ID: GF006498

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your facsimile dated August 29, 2003, seeking further clarification of our interpretation letter sent to you on August 7, 2003. In response to our August 7^th letter, you have reprogrammed the flash rate in your hazard warning signal flasher. You now ask whether the newly reprogrammed flash rate complies with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (Standard No. 108).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

As previously discussed, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966 (SAE 945), is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, as the Federal Requirement for Flashers. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash Rate and Percent Current On Time." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. This paragraph also specifies that:

"flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (emphasis added)

Your newly reprogrammed flash pattern operates as follows (in milliseconds):

ON	OFF	ON	OFF	ON	OFF
200	250	200	250	200	850

Our calculations indicate that the above flash pattern, taking into account the averaging procedure set forth in J945, is within the specified flash rate.

In considering this issue further, however, we believe this type of flash pattern is very different from what NHTSA contemplated in incorporating J945 by reference in Standard No. 108. As you know, existing flashers operate at an essentially constant rate. Moreover, while Figure 1 of J945 permits considerable flexibility in flash rate, our calculations indicate that the flash rate and percent current on time for each and every cycle of your flash pattern fall outside the figure.

As we have stated before, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as flashers, is well understood by the driving public, instantly recognized, and unambiguously informative. We are concerned that very different flash patterns have the potential to cause confusion. Therefore, we plan in the near future to modify Standard No. 108 in a way that would preclude your design.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/2/04

ID: mvaltr.etl

BY TELEFAX

Mr. John H. Strandquist
President
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
4301 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22203

Dear Mr. Strandquist:

I have received a copy of the Issue Alert dated April 17, 1997, that you sent to the members of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Diersen v. Chicago Car Exchange, 110 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997). In that decision, issued on March 31, 1997, the court held that the NHTSA regulation that exempts vehicles ten years old and older from the requirement in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 that an odometer disclosure statement be completed when ownership of the vehicle is transferred (49 CFR 580.6(a)(3)) is invalid because Chapter 327 does not authorize exemptions from that requirement. Your Issue Alert noted that you had contacted NHTSA "to determine whether any action is planned to amend the current legislation for odometer disclosure requirements" in light of the Diersen decision.

NHTSA has concluded that amending legislation is unnecessary because Congress has already given the agency the authority to exempt vehicles from the disclosure requirements of Chapter 327. Specifically, in section 332 of the FY 1997 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. Law 104-205 (Sept. 30, 1996), Congress provided that "notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary may use funds appropriated under this Act, or any other subsequent Act, to administer and implement the exemption provisions of 49 CFR 580.6 and to adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure requirements for any class or category of vehicles that the Secretary deems appropriate."

In light of the fact that Congress has now authorized NHTSA to expend funds to adopt or amend exemptions from the disclosure requirements, the agency has concluded that the most expeditious way to resolve the uncertainty caused by the Diersen decision is to publish a final rule repromulgating all of the exemptions currently contained in 49 CFR 580.6 under the statutory authority of section 332 of P. L. 104-205. Because the current situation can cause problems, such as confusion about whether or not an odometer disclosure statement is required when an older vehicle is transferred, inappropriate rejection of title applications and other delays in the titling process, particularly for vehicles transferred into states within the Seventh Circuit, we plan to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

So that your members and others may have prompt access to information about actions NHTSA is taking in response to the Diersen decision, the agency plans to post this letter, the Federal Register notice and any other relevant information on its World Wide Web site, which is accessible on the Internet at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/new. We will also provide you with a copy of the Federal Register notice as soon as it is available.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
5/28/97

ID: 15209.ztv

Mr. Steve Law
Magnet Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire
WS11 3LP
England

Dear Mr. Law:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 30, 1997, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to "optical centre marking on visually aimable headlamps."

You present three drawings ("a," "b," and "c") of rectangular headlamps with various markings and ask are "any of these options mandatory/preferred/unacceptable."

Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) of Standard No. 108 requires that there "be a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp," and that "[t]he manufacturer is free to choose the design of the mark or markings." Option "a" shows a marking in the center of the rectangle, whereas options (b) and (c) have four markings, one each at the center of each of the four sides.

