVSS 101-80 says that some existing ISO symbols are not included in the final rule due to the fact that additional data are needed on their recognisability. The symbols we have requested to be adopted were produced by ISO in working parties in which representatives from the U.S.A. were engaged and these were the symbols which were considered by these working parties to be the most suitable for the purpose. We believe that there is now no better way to obtain universal recognition of these symbols than their adoption on vehicles in use in the U.S.A. and the rest of the world.

We request that this Petition be given urgent consideration because we have to act quickly to achieve the requirements by the effective date.

(Graphics omitted)

C. J. Goode Chief Engineer Vehicle Safety.

ID: GF005899

Ms. Robin C. DesCamp
Blount International, Inc.
PO Box 22127
Portland , OR 97269-2127

Dear Ms. DesCamp:

            This responds to your August 26, 2004, letter and subsequent e-mail to George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether various items manufactured by your company for logging purposes would be classified as “motor vehicles” and subject to the agency’s early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (set forth in 49 CFR Part 579) or to our vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements (49 CFR Part 565).  As explained below, based on the information you provided, we do not consider the items to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. Thus, the EWR and VIN requirements do not apply.

           Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines “motor vehicle” as:

“[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.”

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, the information you have provided describes specialized cranes and loaders made for delimbing and loading logs. Although the cranes are equipped with wheels, the pictures and the description of the logging cranes indicate that they are intended to remain at a single location for prolonged periods of time. Your letter confirms that these cranes are moved only infrequently between logging sites.

Based on this information, it appears that the logging cranes are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the logging cranes described in your letter are not “motor vehicles.” Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including those of the EWR and VIN programs. 

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.11/5/04