ID: nht90-3.77

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald C.J. Gray -- Commissioner, Federal Supply Service, General Services Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-2-90 from D.C.J. Gray to B. Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications." You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by th e General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is "yes." Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces.

The exception in 49 CFR S571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating h ow the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outwe igh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards.

To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are:

manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.

We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to tbe GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces , as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency

interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly t o the Armed Forces.

Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces "in conformity with contractual specifications." In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include tbe s ubstantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses.

I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance.

ID: nht95-4.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1995

FROM: Kenneth W. Easterling -- Plan B Engineering, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA; Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Collision Avoidance Technology

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Kenneth Easterling (A43; Std. 108); 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson

TEXT: THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENTS MADE RECENTLY OUR COLLISION AVOIDANCE DEVICE NOW IN THE FINAL DESIGN STAGES. AS PER YOUR DIRECTIVE. I HAVE ATTACHED A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE SUBJECT DEVICE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND OPINION.

IF I CAN PROVIDE ANYTHING FURTHER IN TERMS OF PRODUCT ILLUSTRATION OR EXPLANATION, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL.

WE SINCERELY THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PERSONAL COMMENTARY AND SUBMISSION TO MR. DUBBIN'S OFFICE FOR INSPECTION.

VERY BEST REGARDS, KENNETH W. EASTERLING

Attachment

Mr. Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel NHTSA, Room 5219

Subject: Rear End Collision Avoidance Re: Proportional Deceleration Indicator Lamps (aka) G-Lamps

Dear Mr. Dubbin:

In recognition of the significant work and contributions to highway safety, I submit for your consideration and opinion, the concept and justification for G-Lamps.

To be specific, an inertial driven, proportional deceleration indicator lamp as an intended enhancement to existing single filament, on/off style incandescent brake lamps. We have recently entered final design stages on the device and initial tests h ave revealed some startling results in decreased driver reaction times when compared to the industry standard products.

Building on my work experience within the California Highway Patrol, I recognized the need for motorists to be aware of not only when a vehicle ahead of you was braking, but to what degree the deceleration was be made. Tests have shown reaction times were cut in half when a motorist was visually appraised of increasing, hard braking activity instead of having to judge the rate of diminishing distance between his/her vehicle and the braking motorist (as is the case with on/off style brake lamps). In the case of freeway speeds, these reaction times and distances are accumulated from one vehicle to the next (rear) until ultimately (at freeway speeds) a rear end collision is imminent.

G-Lamps was developed to provide motorists to the rear, visual reference to the degree of braking activity on a real-time basis. Valuable distance is directly proportionate to time lost in reacting to sudden stops or increasingly harder braking. As we all know, there exists a tendency to "ride" our brakes when anticipating slow-downs or stops. This has effectively eliminated the benefits of standard brake lamps. From the time of activation, the degree of braking activity is anyone's guess. To mo torists to the rear it may very well end up in excessive vehicle damage and injury liabilities.

For your inspection, explanation of the device is delivered on the following pages. I have tried to be as informative as possible without laboring you with manufacturing details that would rival a sales pitch.

I thank you in advance for your input and contributions to this effort.

Kenneth Easterling, President, Plan B Engineering Inc.

Intent and Purpose

The device was conceived to counter the hazards of hard braking while in traffic at highway speeds. It is intended to enhance existing brake indicator lamp systems and not to deviate from customary and expected visual queues during motor vehicle oper ation with one important exception.

Specifically, braking activity in excess of normal deceleration (defined as an appreciable decay of forward momentum of the vehicle) would activate decelerometer circuitry housed within the lamp bulb itself and be viewed from the rear as proportionate ly faster flashing light equating to the degree of deceleration. Normal braking would display customary visual queues as a steady burn of the brake lamp.

It is well established through independent studies and government testing, driver reaction times are severely compromised as the distance between vehicles decrease under various breaking conditions. This scenario is aggravated by the need to visually judge the rate of deceleration of the stopping vehicle and a following driver to respond accordingly.

The device proposed will deliver visual feed-back to following motorists of greater than normal braking activity. The ergonomics of the device are geared to normal reflex actions of potential and proportion. The greater the rate of deceleration of t he vehicle the faster the cycles per second of the inertial lamp. Therefore, the following vehicle's response will be to react with potentially greater braking activity much sooner than normal. Thus capturing valuable stopping distance that would other wise be lost. This problem is further exaggerated by less than desirable visual acuity present in more than three quarters of the motoring public.

