ID: 1984-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/84 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner, Engineering Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas D. Turner Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 AC-912/825-2O21 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

This responds to your letter dated March 27, 1984 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 Reflecting Surfaces in which you ask for an interpretation of the term "bright metal components." You asked whether these components would include only polished metal or plated components and not painted metal components, even if painted "a shiny high gloss black." In addition, you asked whether a plastic component would be covered by the standard.

The purpose of Standard No. 107 is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces in the driver's field of view will hinder safe and normal operation of the motor vehicle. The standard sets limits on the "specular gloss of the surface of the materials" used for certain "bright metal components." The standard was based on materials commonly used in vehicle at the time of the standard issuance and thus it referred to metal components. Since the requirements apply to the surfaces of those metal components, a metal interior rearview mirror frame with a painted "shiny high glass" surface would be covered by the standard.

An all-plastic component would be outside the literal requirements of the standard. But since a plastic component could produce an unacceptable glare if located in the driver's field of view, the agency urges manufacturers to use plastic materials which will not produce glare.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 27, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing you to reference to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 107-Reflecting Surfaces. The standard specifies the specular gloss of the surface of the materials used for specified " . . . bright metal components in the driver's field of view . . polished metal or plated components and not to painted components. Thus, an inside rearview mirror frame and bracket, for example, painted black would not be subject to the requirements of the standard even if it were painted a shiny high gloss black. Likewise, a plastic component would not be subject to the standards requirements unless it was bright metal plated such as being chrome plated.

We request your confirmation of our interpretation and thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services fvc c: David James FMVSS 107 File

ID: nht93-7.6

DATE: October 1, 1993 Est.

FROM: Larry Grabsky -- VML and Colonna Corp.

TO: John Wilman -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Larry Grabsky (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Regarding a phone conversation with a member of your staff recently we would appreciate any relevant information pertaining to the following:

Has your agency issued any recent and/or relevant advisory opinion regarding decorative neon lights or the use of oscillating or revolving lights even if they do not diminish the effect or performance of required lighting on a motor vehicle and does such violate FMVSS Section 108.

Once again, we do appreciate your forwarding us information and your agencies assistance in this matter.

ID: nht93-8.11

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Amar Chhabra -- Project Manager, Procedair Industries

TO: To Whom It May Concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 26, 1994 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This letter is to certify that the equipment stored at CES 401 Slater Street, New Westminister, BC V3H 3Y1 was fabricated by IMF INC. located in Greenville, Tennessee, USA.

The above mentioned equipment mainly consists of two (2) trailers complete with Air Pollution Control equipment and accessories.

ID: nht75-5.23

DATE: 08/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CALL FROM YOKOHAMA TIRE CO. REPRESENTATIVE -- AUGUST 21, 1975

I received a call at 5 p.m. on August 21, 1975, from Mr. N. Harada, a representative of Yokohama Tire Corporation, with regard to the effective dates of the U.T.Q.G.S. Rule. I explained to him that six manufacturers who are litigating the validity of the Rule had brought a motion to stay the enforcement and postpone the effective dates of the Rule, and that on August 14, 1975, the Court granted the motion to stay.

He asked when the Rule would become effective; I responded that I could not say when, because the matter was in litigation and that I did not want to speculate about the Court's judgment. I further explained that the only effective dates which the agency had set were those in the Rule, e.g., January 1, 1976, for radial tires, but that the Court last week issued a stay. He asked whether, in the event that the validity of the Rule was upheld by the Court, new, later effective dates would be established; I responded that any answer I could now give to that question would be speculation and that the agency has set no other effective dates.

Mr. Harada also asked when the Court would decide the validity of the Rule. I told him that this was under the control of the Court, not the agency. He was under the mistaken impression that the Court was or is going to rule on the effective dates or some related matter this week. I explained that the only operative "event" that I am aware of which would occur this week is the filing of the Petitioners' brief on the merits, which was due to be filed by last Monday, August 18, and which we have not yet actually received. Subsequently, I continued, the Government would file its brief on the merits, and then the Petitioners would have an opportunity to file a reply brief and the case would then be set down for oral argument. After oral argument, which would not take place before October and might be in December or later, depending upon when the Court scheduled it, the Court would deliberate and then issue its ruling. I explained that the agency had no control over how long the Court deliberates or when the Court would issue its ruling.

