ID: nht76-1.11

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Gilbert Theissen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1976, to Mrs. Winifred Desmond of this agency concerning braking and rollover characteristics of the Jeep vehicle. We are sorry for the delay in our answer.

The Jeep Corporation is correct in saying that 49 CFR 571.105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies only to passenger cars. It will also apply to school buses manufactured after October 25, 1976. Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, applies as a whole to all motor vehicles (49 CFR 575.4), but the consumer information item requiring reports on brake performance is limited to passenger cars and motorcycles (49 CFR @ 571.101).

With regard to rollover resistance, the agency has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to collect information on rollover resistance, but no requirement to report on rollover performance exists at this time.

ID: nht74-3.6

DATE: 01/15/74

FROM: W.G. MILBY -- BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

TO: RICHARD DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/19/74 FROM RICHARD DYSON TO W.G. MILBY; N40-30 [ZTV], STANDARD 108; REDBOOK (-)

TEXT: We need a ruling on whether it is legal to use rear stop lights on a bus as follows:

1. When brakes are applied rear stop lights are steady burning under all conditions.

2. Place gearshift in reverse - two backup lights are energized and the two seven inch and two four inch rear stop lights flash at a frequency between 60 and 120 cycles per minute.

The purpose for such a system is to give school pupils and others additional warning in addition to the backup lights when the bus is in reverse gear and would not interfere with the stop light function. Thanks for an early reply.

Yours very truly,

ID: nht93-6.28

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: John P. Gach -- Marketing Coordinator, North American Lighting, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstein -- Visibility & Controls Group, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dave Barnes

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to John P. Gach (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It was a pleasure speaking with you again and thank you for the information on DRLs.

I'm following up in regard to our conversation on "Blu-Lite" (advertisement attached).

As discussed, we are curious about the feasibility of federal regulation in support of such a product. If I understand correctly, state laws also govern the use of blue lighting and limit it exclusively for vehicles responding to emergencies.

I would like to have a follow up conversation and discuss regulation issues related this product and similar devices in both OEM and aftermarket applications.

Thank you.

Enclosure (Wilson Emergency BLU-LITE) omitted.

ID: nht69-1.9

DATE: 02/01/69 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Hucck and Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 11, 1969, to Mr. David A. Fay, concerning your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 108.

Subsection (d) of Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states "Whenever a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the name aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard . . ."

Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is now in effect, and permits red or amber rear turn signal lamps, the States cannot restrict these lamps to be red only.

ID: nht78-3.28

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Midland Machinery Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland Machinery Company's February 20, 1978, request for confirmation that Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not apply to an air-braked trailer that carries no cargo and consists entirely of a portable mixing plant.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 contains an exclusion for any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximun capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants. You state that the portable mixing plant trailer carries no cargo, and it would thus be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121.

Enclosed are copies of Standard No. 108 and 120, along with an information sheet that explains how copies of these and other NHTSA regulations may be obtained.

ID: nht76-3.19

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NVT America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1976, in which you pose several questions concerning which of three companies participating in the construction of a motor vehicle would be considered the manufacturer for purposes of 49 CFR Part 566 and which would be responsible, therefore, for meeting the safety standards described in 49 CFR Part 571.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Therefore, the company that assembles a vehicle is considered the manufacturer regardless of the name under which the vehicle is marketed. This interpretation is not affected by which company owns the engineering rights or trademark to the vehicle. A controlling corporation, however, may assume responsibility for conformity with the standards and may substitute its name for the name of its assembling subsidiary.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires the manufacturer, as defined above, to submit identifying information and a description of the items it produces. You should further note that 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires the same manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards.

I trust this fully responds to your questions.

ID: 20933.ztv

Mr. Richard H. Klein, P.E.
P.O. Box 527, Fairway Drive
Johnson, NY 10933

Dear Mr. Klein:

This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1999. You ask for a citation to the equipment and visibility requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that require intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors on buses whose overall length is more than 30 feet.

Intermediate side lighting devices may be provided on all motor vehicles regardless of length, but "are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." (S5.1.1.3). The lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972; the reflectors must comply with SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977. These standards have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If the overall width of the vehicle is 80 inches or more, the devices must be located according to Table II of the standard; if less than 80 inches, according to Table IV. They must meet the photometric and visibility requirements specified in the SAE standards mentioned above.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref: 108
d.2/28/2000

ID: nht69-1.40

DATE: 08/26/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David E. Wells; NHTSA

TO: Challenge-Cook Bros. Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1969, concerning the responsibility of manufacturers who assemble work bodies such as concrete mixers to chassis-cabs produced by another company. You stated:

"We understand that in the case of installing concrete mixers of our manufacture on a chassis vehicle, our certification will cover only those Safety Standards relating to our own equipment and its installation, plus modifications, if made by us to the chassis vehicle in the area where Safety Standards apply."

As a final-stage assemblier you are responsible for any standards applicable to the completed vehicle to which conformity has not been certified by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and for any standards conformity to which is affected by the addition of the body. The chassis-cab manufacturer is required to affix a label listing the standards the chassis-cab conforms to. If the list includes all relevant standards, and you have no specific knowledge that the chassis-cab may not conform (as, for example, where it has been damaged in transit), then your statement above is essentially correct.

The relevant rulings are contained in the Federal Register notices of January 3, 1968, together with the certification regulations published July 9, 1969. Copies are enclosed.

ID: GF009467

Christopher E. MacDonald, President
Best Golf Cars, Inc.
P.O. Box 2717
Myrtle Beach, SC 29578




Dear Mr. MacDonald:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110; "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less" apply to low-speed vehicles. As explained below, they do not.

By way of background, a low-speed vehicle is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as follows:

"Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle,

(1) that is 4-wheeled,

(2) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and

(3) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds)".

There are only two FMVSSs applicable to low-speed vehicles. They are, FMVSS No. 500; "Low speed vehicles," and FMVSS No. 205 "Glazing materials."I enclose both standards. I note FMVSS No. 500 incorporates certain requirements found in other FMVSSs by reference. However, the requirements in FMVSS No. 110 are not referenced in FMVSS No. 500.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: 22203.ztv

Mr. Thomas V. Wolcott
Test Engineering Manager
Nevada Automotive Test Center
P.O. Box 234
Carson City, NV 89702-0234





Dear Mr. Wolcott:

This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 2000, requesting an interpretation concerning a motorcycle braking configuration.

You state that the master cylinder in the system "would be actuated hydraulically using the standard handlebar mounted lever." You further describe the system in some detail and inform us that your vehicle will comply with "all regulations regarding volume and wording on the cap." The intent of the design is "to be able to remote mount the master cylinder unit to a more protected and less visible area of the motorcycle." You have not been able to find a regulation or standard that would not allow this configuration.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are intended to establish performance requirements, leaving the design of systems to the manufacturer. There is nothing in the Federal motorcycle braking standard (FMVSS No. 122), controls and displays standard (FMVSS No. 123) or any other FMVSS or regulation that would prohibit the motorcycle brake system configuration described in your letter.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:122
d.11/1/00