With respect to your rectangular headlamp drawings, the optical axis runs directly through the center of the headlamp at 90 degrees to the lens face. This means that only option "a" identifies the optical axis of the rectangular headlamps. Options (b) and (c) are insufficient to identify the optical axis on the rectangular headlamp drawings and thus do not meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1).

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/16/97

ID: nht87-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Roberto Troilo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roberto Troilo SIV 66050 San Salvo ITALY Telex 60028

Dear Mr. Troilo:

This responds to your phone conversation with Mr. Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how regulations adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other Federal agencies affect glazing material used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you asked if a double-zoned tempered windscreen can be used in an off-road agricultural tractor, which has a top speed of 40 kilometers per hour. Based on the information you have provided us, it does not appear that our safety standards would apply at a ll to your vehicles, as explained below.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act(15 U.S.C. 1391). Section 102(3) of this Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

The agency has interpreted this language to exclude from the definition of motor vehicle any vehicle which is sold primarily for off-road use, even though it may use public roads incidentally to travel from one site to another. In addition, some vehicles are excepted from this classification despite their use on the highway. This includes vehicles which have a low maximum speed capability and whose unusual configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow. Your vehicle appears to fit into these exe mpted categories, and from the information you have provided, it would appear that our safety standards do not apply to your vehicle.

For your further information, we also note that the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has regulations which may affect your vehicle. OSHA's standards for agriculture are contained in 29 CFR Part 1928. (CFR st ands for the Code of Federal Regulations, the annual publication of all Federal regulations of current applicability and legal effect.) While there is no provision concerning glazing requirements for agricultural vehicles, there are other requirements su ch as roll-over protective structures. We are forwarding a copy of OSHA's standards to you by mail.

I hope this information is useful. Please contact us again if you need further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-5.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Jerry G. Thorn, Esq. -- General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/93 from Jerry G. Thorn to John Womack (OCC 8810)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 22, 1993 requesting an interpretation of whether an aerosol brake cleaning product marketed under the Solder Seal/Gunk brand is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As explained in further detail below, this item is considered motor vehicle equipment.

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ....

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the brake cleaning aerosol, it appears that the product would be an accessory under the Safety Act. This is based on the information provided in your letter and by Harleigh Ewell of your office to David Elias of mine in a July 23, 1993 telephone conversation. An advertisement you enclosed for the brake cleaning aerosol contains statements (e.g., "quickly dissolve and flush away brake fluid," and "helps to eliminate brake squeal and 'chatter'") indicating that a substantial portion of the expected use of the product is related to maintaining motor vehicles. Also, according to Mr. Ewell, the product is sold in auto supply stores, which further indicates its intended use with motor-vehicles. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by statements on the advertisement, (e.g., "cleans and evaporates almost instantly," "can be applied without disassembly of the unit," and "keep out of reach of children") and by the type of store that retails the product, it appears that the aerosol brake cleaner is intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht78-2.20

DATE: 05/18/78

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

TO: Mohs Seaplane Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 5, 1978, asking "what is necessary for the rewriting of [Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.] 108 to include my . . . system for vehicle identification." As you have described this reflective device, it is a polyvinyl extrusion in which is placed polyester tape which "becomes a continuous reflector down the side of a vehicle - amber toward the front, red on the rear half of the vehicle and red across the back." You state that in your experimental installation you are "retaining the 3" spot reflectors as required in Standard 108."

If your material conforms to Federal Specification L-S-300 and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards in Table 1 of SAE Standard J594d, "Reflex Reflectors," March 1967, it could be used as the front and rear reflex reflectors required by Standard No. 108. However, if it does not meet this specification, Standard No. 108 would not prohibit the sale and installation of your system as original equipment, or as an aftermarket accessory, provided it is supplementary to the side and rear reflectors required by Standard No. 108. Thus, no Federal "approval" of your system is required. A change in Standard No. 108 is required only if you believe your system should be mandatory on all motor vehicles. In the event you wish to petition for such an amendment of Standard No. 108, I enclose a copy of our rulemaking procedures.

YOURS TRULY,

Mohs Seaplane Corporation

May 5, 1978

Chief Consul, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

I was advised by Mr. Carderelli of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that I should request approval of a new reflective device I have for motor vehicles which consists of a poly-vinyl extrusion in which is placed polyester metallic tape and into which is slid computer designed and computer milled reflectors so the final result becomes a continuous reflector down the side of a vehicle -- amber toward the front, red on the rear half of the vehicle and red across the back.