I tried to give the above answers and explanations slowly and clearly, because there appeared to be a language barrier; the caller was courteous, but English was obviously a second language to him, and it seemed that he may have been somewhat confused.

The next day, August 22, Mr. Harada again phoned in the late afternoon and stated that, in reference to his previous call, the subject matter was "very important" and he would therefore like to have it in writing. At his request, I told him that I would send him a letter.

ID: nht76-3.24

DATE: 02/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Northern Coach Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of February 25, 1976, with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the certification of school buses.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, this agency does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the vehicle manufacturer, including a final-stage manufacturer such as you. Your certification obligation, as a final stage manufacturer of school buses, is met if you fulfill the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, with which I understand you are already familiar.

An information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your convenience. Please write if we can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht91-2.5

DATE: February 28, 1991

FROM: Z. Taylor Vinson -- Senior Staff Attorney, NHTSA

TO: Files: Interps. Std. 108; Redbook (3)

TITLE: Re Interpretation Letter to Oshkosh

TEXT:

On February 14, 1991, John Calow, Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corp. (414-255-9151 ext. 2038) telephoned me about the agency's letter of January 16, 1991, with respect to override of the stop signal by the turn signal.

Our letter assumed that turn signals and hazard warning signals (which operate through the turn signal lamps) have a common circuit, and implied that the hazard signals must also override the stop signals when stop signals are optically combined with turn signals. Mr. Calow asked whether the override would be required if the hazard signal were on a separate circuit. I informed him that the override would not be required because the SAE requirement relates only to turn signal lamps.

ID: 1982-2.30

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Roberts Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1982, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclose photos of a 1982 Kenworth truck which has two pairs of front turn signal lamps: one set (incorporating a side reflector) mounted 58 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 83 inches apart; the other, mounted approximately 81 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 110 inches apart. You have asked whether the vehicle would comply if the lower mounted set were removed and an amber reflex reflector placed on each side of the fender as far forward as practicable.

The answer is yes. The mounting height of 81 1/2 inches does not exceed the limit of 83 inches imposed by Table II of Standard No. 108. In addition, the lamps appear to meet the two further requirements that they be located as far apart as practicable and at the same height.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 16, 1982

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find two photographs of a 1982 Kenworth, Model W900. You will note from the photographs that two sets of turn signals are on the vehicle, one set on the hood and another set on the bottom of the mirror brackets.

On the vehicle shown, which is typical of the Model, the center of the fender mounted signals are approximately 58 1/2" above the road surface and approximately 83" apart.

The center of the mirror mounted turn signals are approximately 81 1/2" above the road surface and approximately 110" apart.

Our question concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108(571.108), specifically, Table II, "Location of Required Equipment", "Turn Signal Lamps". Considering the dimensions above, would the vehicle be in conformance with the Standard if only the mirror mounted turn signals were installed on the vehicle and an amber reflex reflector placed on each side of the fender as far forward as practicable?

We would appreciate your consideration and reply to this matter at your earliest opportunity.

Yours truly, Ronald E. DeVolder -- Vice President

enclosures

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1982-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. R. Scheiner; NHTSA

TO: Kioto Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 21, 1982

AIR MAIL

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1982, regarding signal flashing on an auxiliary lamp. You asked several questions on your proposed auxiliary lamp which would be installed as original equipment to supplement the lower beam headlamp:

1. Whether this auxiliary lamp would be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signaling purpose.

2. In case that this auxiliary lamp is designed to comply with the requirements of SAE J583d - Fog Lamps, instead of SAE J582a -Auxiliary Low Beam Lamp: Whether the auxiliary lamp (Fog Lamp) could be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signal purpose.