Abstract of Device (i.e. form, fit and function) While the form and fit of the device mimic the present day designs for incandescent, filament style lamps, the similarity must end there. Unlike it's predecessor, the inertia lamp is mechanically dynamic in function. To operate the device must be sub jected to substantial negative G-forces which can only be generated by the sudden and rapid deceleration the vehicle in which it is mounted. Without these influences, the bulb assembly acts as any other lamp bulb, in terms of constant steady burn associ ated with normal deceleration rate, when the brake system is activated.

By nature of design, the inertia bulb will activate in concert with the steady burning "normal" brake lamp. Once energized, the inertia flash filament portion of the lamp will increase the flash rate by cycles per second (Hz) proportionate to the rat e of declaration. This is a desired means of attaining a quantification of braking magnitude.

Microelectronics technology allows the timing circuitry to be housed within a standard "bayonet" style socket with no modification to the manufacturer's electrical or molded lens structures. State of the art manufacturing techniques allow the device to be fabricated in cost ranges considered to be competitive with existing high performance lamps. The solid state design and minimal parts involved insure long life and serviceability.

Summary

In conclusion, our studies indicate this device to be the most straight forward, technically viable and ergonomically effective means of reducing the single most prolific cause of vehicular collisions today, "the rear-ender". Billions of dollars annua lly are paid out by insurance companies for damages and bodily injury claims directly related to these types of collisions. Considering the enormous loss in work time, productivity in the economy and personal pain and suffering, the numbers are staggeri ng.

Recently a precedence was set by General Motors with the introduction of the Daytime Running Lamp. Recognizing a simple but highly effective means of vehicular illumination, a major, profit oriented corporation was willing to make a billion dollar in vestment to highway safety. The motoring public as well as the companies that insure their financial responsibility, have come to expect a product that is as safe as technically and morally possible.

ID: nht95-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Darlene Skelton -- President, National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/94 LETTER FROM DARLENE E. SKELTON TO BARRY FELRICE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards of this agency, in which you asked the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to three specific scenarios. I apologi ze for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, under the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 U.S. Code, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipmen t. All new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture, and manufacturers must certify such compliance by affixing to each vehicle a manufacturer's certification lab el. Among other requirements, the certification label must contain the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of each vehicle and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle on the vehicle, identified in order from front to rear.

a. Your first question referred to a situation in which the GVWR exceeded the tire load ratings. Specifically, you alluded to the-case of a fire truck with four rear mounted tires, each rated at 7,000 pounds (lb), that were installed on a 31,000 lb. axle. You stated that the final stage manufacturer received a letter from the tire manufacturer raising the tire inflation pressures from 100 to 110 or 115 pounds per square inch and limiting the driving to not more than 7 miles at a speed not to excee d 55 miles per hour. You asked whether such practices violated the FMVSSs.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, provides in pertinent part:

[The] sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567.

In other words, the load ratings of the tires on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be at least equal to the weight ratings of the axles on which the tires are installed. The standard makes no provision for changing the tire inflation pressur es or driving at restricted speeds or limiting the distances the vehicle may travel to compensate for discrepancies in the load and weight ratings.

The facts you provided us, however, are not sufficient on which to base an opinion as to whether there has been a noncompliance in that instance. We would have to know all the facts and circumstances relevant to the tire manufacturer's alleged actions, including input from the manufacturer itself, before we could arrive at a conclusion in that regard.

b. Your second question referred to vehicles in which axles had been rerated. You cited a situation in which a manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Thus, the manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks from 22,000 to 24 000 lbs.

NHTSA defines the GAWR as:

[The] value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interface (emphasis added).

A manufacturer's assigning different GAWRs to axles on different vehicles is not prohibited by our FMVSSs. In fact, manufacturers routinely assign different GAWRs and GVWRs to different vehicles based on the various equipment options and add-ons, partic ularly with respect to emergency vehicles. In any case, NHTSA expects that the GAWR(s) stated on the vehicle's certification label correctly reflects the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle.

c. Your final question asked whether it was a violation of the FMVSS for manufacturers to take the air supply for their vehicle horns off the air supply for the vehicle's brakes. The answer is, in general, no.

FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles other than passenger cars that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for the horn, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If the horn operating off the brake air supply is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 121. If the horn is added to a previous ly certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be an alterer who would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the FMVSSs affected by the alteration. If the horn were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle repair business, that business would not be required to attach a label or recertify the vehicle. It would, however, have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In addition, hoses connected to air horns could be subject to Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. They are subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of the h ose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with Standard No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard. o I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam1428

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in further reply to your letter of November 19, 1974 petitioning the NHTSA to amend Part 567, Certification (S 567.4(f)), to allow the use of certification labels on which the lettering is embossed or engraved without regard to whether it contrasts with its background.; The NHTSA has decided that your petition should be denied. Ou experience has been that certain types of engraving, those that are stencil- types or stamped, are difficult to read without color contrast. The NHTSA considers it essential that certification labels be readable under all lighting conditions, and has not found embossing or engraving to product by themselves sufficiently readable lettering for these labels. Of course, there is no prohibition against embossing or engraving if the finished lettering contrasts with its background.; We appreciate your point that Standard No. 105a accepts embossed o engraved lettering on the master cylinder reservoir label without requiring a color contrast. We are presently considering amending Standard No. 105a to eliminate this discrepancy.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam5244

"Dear Mr. Ziwica: This responds to your request for an interpretatio regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206. Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door. Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged. S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3. S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is 'inoperative' even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertant door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, 'inoperative,' as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2321

Dear Mr. Thompson: I am writing to point out an error in an article that appeared in th May 24-31, 1976, issue of *NTDRA Dealer News* (Vol. XXXIX, No. 15). The article summarized a recent Federal Register notice (41 FR 18659, May 6, 1976, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4) that delayed certain effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.*; The error appears in the paragraph of the article that reads: >>>Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by th tire manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.<<<; One requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims tha have been designated by the manufacturer of the vehicle's tires as suitable for use with those tires. The effective date of this requirements was originally established as September 1, 1976, and was not delayed be Notice4. Another requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that comply with the standard, i.e., with rims that are marked according to S5.2, *Rim Marking.* Only the effective date of this vehicle requirement was changed from March 1, 1977, to September 1, 1979.; A clarification of these effective dates in a forthcoming issue o *NTDRA Dealer News* would be much appreciated.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.4

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Williamsen Truck Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. F. E. Stephens Vice President, Marketing 1925 Indiana Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84125

Dear Mr. Stephens

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 8, 1980

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

ATTENTION: VIN coordinator Gentlemen:

We submit herewith our VIN number for the trailers we build as follows for your approval.

Williamsen manufactures end dump trailers, bottom dump trailers and trailer chassis as semi trailers, full trailers, and pony trailers in tandem axle, two axle, triple axle and four axle configerations as per drawings and pictures enclosed.

The Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. has assigned to Willamsen a (WMI) code of 1W9 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th characters of the vehicle identifier section as: 004

Our model years starts October 1, 1980 through September 30, 1981 so our VIN number is constructed as follows:

1st, 2nd 3rd characters 1W9=Assignment from Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

1 = Full trailer 4th Character 2 = Semi-trailer 3 = Dolly (no body) 4 = Pony trailer

B = FRP Bottom dump C = Chassis only (no body) D = Steel Bottom dump 5th Character E = Steel end dump F = Aluminum bottom dump G = Aluminum end dump H = Steel sand master

6th & 7th Characters = Length, feet

8th Character = Number of Axles

9th Character = Check digit

10th Character = Year model

11th Character = S = Salt Lake City, Utah plant 0 = Ogden, Utah plant D = Dallas, Texas plant 12th, 13th, 14th Characters = 04 - Assignment from Society of Automotive Engineering, Inc 15th, 16th 17th Characters 001 thru 090 = Starting of production at beginning of our 1981 production year October 1, 1980 for each type and length of trailer. Then continuing each year thereafter with consecutive numbering until we reach 999 at which time we will start over again 001 thru 050. This should take several years.

Our Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for trailers manufactured by Williamsen starting with first trailers of each type and size on October 1, 1980 will be as follows:

Two axle full trailer with:

Steel end dump body - 16' 1W9 1E162 0 BS004001 Aluminum end dump body - 16' 1W9 1G162 8 BS004001

Four Axle full trailer with:

FRP bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1B294 6 BS004001 Steel bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1D294 3 BS004001 Aluminum bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1F294 0 BS004001 Chassis only (no body) - 20' 1W9 1C204 3 Bs004001

Tandem axle semi-trailer with:

FRP bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2B292 2 BS004001 FRP bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2B372 1 BS004001 FRP bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2B402 1 BS004001

Steel Bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2D292 X BS004001 Steel Bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2D372 9 BS004001 Steel Bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2D402 9 BS004001

Aluminum Bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2F292 7 BS004001 Aluminum Bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2F372 6 BS004001 Aluminum Bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2F402 6 BS004001

Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-41' 1W9 2H412 5 BS004001 Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-47' 1W9 2H472 6 BS004001 Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-51' 1W9 2H512 8 BS004001 Dolly:

Single axle - 06' 1W9 30061 5 BS004001 Tandem axle - 08' 1W9 30082 X BS004001

Two axle pup or pony trailer:

With steel end dump body - 25' 1W9 4E252 5 BS 00401 With aluminum end dump body - 25' 1W9 4G252 2 BS004001

Triple axle pup or pony trailer:

With steel end dumkp body - 24' 1W9 4E243 2 BS004001 With aluminum end dump body - 24' 1W9 4G243 X BS004001

We trust this meets with your approval and we may receive same shortly.