This invention is an adaptation of the very advanced reflectors used in the space age to assist solar cells in their recharging efforts on satelites, and adaptation to motor vehicle use from the railroad crossing buck use portrayed in Governor Martin Schreiber's Safety Reporter enclosed (please note page 2). We are just beginning the installation on 50 semi-trailers here in Madison as an accessory item and retaining the 3" spot reflectors as required in standard 108. Our photometric result is superior to acrylic reflectors used in the past and reflective sheeting, etc.

Please let me know what is necessary for the rewriting of 108 to include my (I believe) superior system and safer system for vehicle identification. Of course we have many other uses for something that performs as to other reflectors as the super ball does to a conventional ball. We have a patent pending number. Piers, gunnels of boats, mail box posts, railway crossing gates, loading docks, etc. have been experimented with.

Last September I saw Mr. Marx Elliott in your building on this same matter and also have talked with Mr. Bill Eason. Since sales are just now really taking off government approval is essential and certainly desired. In the interests of safety -- all selfish profit motives aside -- I think we have something of interest here. I will gladly send samples if you so request to above address.

Please also send proceedures to follow to above address.

Bruce Baldwin Mohs, Pres. MOHS SEAPLANE CORPORATION

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: nht70-2.7

DATE: 05/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 14, in which you question the legality of the State of California's enforcement of a State motor vehicle safety standard which is reportedly not identical to the Federal standard (No. 108) concerning the same aspect of performance. Your question arises from the failure, thus far, of the California Highway Patrol to approve as a clearance lamp a light installed on the rear of a Pullman flat bed trailer that is certified as complying with Federal Standard No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Once a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has become effective, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("the Act") prohibits any State from having

"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."

While the Act thus limits the nature of the standards which a State may issue, it does not preempt the authority of a State to enforce, by reasonable procedures, standards not prohibited by that section.

It is not clear from your letter and its enclosures whether you are objecting to the State requirement of submitting the lamp in question for approval, or are claiming that the State has unjustifies refused to approve the lamp. If you will clarify this question, we will be pleased to give the matter further consideration.

ID: 17173.wkm

Mr. Jimmie D. Gowen, Jr.
President/General Manager
Big John Trailers
Route 3, Box 950
Folkston, GA 31537

Dear Mr. Gowen:

This responds to your letter of January 26, 1998, as supplemented by your letter of March 12, 1998, in which you asked whether your knuckle boom loader trailers and your self-propelled loader carriers are subject to the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You explained that the two vehicles in question are primarily utilized at logging sites, but are capable of being towed to different job sites from time to time by use of highway tractors. Based on the information you provided, the answer is no, as discussed below.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, through this agency, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "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.

49 U.S. Code 30102(6)).

In your March letter you referred to and enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to Mr. John N. Swearingen of Viking Trailers dated September 3, 1997. In that letter we determined that a knuckle boom loader trailer similar to yours is not a motor vehicle. We made that determination based on the intended use of the vehicle. Similarly, it is our opinion that your knuckle boom loader trailer and your self-propelled loader carrier are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition quoted above. They are utilized primarily off-road in logging operations but are occasionally transported over the public roadways from one job site to another at which they typically spend extended periods of time. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. This is in contrast to instances in which vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the public roadways going to and from job sites, but stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-highway use is more than "incidental."

In summary, it is our opinion that your knuckle boom loader trailers and your self-propelled loader carriers are not motor vehicles, and therefore are not subject to the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121. However, if we were to receive information that your trailers were used on the roads more than on an incidental basis, then we would have to reassess this opinion. If we determined that your trailers are motor vehicles after all, then your newly-manufactured trailers and carriers would be required to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:121#VSA
d.4/23/98

ID: 77-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1977, asking whether 49 CFR Part 577 conflicts with Section 153(c)(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Pursuant to Section 153(c)(4) notification by a manufacturer to a dealer must be "by certified mail or other more expeditious means." On the other hand, Part 577 require notification to be given by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer, in your view, which could mean a dealer. You stated that the "apparently conflicting" requirements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they are the last known purchasers.