The answer to these questions is: No.

Paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows turn signal and hazard warning signal lamps to flash but subparagraph (b) states:

"All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes."

We interpret "all other lamps" to include all lamps, required and auxiliary lighting such as the lamp you propose.

In summary we interpret FMVSS No. 108 not to allow the auxiliary lamp you propose to be used as a flashing lamp.

Sincerely,

Stanley R. Scheiner, Acting Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

NHTSA:OVSS:CAD:Medlin:orb:9/27/82:(JWASE) REWRITTEN:Medlin:orb:9/30/82 RETYPED:orb:10/7/82: REW:Vinson:nbb 10/18/82 Copies to: NRM-01 Chron NRM-11 Chron/Subject/Medlin's File/Hold;NOA-30 Interps;NOA-30 Redbook(3)

No Control

ID: nht73-5.26

DATE: 10/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robertson Tank Lines, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1973, requesting a DOT code number for retreaded tires you manufacture. It appears from your letter that the tires you retread are truck tires intended solely for your company's own use.

Any tires retreaded by and solely for use by Robertson Tank Lines are exempt from NHTSA recordkeeping requirements and a code number is not required. As truck retreads are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you are also not required to place a "DOT" symbol on them. If you retread passenger car tires, however, you are required to place a "DOT" symbol on the tire sidewall (indicating conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117).

ROBERTSON TANK LINES INC.

August 30, 1973

Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Dept. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The attached form is our request for a tire retread D.O.T. number. Tires produced in our shop will be for our fleet use, with no resale of our tires or services.

Our main office address is:

Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. P.O. Box 1505 Houston, Texas 77002

Retread shop address:

Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. Maintenance Terminal 2401 Battleground Rd. Deer Park, Texas 77536

Thank you for your consideration in handling this matter.

Best Regards,

Donald Gary Hayes

cc: Bob Partain

Date: August 29, 1973

Tire Identification and Recordkeeping National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I hereby apply for a Retread Tire Identification Code Mark as a manufacturer of retread tires.

The following information is offered:

Retread Plant

Name:(Illegible Words)

Street:(Illegible Words)

City & State: DEERPARK(Illegible Word)

Zip Code: 77536

Telephone No. 479-3451 EXT 52

Main Office

Name:(Illegible Words)

Street:(Illegible Words)

City & State: Houston, Texas

Zip Code:(Illegible Word)

Telephone No: 623-0000

Types of Tires Retreaded

Truck:

Applicants Signature:(Illegible Words)

ID: 2662y

Mr. Gerald F. Vinci
Sun Refining and Marketing Company
Tenn Penn Center
1801 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1699

Dear Mr. Vinci:

This responds to your August 14, 1990 letter and telephone calls about your plans to convert the fuel system on a vehicle from gasoline to propane. You said your company ("Sun Refining") would like to purchase a new vehicle and convert it for purposes of your own research, and will not be reselling the vehicle. You ask about the requirements that would apply to the conversion.

We do not have any requirements that would apply to the conversion if the conversion is made by Sun itself. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA's regulations generally do not apply to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer (e.g., Sun) for purposes other than resale. Although the Act prohibits certain entities from tampering with or removing federally required safety features, the prohibition does not apply to modifications by a vehicle owner to his or her own vehicle.

However, in the event you have the conversion done by a party other than your company, Federal law may apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative federally required safety features when modifying a vehicle. I have enclosed an information sheet that discusses the application of 108(a)(2)(A) to fuel system conversions.

NHTSA wishes to learn more about the safety of propane fuel systems and is considering a public announcement seeking information on various safety issues. We would, therefore, be interested in the results of your research when they're completed.

Even though your conversion would not be covered by the FMVSS's, we suggest you consult State law to see if the State has requirements for propane vehicles. In addition, other Federal agencies may have regulations for your vehicle. If your vehicle would be a commercial vehicle, the regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may apply. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to FHWA for their reply. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for information about the conversion. EPA's general telephone number is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:301#VSA d:9/l7/90