Sincerely,

WILLIAMSEN TRUCK EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

F. E. Stephens V. P. Marketing

FES/sr

enc. 03/17/81

ID: nht94-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 15, 1994

FROM: Mary M. Mann -- Director, Federal Government Relations, National Marine Manufacturers Association; Medford Smith -- NMMA, Director of Technical Services; Gerald Wierstema -- President, Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Mr. Patrick Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/11/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Mary M. Mann (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Boyd:

I want to thank you and Mr. Vincent for visiting with me and the other representatives of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) regarding the NHTSA "Conspicuity Systems" requirements (49 C.F.R. @ 571.108 - S5.7) as they apply to certain large boat trailers, i.e., trailers over 80 inches in width and 10,000 pounds GVWR. I also want to ask for your written confirmation of the understandings we received during that meeting and to ask for your specific guidance on other issues of concern. The paragraph references below are to the numbered paragraphs in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.108 ("DOT 108").

As we explained during our meeting, boat trailers are of a unique design. They are built with a frame that V's forward to the center of the tongue. It is not unusual for this angled frame section to be nine to ten feet long on a trailer of 10,000 GVW R. In addition, such a trailer would have an axle and fender assembly (made up of a tandem or sometimes even a triple axle unit) that is moveable along the frame to compensate for the center of gravity of the boat being carried. The fender, which obscu res the frame behind it from view, is usually six to nine feet long. The rear of the trailer has a v-shaped cross member with little or no horizontal surface and is very low to the ground.

Side Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4 prohibits white retroreflective sheeting material from being closer than 75mm to the edge of any lamp "that is required by these standards" [DOT 108] and further prohibits red retroreflective sheeting material from being closer than 75mm to the edge of any like required amber lamp. The clearance lamp required by paragraph S5.1.1.9 to be located "near or at the midpoint on each side [of the boat trailer] to indicate its extreme width" is usually located on the front corner of e ach fender to comply with the "midpoint" and "extreme width" requirements. As a result, when viewed from the side, the amber portion of that clearance light would appear next to a retroreflective sheeting material applied to the frame. We wish to confi rm that the 75mm spacing can be achieved by the width of the fender. In other words, if the side clearance amber light is located 75mm or more out from the frame on the fender, even though it would appear next to the sheeting when viewed from the horizo ntal, it would still be in compliance with paragraph S5.7.1.4.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that the sheeting cover at least half the length of the trailer and that it be distributed as evenly as practicable. We wish to confirm that the following applications would be acceptable for purposes of determinin g that one half of the trailer side is covered with sheeting under this requirement:

(a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that makes up the tongue regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from a right angle to the trailer's centerline.

(b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane, e.g., it can be on the outside of the fenders or on the tongue even though the sheeting applied there would be at a different height from each other and from the sheeting applied to the fr ame.

Rear Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 (as amended) requires that "reflexive sheeting shall be applied to the rear of each trailer as follows, except that Element 2 is not required for container chassis or for platform trailers without bulkheads, and Element 3 is n ot required for trailers without underride protection devices". Please confirm that boat trailers that do not have bulkheads would be treated the same as similarly rigged platform trailers and hence would only have to comply with Element 1 under this par agraph.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1, Element 1 (as amended) requires a strip of sheeting as horizontal as practicable "across the full width of the trailer". Because there are mounting brackets attached to the cross member at the rear of the trailer, portions o f the frame that will have sheeting would be obscured from view. Please confirm that such mounting brackets will be treated as "items of equipment" or the like under Paragraph S5.7.1.4(a) and that sheeting across the full width of the cross member, even though partially obscured by the mounting brackets, would comply with Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1.

3. Referring further to Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1, Element 1, and the requirement that the strip of sheeting run across the full width of the trailer, please confirm that it would not be necessary to place a horizontal strip of sheeting on the rear of eac h fender assembly even though when viewed from the rear, the "full width of the trailer" would include the frame plus the two fenders. We understand that only the rear most portion of the frame need be considered for purposes of this requirement.