There is no conflict. Part 577 is a regulation for the notification of owners of vehicles, not dealers. The regulation sets forth -- "requirements for notification to owners of motor vehicles" (577.1) and its purpose "is to insure that notifications of defects or noncompliances adequately inform and effectively motivate owners . . . to have such vehicles . . . inspected and, when necessary, remedied as quickly as possible" (577.2). A dealer is not an "owner" within the intent of Part 577 and a manufacturer's notification obligation to its dealers is that set out in Section 153(c)(4).

Therefore, we cannot confirm that first class mailings from a manufacturer to a dealer conform to Part 577, and your letter offers no facts upon which to base a finding that first class mail is a "more expeditious means" of dealer notification than certified mail.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 18, 1977

Frank Bendt, Acting Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation Part 577 Defect and Noncompliance Notification

Dear Mr. Bendt:

White Motor Corporation requests an interpretation of Part 577 as it applies to the Act @ 153 (c)(4).

Part 577 as published in 41FR56813 (December 30, 1976) requires defect notification to be sent by first class mail to the first or most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. In the case of vehicles and equipment, the purchaser may be a dealer. The Act, however, states:

"@ 153(c)(4) by certified mail or other more expeditious means to the dealer or dealers of such manufacturer to whom such motor vehicle or replacement equipment was delivered." (emphasis added)

These apparently conflicting statements affect the mailing of notices to dealers when they were the last known purchaser. This condition is expected to occur for motor vehicles when the defect was discovered shortly after the vehicle was shipped from the factory and for replacement equipment.

White Motor Corporation sends defect notification to all its dealers for each recall campaign regardless of the expected geographical location of the suspect vehicles. These are presently sent by certified mail. In view of both the time and expense involved in preparing the hundreds of certification documents and the additional postage, we would like to send these by first class mail.

We request confirmation that such first class mailings conform to Part 577 and the Act, either as "other more expeditious means" (Act @ 153(c)(4)) or by some other clause.

Sincerely,

J. W. Lawrence, Manager -- Safety Safety & Environmental Engineering, WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

ID: nht92-8.34

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: J. W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS-108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to J. W. Lawrence (A-40; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Administration established a new requirement for FMVSS-108 turn signals in Federal Register Vol. 56, No. 239, pp 64733 dated December 12, 1991 constituting an act of rulemaking without opportunity for comment and therefore in violation of 49 CFR Part 553. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation respectfully petitions for the revocation of the "Figure 2" requirements published in the December 12, 1991 Register and restore the Standard to its prior status as amended May 15, 1990 in FR 55, No. 94.

This petition is filed in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 552, by Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation of 7900 National Service Rd., Greensboro, N. C. 27409. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation manufacturers heavy duty trucks.

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION SUPPORTING THE PETITION

1. Docket 88-17 Notice 2 (FR 55, No. 94; May 15, 1990) upgraded the safety standard's SAE referenced requirements from "J588e September 1970" to "J1395, April 1985". The substantive portion of this change in FMVSS-108 is an increase in the lens luminous area from 8 sq. inches to 12 sq. inches.

SAE J1395, April 1985 was therefore incorporated as-is into 49 CFR Part 571.108 applicable to both front and rear turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80 inches wide.

2. "SAE J1395, April 1985" Installation Requirements are as follows:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (emphasis added)

3. Federal Register notice Vol. 56, No. 239, December 12, 1991 contains technically inaccurate information upon which the Administration has presumably based its interpretation and resulting rulemaking. The FR notice states in part as follows:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters." (emphasis added) The requirement for "simultaneously visible" does not appear in SAE J585e,

SAE J1395 Apr. 85, SAE J1398 May 85 or in the May 1990 amendment to FMVSS-108.

The Administration should also be advised that the 3 meter requirement in SAE J1395 is for photometric measurement and has no connection to the 45 installation visibility which is the ability to observe 13cm2 (2 sq. inches) of outer lens surface at the 450 viewing angle.

4. FMVSS-108 Table I for vehicles over 80 inches wide requires 2 red or amber and 2 amber turn signal lamps. Table II "location of required equipment" for Truck, Bus and MPV over 80 inches wide does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers.

Turn signals are intended to signal pending maneuvers not mark the end of the vehicles.

In summary we wish to reaffirm that our petition is necessary to correct an unfortunate circumstance created by an inaccurate reference which has now become a requirement.

Encl. FR Vol. 56, No. 239; December 12, 1991; pp 64733-64737