ID: nht75-5.3

DATE: 08/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Orscheln Lever Sales Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 10, 1975, in which you request a copy of the proposed rule dealing with tilt cab vehicle latch systems (Docket No. 69-27), which was referred to this office by the Docket Section.

Notice 1 of Docket 69-27 was published as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on October 22, 1969 (34 FR 17115). On January 25, 1972, a notice was published suspending rulemaking on 69-27 and providing that no regulation would be issued without additional notice and opportunity for comment (37 FR 1120). There has been no further action taken on tilt cab vehicle latch systems since that date.

If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1975

Docket Section Federal Highway Administration

Re: 49 CFR Part 371; Docket No. 69-27 Tilt Cab Vehicle Latch Systems; Trucks

In a recent publication referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the notation appeared advising that on the date of August 1, 1971, proposed issue date of rules was to be effective.

As I commented for our company on Notice 1 of this document January 9, 1970, we have been anticipating a copy of the proposed rule.

This copy has not been received. Please advise if the date has been set back or if this document has been published, please forward a copy.

ORSCHELN LEVER SALES COMPANY

E. Cooper Lipshield, Manager Research and Development

ID: 15302.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1997, to Samuel J. Dubbin, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You ask for a "reconsideration" of his interpretation letter to you of July 29, 1996.

That letter informed you that we saw no conflict between California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requiring clearance lamps to be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front and rear of the vehicle, and paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 providing that clearance lamps located other than on the front and rear need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard. In our opinion, S5.3.1.1.1 did not relieve clearance lamps of the requirement that they be visible and meet minimum photometric requirements "directly to the rear" and at 45 degrees outboard.

You disagree with this interpretation, commenting that "perhaps one could see at least one of the so-called Clearance lights 'to the rear' if one were in the left or right lane directly adjacent to the lane" in which the vehicle carrying the clearance lamps were traveling. We do not think that our interpretation was mistaken. It remains our belief that a clearance lamp located other than on the rear of a vehicle, such as on a fender, but which is visible directly to the rear, will be visible without reference to an adjacent lane, and will be visible from 50 to 500 feet directly to the rear of the vehicle as specified by CVC Sec. 25100(e). The issue of whether a particular manufacturer may have violated the standard by recessing its clearance lamps on the side of a vehicle so that they are not visible and do not meet applicable photometric requirements from the rear is a different issue, and does not call into question our prior interpretations.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/17/97

ID: nht79-2.49

DATE: 01/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: SAE Lighting Committee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1978, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The standard was recently amended to establish a ceiling of 60 inches from the roadway surface for the mounting height of rear side marker lamps. You have asked whether it is permissible to mount an additional side marker lamp at the upper rear corner of a trailer whose overall height exceeds 60 inches.

The answer is yes. Such a supplemental lamp would not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, within the meaning of the prohibition of S4.1.3 that you mentioned.

SINCERELY,

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

December 18, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Attn: Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Docket No. MC-66-1; Amendment No. 77-8

Gentlemen:

The DOT/FHWA/BMCS recently announced a new rulemaking notice which required that large semi-trailers and full trailers have their rear side marker lamps located at a height between 15 inches and 60 inches above the road surface. This is the so-called tracking light to enable drivers to have better visibility of the rear section of the trailer in bad weather.

The specific question raised here is whether or not trailer manufacturers and users can continue to mount a side marker lamp at the upper rear corners of the trailers on the sides of the vehicles in addition to the newly required device at the lower mounting dimensions just described above.

Past precedent would indicate that having an additional, optional side marker lamp at the top rear corners would certainly not, in any way, interfere with the required lighting. However, we are getting inquiries as to whether or not this is permissable and I would like your confirmation that this presents no problem in using this added, optional light.

Apparently, some manufacturers and vehicle users prefer to use a rear side marker lamp at both the top and bottom which would undoubtedly increase the safety. We would appreciate your prompt response so that we can in turn reply to these inquiries.

Paul G. Scully Chairman, SAE Lighting Committee

P.S. The NHTSA final rule was published 31 August 1978 as Docket No. 77-1;

ID: nht76-5.55

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1976, requesting information as to the criteria used to distinguish between a "new" or a "used" chassis, in regard to the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567 and 49 CFR Part 568.

You described a situation in which a chassis-cab comes to you "from the field," lacking both a certification label and an incomplete vehicle manual, under the claim that it is used, with the absence of a certification label explained by a statement that "a previous body was mounted and removed by the customer and the vehicle was not presented for resale by a distributor or dealer." You also add that "the vehicle reportedly has had extremely limited or no use."

It seems to us that the facts you are describing constitute a fairly obvious misrepresentation by your customer in order to circumvent the requirements of the standards. Even if the implausible allegation that the customer "mounted and removed" a body were true, it would not remove the requirement for the vehicle to bear a certification label. Our regulations do not limit the labeling requirement to the narrow language of section 114; any vehicle upon completion must be permanently labeled.