4. Paragraph S.5.7.1.4(b) and (c) govern the location of sheeting in relation to the trailer lamps. Please confirm that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must b e at lease 3mm from those lamps.

Please further confirm our understanding that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory.

Thank you again for meeting with us. We appreciate your attitude that manufacturers should put the tape in the best location they have for it to be seen and that you are not trying to force a re-design of the boat trailers.

ID: nht72-4.33

DATE: 02/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1971, concerning the Certification regulations, and the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 567, 568). You state that you do not believe the publication of December 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 23571), responds to certain questions you raised in your docket submission of October 27, 1971, and request that we clarify these points for you.

You stated that one problem not dealt with by the amendment of December 10 is that it is impractical for you to place multiple tire sizes (you use an example of nine sizes for one model line) on a small certification label. However, we believe the preamble to the notice of December 10 deals directly with the problem you raise. It said, "as on some vehicles it will be difficult to affix the required label in the designated location, because of space limitations, . . ." "multicolumn labels or adjacent labels in two or more parts are permitted." The provision for listing multiple tire sizes is optional with the manufacturer, and if it presents difficulties a manufacturer may list a single GAWR and GVWR based on the specific tires with which the vehicle, as manufactured, is equipped.

Your letter of October 27, 1971, indicates that you have traditionally furnished a vehicle identification plate with vehicles you manufacture which specifies a "maximum GVW rating" and you raise questions concerning possible discrepancies between the "maximum GVW rating" on the Vehicle Identification Plate and "GAWR" and "GVWR" on the Certification label. The position taken by NHTSA is that the only values that should be provided for gross vehicle or gross axle weight rating are those on the certification label. Any other capacity placed on the vehicle should be clearly and unambiguously described, and should not be represented in any way that it could be confused with GAWR and GVWR. Furthermore, while the GAWR and GVWR may be placed on a vehicle identification plate in the case of a vehicle for which you are the final-stage manufacturer, it may cause problems if the vehicle is an incomplete vehicle (unless pursuant to @ 567.5(b) and 568.7, you as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assume the legal responsibility for the vehicle). The value on the identification plate might conflict with the GAWR and GVWR placed on the certification label affixed by the final-stage manufacturer.

The answer to the issues raised in your October 27 letter are as follows:

1. Your first problem appears to be that vehicles previously rated as Class 8 under State law, based on axle capability, will under the definitions of GVWR and GAWR now be Class 7 due to the tires generally furnished with the vehicle. The GVWR rating on the certification label is not intended to replace the method under which vehicles are classified under State laws. If States use GVWR as a basis for classification without understanding that the criteria for determining this figure differ from those used previously, the problem should be brought to the States' attention by affected parties.

2. Your second and third questions concern the differences between the vehicle identification plate and the GVWR on the certification label when the final manufacturer makes changes in the chassis equipment. Your question appears to assume that you will have the responsibility for the certification label on an incomplete vehicle. This is not the case. Except when the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes complete legal responsibility under @ 567.5(b) and 568.7, the certification label including GVWR and GAWR, is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer's duty is to furnish information concerning weight ratings and conformity with the standards in the Part 568 document, in which you can easily provide as detailed information as you wish. Any permanent labels that you affix as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer are not part of our regulatory scheme and are your own responsibility. If your own "identification plate" causes you problems, discontinuing the practice would be a possible solution.

In your question 4, you ask whether the ultimate retail customer is considered a final manufacturer if he makes changes that affect GVWR and GAWR. The answer is that the ultimate retail customer is a final-stage manufacturer if he fulfills the definition of that category in @ 568.3. If the vehicle he purchases is an incomplete vehicle as defined in that section, then he has the same responsibility as any other final-stage manufacturer to affix a label with the correct GVWR and GAWR information. If he purchases a complete vehicle, then he is not a manufacturer and need not make changes in the labels regardless of what he does with the tires. Merely changing tires, or purchasing a vehicle complete except for tires, would not make such a purchaser a final-stage manufacturer.

ID: aiam3547

Dear Mr. Blair: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1982, asking whether proposed motorcycle taillamp assembly would comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As you point out, the standard requires a minimum distance of 4 inche edge to edge between turn signal lamps and stop/tail lamps. Since you state that you cannot achieve this with your design, the lamp as currently designed would not be permitted by our standard. This will confirm the oral interpretation provided by Taylor Vinson of this office when you telephoned on March 22.; You will be interested to know that we are presently studying side an rear conspicuity of motorcycles. This research is being conducted by Ketron in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the final report is expected in July 1982 should you wish to obtain a copy of it from us.; As you requested confidential treatment of your engineering drawing, w are returning it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel