ID: 1985-01.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nick Martz -- Regional Sales Manager, Isuzu Diesel of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nick Martz Regional Sales Manager Isuzu Diesel of North America 41169 Vincenti Court Novi, Michigan 48050

This responds to your letter asking about identification requirements applicable to water temperature, oil pressure and alternator instruments on bread delivery trucks. You asked whether the symbols specified by Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, are required for such trucks and, if so, whether it is permissible to use transparent decals with the proper symbols on the lenses. You also asked whether waivers can be issued. The answers to your questions are provided below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Water temperature, oil pressure and alternator instruments are displays. While the standard's requirements for controls apply to all trucks, the standard's requirements for displays are only applicable to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section S5.

Assuming that your bread trucks do have a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds, the instruments must be identified by the symbols specified by Standard No. 101. Section S5.2.3 provides in relevant part:

Except for informational readout displays, any display located within the passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4, shall be identified by that symbol. Such display may, in addition be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. . . . Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies. The identification of any display shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and appear to the driver perceptually upright.

The displays described by your letter are conventional guages rather than informational readout displays. (Informational readout displays are defined by the standard to be displays using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information may be displayed.) Table 2 specifies symbols for, among other displays, oil pressure gauges, coolant temperature gauges, and electrical charge gauges. Therefore, under S5.2.3, the displays must be identified by the specified symbols.

Standard No. 101 does not specify the nature of the material to be used in identifying displays, i.e., paint, decals, etc. Therefore, it is permissible to use decals.

You also asked whether waivers can be issued. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that some trucks have been produced using words rather than symbols to identify the gauges discussed above. 49 CFR Part 556 sets forth procedures for petitioning for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act due to the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance with a safety standard as it relates to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of Part 556 for your convenience, as well as a copy of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

Lyall F. (Nick) Martz Zone Sales Manager Isuzu Diesel of North America 41169 Vincenti Court Novi, Michigan 48050-2689 (313) 474-8000

November 1, 1984 National Highway Traffic Safety Assoc. Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Engine Instruments

Gentlemen:

We need your advice on water temperature, oil pressure, and alternator instruments in 1984 bread delivery trucks. We have had to change the above mentioned gauges since the original instruments in the vehicle are not compatible with our diesel engine.

The gauges we installed in the vehicle in an accessory panel are 2-inch dials with illumination lights.

The new oil pressure gauge manufactured by F. W. Murphy has a black dial with white numbers and pointer and is calibrated in PSI and K/CM3 but has no ISO symbol.

The water temperature gauge manufactured by VDO has the same type dial and is calibrated in Fo and Co. This gauge has an ISO symbol like the one used in SAE J-298 for industrial applications.

The alternator light has Alt. between the red 1/2" diameter lense and the light. This light is illuminated in the accessory position and crank position but goes out when the engine is running.

We have contacted V.D.O. and Murphy Mfg. and they informed us they do not make gauges with the FMVSS 101 symbol on them.

The problem we have is that the 96 vehicles with these gauges are now ready for delivery, but the missing ISO symbols will delay delivery to the customer. The gauge manufacturer says it will take 12 weeks to develop the proper symbol.

Is it necessary to use Automotive ISO symbols on E-350 delivery trucks, or can a waiver be issued? If symbols are necessary, is it acceptable to use transparent decals with the proper symbols on the lense?

I would appreciate your prompt attention and answer on this matter since time is critical.

Please call at your earliest opportunity.

Regards, Nick Martz Regional Sales Manager Enclosures

ID: aiam4653

"Dear Mr. Holmes: This is in reply to your letter of September 28 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violation of any of the standards and regulations of this agency. These devices are 'designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down.' As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in progress. The 'locator' feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an 'emergency distress flare.' You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled 'Interior/Strobe Alarm Light,' and 'Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light.' The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 138l and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The 'Interior Strobe/Alarm Light' appears intended as a 'dome' light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view mirror required by Standard No. lll, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the 'Interior Strobe/Alarm Light' does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. The 'Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light' raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08, the center lamp may not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985. The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance with Standard No. lll, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you. I hope that this information is useful to you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure /";

ID: Supreme_intl

Ms. Melissa A. Burt
Foley & Lardner, LLP
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20007-5143

Dear Ms. Burt:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Supreme International Limited (Supreme). Supreme manufactures a Truck Mount Feed Processor, which is a livestock feed mixer mounted on a truck. You ask if the product is a "motor vehicle" subject to regulation by this agency. As explained below, our answer is yes.