Furthermore, for a vehicle to be "used" today, it must be titled and registered under the laws of some State. Your letter does not discuss this, but we would assume that any vehicle whose owner cannot produce title and registration as a completed vehicle was never completed and used within the meaning of our regulations.

For these reasons, we would expect you as a final-stage manufacturer to treat as new a chassis-cab brought to you for completion under the conditions you described. If the chassis-cab were properly certified in a manner that evidenced prior use, or the customer were able to produce legitimate title/registration documentation showing significant previous use as a completed vehicle, the answer would of course be different.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: 2974yy

Mr. Chris Lawrence
Chang & Lawrence
P.O. Box 105-55
Taipei
Taiwan R.O.C.

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1991, asking for an amplification of my letter of March 21, with reference to the mounting of an electric sign board in the rear window area, or on the rear, of a passenger car. You have asked whether we would "object to mounting the board in a side window."

Although the only required lighting equipment mounted on the side of vehicles are side marker lamps and reflectors, the most likely place a vehicle will be seen only from the side is when it is crossing an intersection, at a 90-degree angle to the observer. At other times, in the flow of traffic, the side of the vehicle will be viewed obliquely, whether the driver of another vehicle is approaching it from the front or from the rear. Thus, a side mounted electronic sign board may have an even greater potential for impairing the effectiveness of the required front and rear lighting equipment by its potential to distract other drivers from the signals sent by the front and rear lamps when they and the sign board are operated simultaneously. As I explained on March 21, this might also create a partial inoperability of lighting equipment within the meaning of the prohibition discussed in the letter of August 17, l989, that I enclosed. Whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle, if it is the installer, or by the dealer, if it performed such work. If a negative determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will inform the manufacturer or dealer responsible for the determination.

You have also asked as to other regulatory bodies that need to be consulted before product marketing for a side mounted sign board can begin. This question appears based on the premise that there would be no Federal objection to the side mounted sign. If you choose to sell this device, its use will be subject to the laws of the States in which it is employed. We are unable to advise you on State laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to assist you. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08#VSA d:5/l0/9l

ID: nht91-3.48

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Chris Lawrence -- Chang & Lawrence

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-10-91 from Chris Lawrence to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5954)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1991, asking for an amplification of my letter of March 21, with reference to the mounting of an electric sign board in the rear window area, or on the rear, of a passenger car. You have asked whether we would "object to mounting the board in a side window."

Although the only required lighting equipment mounted on the side of vehicles are side marker lamps and reflectors, the most likely place a vehicle will be seen only from the side is when it is crossing an intersection, at a 90-degree angle to the observer. At other times, in the flow of traffic, the side of the vehicle will be viewed obliquely, whether the driver of another vehicle is approaching it from the front or from the rear. Thus, a side mounted electronic sign board may have an even greater potential for impairing the effectiveness of the required front and rear lighting equipment by its potential to distract other drivers from the signals sent by the front and rear lamps when they and the sign board are operated simultaneously. As I explained on March 21, this might also create a partial inoperability of lighting equipment within the meaning of the prohibition discussed in the letter of August 17, 1989, that I enclosed. Whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle, if it is the installer, or by the dealer, if it performed such work. If a negative determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will inform the manufacturer or dealer responsible for the determination.

You have also asked as to other regulatory bodies that need to be consulted before product marketing for a side mounted sign board can begin. This question appears based on the premise that there would be no Federal objection to the side mounted sign. If you choose to sell this device, its use will be subject to the laws of the States in which it is employed. We are unable to advise you on State laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to assist you. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht91-4.49

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Garth C. Bates, Jr. -- Vice President, Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: B. Felrice; F. Grubbe; D. Bates; L. Austin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Garth C. Bates, Jr. (A38; Std. 301)

TEXT:

Recent discussions with Mr. Barry Felrice and Mr. Fred Grubbe at NHTSA have been very helpful in the planning phase of our carbon fiber, CNG automotive fuel tank program.

As previously discussed, we believe that high quality, carbon fiber tanks are an economical alternative to the present steel/aluminum tanks. Their use will speed the utilization of CNG automotive fuels without compromising safety in any fashion.

It is our understanding that currently there exist no DOT/NHTSA regulations governing the construction or testing of such tanks. For business purposes, we would like to request a letter from NHTSA confirming the above. Mr. Felrice advises us that you are the appropriate source of such a document, and we would very much appreciate your assistance.

ID: 2782y

Stanley S. Zinner, Esq.
Greene & Zinner, P.C.
202 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601

Re: FMVSS No. 123

Dear Mr. Zinner:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of December 4, l990, requesting an interpretation of section S5.2.4 of 49 CFR 571.123 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays. Specifically, you wish an opinion "as to the meaning, purpose, and intent" of that section.

Section S5.2.4 Stands states that "A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you, this requirement was one of the original provisions in Standard No. 123 when it became effective in l974. However, unlike many other requirements in the standard, it was both proposed and adopted without any discussion of its meaning, purpose, and intent in the preambles to both these rulemaking actions other than the bare remark that the notices contained a requirement for stands. Furthermore, in the l6 years that the requirement has been in effect, the agency does not appear to have issued a single legal opinion relating to section S5.2.4.

However, the agency has issued two interpretations of section S5.2.5 which we believe are relevant to an understanding of S5.2.4. In pertinent part, S5.2.5 Footrests states that "Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward and upward when not in use." In a letter of February 16, l982, to American Honda Motor Co., Inc., with respect to a proposed footboard design, the then Chief Counsel commented that "We consider that the purpose of S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by rigid footrests contacting the ground in a banking turn." In a letter of October 26, l973, also to American Honda, the then Assistant Chief Counsel commented that S5.2.5 did not require automatic folding but only the direction in which the footrests shall retract "so that if they are inadvertently left down when not in use they will fold rearward and upward should they hit an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling forward." I enclose a copy of each of these letters for your information. The meaning of S5.2.4 is, we believe, clear and unambiguous: if a stand is left down, it shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground (which includes the roadway) while the motorcycle is moving forward. Because both sections S5.2.4 and S5.2.5 require motorcycle equipment "to fold rearward and upward", we further believe that the purpose and intent of both sections are the same, and that S5.2.4 could be substituted for S5.2.5 in the sentences of the two letters quoted in the preceding paragraph.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:l23 d:12/24/90

ID: nht95-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/27/95 LETTER FROM MAYO D. TUBBS TO PHILIP RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tubbs:

Thank you for providing a FAX copy of your letter of April 27, 1995, to Philip Recht. As Taylor Vinson explained to you when you phoned, the agency had no record of receiving your original letter.

Our letter of April 13, 1995, to you was based upon your representation that the strip lights in your system would be "Aviation Green". We advised you that use of this color has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

You have asked whether our response would be different if the strip lamps were red or amber in color, as shown in the drawings of a van trailer in your Attachment A. In this scheme, amber lamps would be located on the side of the trailer, and red lamps on the rear. Because these colors are associated with caution, we do not believe that they would impair the effectiveness of any of a trailer's required lighting equipment.

You expressed your understanding that, if the three rear identification lamps are installed at the top of a trailer, the clearance lamps can be mounted at the bottom and vice versa, as reflected in the drawings shown in your Attachment C. This is not exa ctly correct. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires identification lamps, without exception, to be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." While clearance lamps also are required to be "as near the top as practicable" (Table II), wh en the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (paragraph S5.3.1.4). This configuration is reflected in the drawing on Atta chment C titled "Identification Lights on Top". The drawing "Identification Lights on Bottom" does not depict a location for identification lamps that conforms to Table II.

Because clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, the exception originated to accommodate trailer designs in which the widest part of the trailer was the fenders. In the van configuration shown on Attachment C, it would be practicable for both identification and clearance lamps to be mounted at the top of the trailer, and that is the location preferred by this agency for clearance lamps, notwithstanding S5.3.1.4.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

ID: 0942

Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs
Visionary Lighting Systems
1409 Sweetgum Circle
Keller, TX 76248

Dear Mr. Tubbs:

Thank you for providing a FAX copy of your letter of April 27, 1995, to Philip Recht. As Taylor Vinson explained to you when you phoned, the agency had no record of receiving your original letter.

Our letter of April 13, 1995, to you was based upon your representation that the strip lights in your system would be "Aviation Green". We advised you that use of this color has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

You have asked whether our response would be different if the strip lamps were red or amber in color, as shown in the drawings of a van trailer in your Attachment A. In this scheme, amber lamps would be located on the side of the trailer, and red lamps on the rear. Because these colors are associated with caution, we do not believe that they would impair the effectiveness of any of a trailer's required lighting equipment.

You expressed your understanding that, if the three rear identification lamps are installed at the top of a trailer, the clearance lamps can be mounted at the bottom and vice versa, as reflected in the drawings shown in your Attachment C. This is not exactly correct. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires identification lamps, without exception, to be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." While clearance lamps also are required to be "as near the top as practicable" (Table II), when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (paragraph S5.3.1.4). This configuration is reflected in the drawing on Attachment C titled "Identification Lights on Top". The drawing "Identification Lights on Bottom" does not depict a location for identification lamps that conforms to Table II.

Because clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, the exception originated to accommodate trailer designs in which the widest part of the trailer was the fenders. In the van configuration shown on Attachment C, it would be practicable for both identification and clearance lamps to be mounted at the top of the trailer, and that is the location preferred by this agency for clearance lamps, notwithstanding S5.3.1.4.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/9/95