You state that the Truck Mount Feed Processor is sold exclusively through farm equipment dealers and is not advertised for on-road use. You state that most of these vehicles never leave a farm after retail purchase, and that the vehicles travel on public roads on rare occasions for the purpose of transiting between farm locations or to obtain grain from a commodity barn. However, you also state that purchasers of these vehicles can obtain a certificate of title to permit registration and licensing under State motor vehicle laws.

Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code ("the Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Section 30102(a)(6) of that chapter 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.

We have issued a number of letters addressing 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. Also, vehicles are not motor vehicles if they were designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites and, although capable of being operated on public roads from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental to the primary purpose for which they were manufactured (e.g. , mobile cranes).

We would consider the feed mixer to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our FMVSSs and regulations. The Truck Mount Feed Processors on-road use would be more than incidental. An incomplete motor vehicle (i.e. , a chassis cab) is used in its manufacture and, as you state, Supreme completes the vehicle in accordance with the incomplete vehicle document supplied by the chassis-cab manufacturer and can certify the vehicle as complying with the FMVSSs. No part of the manufacturing process alters the chassis cab such that its final configuration is limited to off-road use. You state that the vehicles may travel on public roads when traveling between farm locations or to obtain grain from a commodity barn. You also state that purchasers of these vehicles can obtain a certificate of title to permit registration and licensing as motor vehicles under State laws. Given these factors, we conclude that the vehicles are motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.1/12/05

ID: aiam1248

Dear Mr. Russell: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1973, which request information on the requirements of Standard 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, and suggests that door locking mechanisms should prevent operation of the inside and outside handles (latch release controls) of both front and rear doors.; The standard presently requires that engagement of the front-doo locking mechanism on passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and trucks render the outside door handle (latch release control) inoperative. On passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, engagement of the rear- door locking mechanism must render both inside and outside handles inoperative. Your suggestion that inside door handles also be rendered inoperative was proposed in 1967 as an initial standard, but it was determined at that time that ease of escape in the event of accident made one-step operation of the door more desirable. It was concluded that the vehicle operator would have sufficient control over children in the front seat to permit such override operation.; We are still interested in the best arrangement of locking mechanism and override at the various seating positions. At the moment, available accident data does not justify further rulemaking. Your comments will be fully considered in the event we decide to take further action.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1550

Dear Mr. Semark: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1974, requesting tha vehicles which seat 10 persons or less, but are of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, be classified as school buses regardless of their intended use.; The vehicles that would be affected by the reclassification you reques are currently categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they provide seating positions for 10 persons or less. In general, the multipurpose passenger vehicle category is subject to more stringent safety requirements than either the bus or the school bus categories. Further, additional standards are becoming effective for multipurpose passenger vehicles in the near future as part of the NHTSA's overall plan to extend the requirements presently applicable to passenger cars. Thus, multipurpose passenger vehicles can expect increasingly higher safety performance levels, comparable to those of passenger cars.; Vehicles used to transport handicapped children should not b reclassified in such a way as to reduce the number or the stringency of the requirements to which they are subject.; On the basis of the above reasons, the NHTSA has concluded that th vehicles about which you are petitioning should not be reclassified as school buses and your petition is therefore denied.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 86-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Grace Cheng -- Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center (Taiwan)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Grace Cheng Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 330 REPUBLIC OF CHINA Dear Ms. Cheng: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether S4.1.2.3.1(a) of the standard requires a vehicle with a manual, nondetachable Type 2 safety belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard. However, we have recently set 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements for manual Type 2 safety belts used in the frontal outboard seating positions in future passenger cars. The dynamic test requirement for manual safety belts would go into effect on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirement of Standard No. 208 is rescinded. A copy of the notice on dynamic testing of manual safety belts is enclosed. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Dear Sirs;

It is so kind of you to solve our continuous inquiries. Here we would like to ask you one question as follows:

In regard to FMVSS 208, if we choose the third option S4.1.2.3.1(a) to equipped our cars with type 2 seat belt assemblies (nondetachable) that conform to FMVSS 209, then should our cars still be required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S 5.1 in a perpendicular impact?

Please answer us sooner and it will be highly appreciated.

Librarian Grace Cheng

ID: aiam0280

Dear Mr. Louis: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1971, to Mr. Clu Ferguson, requesting a clarification of certain sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection, Docket 69-7, Notice 10.; It was our intent, under S4.5.3, to permit free substitution of Type or Type 2 passive belts for seat belt assemblies required under S4. The standard specifies in S4.5.3 that a passive belt must conform to the requirements of S7.1 and to certain requirements of Standard No. 209, but it does not specify either that shoulder belts should be detachable or that they should be non-detachable. The manufacturer may therefore choose either method of shoulder belt attachment. A detachable shoulder belt in a passive belt system must not, however, convert the system from passive to active status.; Please advise us if you need additional clarification of this point. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-5.49

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Triboro Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1974, concerning your request for an exemption from the roof emergency exit requirements (S5.2.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217). We had denied an earlier request on March 27, 1974, following your letter to us of February 13, 1974.

We must again deny your request. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to motor vehicles (some apply to equipment only) specify safety requirements which apply to vehicle types generally (passenger cars, trucks, buses, etc.) and must of necessity be based on the use to which such vehicle types are generally put. The NHTSA has determined through the administrative rulemaking process that buses, including buses for use in urban environments, must have a roof emergency exit when a rear exit can not be installed due to the configuration of the bus. In most cases, including many urban situations, the roof exit can be an important safety feature, particularly when the bus is overturned on a side. While we do not dispute the facts you present, we view the situation as unsual, and not a suitable basis for modifying a requirement applicable to every urban bus. Our regulations do not permit exemptions from requirements for buses sold to one party.

However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1391 et seq.) under which Standard No. 217 is issued, a vehicle need not conform to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard after its sale to its ultimate user. Consequently there is no Federal prohibition to your modifying or eliminating the roof exits in these buses if you wish, after you receive them from the manufacturer.

SINCERELY,

Tribo Coach Corporation

April 4, 1974

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Att: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

In reply to your letter dated March 27, 1974, N40-3 (MPP)

Subject: Roof emergency exit (S5.2.1) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217

I am sure that you are becoming increasingly familiar with problems of making buses safer; this has also been our prime concern. In your letter you stated in order that the requirements be modified, there must be a showing, that their cost is unreasonable in terms of the safety benefits achieved. Again we are not concerned with the cost ratio, safety is our and your prime concern. About the abuses which the buses are subject to, you must take into account exactly, that which is going on in the buses. Bus seats being torn off there mounting, then seat cushions being thrown out of the window, window frames being dismantled and thrown out, screws from internal panels being removed and panels thrown out of buses, glass being broken, whereby cost and replacing is almost impossible, seat being cut up so as to be unrecognizable.

You speak of possible alternative steps taken to develop designs that will minimize the tampering with. I would like at this time to say that it is my opinion, in order to achieve the safety that we are both looking for, we should first develop the means to modify this condition that I presently see as a very dangerous and hazardous condition. Visualize the roof hatch being opened and the pupils boosting each other thru this hatch. What do you think will happen when the driver discovers this? immediately he will hit the brake pedal and where do you think the pupils will wind up? also, think of the traffic following. The hitting of the brake pedal will not be deliberately on our drivers part.

In an accident such as a roll over the bus can land on one of four sides. If it lands right side up that is on four wheels, there will be one entrance and one exit door. Eight large picture frame windows, if it lands on the left side. It will have one entrance door and one exit door and four large picture frame windows. The entire front windshield and the entire rear windshield, which are set in rubber can be kicked out very readily in any of the four positions, making an opening large enough to walk out in a standing position, if it lands on the right side there are four large picture frame windows. Also remembering the front and rear windshields, the most important part to remember, is in a roll over the sides of the bus will be pushed in there by buckeling up the roof. Because of the structure of the vehicle which I believe will distort the roof hatch and make it inoperable. This has been proven to be a fact.

To give you a short resume of my experiences aroun buses, listed below are the following:

1. 42 years as Superintendent of all Equipment.

2. A graduate of Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York.

3. Triboro Coach Corporation operates 165 city coaches.

4. Varsity Transit Inc. which is a school bus operation only and operates 1,378 vehicles which includes 80 lift buses hydraulically operated for wheel chairs.

This resume is not intended to impress you, or that I am an authority on the subject, but rather to show that I am familiar with the importance of that which you seek.

William J. Cicero Supt. of Maintenance

ID: GF001563a

Mr. Ian James
Retainagroup Limited
134 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1 W 9SA
England

Dear Mr. James:

This responds to your January 5, 2004, letter, as well as e-mail and phone communications with George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). You ask if glazing is considered a part of the door for the purposes of the standards parts marking requirements. You also ask whether parts marking can be applied to vehicles at the point of export, as opposed to the point of manufacture.

We note that you originally wrote intending to comment on our June 26, 2002, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed revisions to the theft prevention standard (67 FR 43075). As Mr. Feygin informed you, the comment period for the NPRM closed on August 26, 2002. Nonetheless, because the issues you raise are primarily requests for interpretation of the standard, we can address them in this letter.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires identifying numbers or symbols (usually Vehicle Identification Numbers, see 49 CFR Part 565) to be placed on major parts of certain passenger motor vehicles. 49 CFR 541.5 lists 18 "major parts" subject to the parts marking requirements. Front and rear doors are included in this list.

With respect to your first question, the agency does not consider window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal or fiberglass door structure to be a part of the "door" for the purposes of the parts marking requirements. Instead, under Part 541, the "door" is limited to the actual door structure. Glazing is designed and manufactured from a combination of glass and plastic, materials that are significantly different from metal and fiberglass normally used in manufacturing the "major parts" listed in 541.5. In inventory lists, manufacturers typically designate window glazing as a separate part from the metal doorframe. Glazing is also considerably more fragile than the major parts in 541.5, which makes it vulnerable to damage in a collision, and can be replaced relatively easily in a door. For these reasons, we do not consider marking the window glazing to meet 541.5s requirement to permanently mark the vehicles doors.

With respect to your second question, Part 541 does not require that parts marking be applied at the point of manufacture. However, a vehicle certified by the manufacturer to meet U.S. safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards must be marked prior to the delivery to dealer or distributor for the certification to be valid (49 U.S.C. 30115). Thus, the standard does not prohibit application of parts marking at the point of export so long as it is done prior to the delivery to distributor or dealer.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.4/14/04

ID: nht92-6.50

DATE: May 18, 1992

FROM: William E. Lawler -- Manager, Specifications, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/23/92 from Paul J. Rice to William E. Lawler (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Thank you for taking the time this afternoon to discuss some of the questions surrounding the inclusion of seat belt attachment hardware in the test requirements of FMVSS 210, "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages". At your suggestion, we are submitting some questions to you for clarification so we can give appropriate guidance to our customers, the heavy truck OEM's as to how the FMVSS 210 test is to be performed and interpreted.

1. RETRACTOR FRAMES

a. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

b. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

See Figure 1 (attached).

c. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

2. BUCKLE ATTACHMENT

a. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. See Figure 2 (attached).

Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/ vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

b. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

We appreciate your help in clarifying the interpretation of the standard with regard to these questions. As we discussed, we would appreciate receiving your answer by fax to save time.

Thank you for your help.

(Drawings omitted)