ID: 9217

Mr. Jason Backs
Engineering Department
Travis Body and Trailer, Inc.
13995 F.M. 529
Houston, TX 77041

Dear Mr. Backs:

We have received your FAX of October 19, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a dump trailer manufactured by your company.

With respect to the location of the horizontal side conspicuity treatment, you prefer not to place it on the rubrail because "our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface." You propose to apply the conspicuity treatment between each side stake, resulting in 58% coverage of the trailer side. The tape is "in full view" from a point perpendicular to the side of the trailer, but at approximately 30 degrees from perpendicular, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. You ask for our concurrence that your proposed treatment is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

We are pleased to provide our concurrence. The mounting height requirements of Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 are specified in terms of practicability. The rule was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting height of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The determination of practicability, in the first instance, is that of the manufacturer certifying compliance with Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Because of raised ridges, you deem the rubrail not as practicable a location as the slightly higher area. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 allows discontinuities in the side treatment as long as not less than half the side is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.

Although the sheeting itself must meet the performance indicated at the observation angles specified in Figure 29, there are no visibility requirements that apply to it once it is installed on a trailer. This mean that the obscuring of the conspicuity treatment that begins at about 30 degrees from perpendicular under your proposed treatment is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/18/93

ID: nht80-3.30

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Lloyd Bentson, United States Senator

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 10, 1980, forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Bob Lacy. Mr. Lacy, a Ford dealer, requested Ford Motor Company to offer locking gasoline caps as an option on all future cars and trucks because of the growing problem of gasoline theft. Ford informed Mr. Lacy that it could not do so because it would require testing all its vehicles twice for compliance with the Federal fuel system safety standard, i.e., with the regular gasoline cap and with the locking cap.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements to ensure the safety of motor vehicle fuel systems. When subjected to a barrier impact crash test, vehicles cannot show fuel leakage beyond certain specified amounts. The standard is only a performance standard, however, and manufacturers are permitted to use any vehicle design they choose, including any gasoline cap they desire, as long as the standard is met.

Ford's statement that "in order to comply with FMVSS requirements for fuel systems, we would be required to test all our vehicles twice" is incorrect. Standard No. 301 does not require testing; it only requires that the vehicle meet the performance requirements that are specified. The manufacturer's legal responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles do in fact comply with these performance requirements. Ford may feel it necessary to crash test vehicles with both types of gasoline caps, in order to establish due care, but doing so is not required by the standard. Other methods could be used to determine if the varying gasoline caps would affect compliance. Further, even if a manufacturer desires to do some testing, it is difficult to imagine that the design of the gas caps used for different Ford cars differ sufficiently to warrant testing every type of Ford car.

Finally, I would like to point out that if Ford believes crash testing is necessary for each type of gasoline cap used, it could choose to offer only locking caps rather than offering only regular caps. I suggest that Mr. Lacy contact Ford again to determine why they chose regular caps over locking caps, given Ford's decision that it only wanted to perform tests using one type cap.

If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

ID: nht93-4.36

DATE: June 17, 1993

FROM: Han Dinh -- Project Manager, Delivery & Customer Services Equipment Engineering, Research and Development, United States Postal Service

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Office of Chief Counsil (Counsel), Rule Making Division

TITLE: ANSI/AGA NGV2 Standard

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/93 from John Womack to Han Dinh (A41; Part 303)

TEXT:

The U.S. Postal Service is in the process of converting our postal fleet to operate on alternative fuel; mainly compressed natural gas, as it is required by the Clean Air Act and Energy Policy Act.

As a background, The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has a standard for the fuel tanks that are all-steel and all-aluminum pressure vessels, as well as vessels which are reinforced with composite. Since the standard was not intended for vehicular fuel tank usage, the cylinder makers have to obtain approval of exemption from Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation.

In the past, we required the manufacturers of the cylinders to obtain DOT exemption (i.e., Press Steel Tank Company has DOT-E-8965 or SCI Company has DOT-E-8725) so they can be considered as a supplier.

The American Gas Association, with help from industry, has generated a standard called NGV2, which is referenced by the National Fire Protection Agency Standard NFPA-52 as an acceptable standard and has also been adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a branch of DOT, is in the process of NGV2 review.

This brings us to the point of our concern. The Brunswick Composite Tank Company has informed us that they have just passed the NGV2 standard; and we believe they are the only company with this claim. In the near future, we are planning to release an RFP for converting 1400 vehicles to compressed natural gas. We would like to ask your office for a recommendation as to which standard we should require (DOT exemption cylinder or NGV2 cylinder). Your guidance in this matter would help us a great deal. If you have any questions, please contact me at (703) 641-7138 or Chris Nikpora at (703) 641-7416. We would appreciate it very much if you could respond to us before July 1, 1993.

ID: nht75-5.44

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harney, Bambic & Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 5, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Section 202 does not directly require any motor vehicle to be equipped with appropriate tires. It instructs this agency to establish, by regulation, motor vehicle safety standards which will in turn require vehicles to be so equipped. Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -- passenger cars, implements this instruction with respect to passenger cars. A three-quarter-ton pick-up truck, however, would be subject instead to proposed Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects to act on that proposal in the near future.

Standards issued pursuant to Section 202 do not apply to vehicles after they have been purchased for the purpose of being rented or leased to the general public; they are applicable only to vehicles up to the point of first purchase.

SINCERELY,

HARNEY, BAMBIC & MOORE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

April 5, 1975

Department of Transportation

I have a specific question with regard to the applicability of Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Does Section 202 apply to three-quarter ton pick-up trucks? If so, does the Act, pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Act, require that a vehicle such as a three-quarter ton pick-up truck be equipped with tires which, according to regulations (perhaps the Tire and Rim Association), are capable of carrying the gross vehicle weight as that gross vehicle weight is identified by the truck manufacturer (such as General Motors Corporation)?

My next question is whether or not Section 202 is meant to apply to companies or businesses which engage in the renting or leasing of such types of trucks to the general public.

I would very much appreciate any assistance you can give me with regard to the interpretation of Section 202 as outlined above.

Thank you very much for your courtesy and cooperation.

William S. Hart

ID: nht74-3.40

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Open Road Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1974, regarding Open Road's defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign #73-0043. We indicated to you by letter of March 21, 1974, that notification letters in future campaigns must be modified to conform to @ 577.4(e)(3) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577) if you continue to make repairs contingent upon the purchaser's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision found in Open Road's "Authorization for Repair and Alteration" form. You state in your letter that the sole purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is to protect your company from claims from third parties for unauthorized repairs.

While it is true, as you point out, that the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is not part of the notification letter, that fact is not germane to our conclusion that your letter must conform to @ 577.4(e)(3) if you continue only to make repairs contingent upon the owner's agreement to the provision in question. We are pleased to know that the provision's sole purpose is to protect the company against claims from unknown owners for unauthorized repairs, and we do not object to repairs being contingent upon the owner's agreement to such a provision. But if that is the case we would insist that the provision be more narrowly drafted so that its intent is clear. If that is done Open Road may continue to send notification letters that conform to @ 577.4(e)(1). The responses we have had from owners of Open Road vehicles subject to defect notification and our own review of the provision are persuasive in our view that at present this limited intent is not clear.

Notwithstanding your reference to the meeting Open Road officials had with Robert Carter and Andrew Detrick of NHTSA, at no time was approval given to Open Road's notification letter with knowledge that repair would be made only following the owner's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision.

ID: nht68-2.37

DATE: 05/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: E.B. Buske Manufacturing Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 19, 1968, to Dr. William Hadden, Jr., requesting comments on the proposed installation of lighting equipment and the certification label for tow trucks which are manufactured by your company.

With exceptions as listed below, the lighting equipment shows on the photograph enclosed with your letter appears to meet the location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.

1. The front clearance lamps do not appear to be located "as near as practicable to the upper left and right exercise edges of the vehicle." Clearance lamps located further outboard on the cab would meet the requirements of the standard.

2. Standard No. 108 requires that rear indentification lamps be located "on the rear" of the vehicle. Location of these lamps beneath the truck body (for protection) would meet the requirements of the standard.

3. No red reflex reflectors are shown on the rear of the truck. The red reflector tape may be used in addition to the red reflex reflectors, but not as a substitute for the reflex reflectors.

4. No red rear side marker lamps are shown on the truck.

The photograph you enclosed of your trust has been marked to indicate possible corrections for the above discrepancies. Also enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108.

The information you have provided in regard to certification does not fully meet the requirements of Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965. For your further information, we are enclosing copies of the certification requirement and labeling requirements for chassis-cabs under the notice of ruling regarding chassis-cabs.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. The above comments are therefore for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: 1982-2.11

DATE: 05/04/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Name not released

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1982, asking for a "confidential interpretation" of the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards to sidecars.

The agency does not provide "confidential interpretations." Your questions are of public interest and a copy of this letter will be placed in the interpretations file that is available for public review. However, because it relates to "specific future model product plans," we are deleting your name and address from the copy of our response made available to the public.

You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable to a sidecar "sold independently as an aftermarket item." It is true that there are no "sidecar" standards. But certain of its equipment items are themselves covered by Federal equipment standards and must independently comply. Specifically, brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires and glazing (if provided) would have to meet Standards Nos. 106, 108, 119, and 205 as they apply to motorcycle equipment. In addition, because a sidecar is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of any sidecar sold in the aftermarket would be responsible for notification and remedy in the event his product was determined to contain a safety-related defect.

You have presented the hypothetical situation of a motorcycle supplied to a retail dealership with the sidecar attached by the manufacturer and asked whether it is considered to be a three-wheeled motorcycle or a two-wheeled motorcycle with an attachment of motor vehicle equipment. You point out that the former interpretation raises questions of practicability of compliance with the standards.

The definition of a motorcycle encompasses both two- and three-wheeled vehicles, and we believe that the questions you have raised subsequently with respect to Standards Nos. 108, 119, 120, and 122 should be answered on a common sense basis. For lighting equipment on the front and rear of a motorcycle the vertical center line of a motorcycle with sidecar attached is the vertical center line of the two-wheeled motorcycle. However, the side reflex reflector should be placed on both the motorcycle and the sidecar. Standards Nos. 119 and 120 must be met by the motorcycle with the sidecar attached. In addition, a motorcycle whose original equipment includes a sidecar must meet Standard No. 122 with the sidecar attached. If a motorcycle with sidecar is capable of meeting Standard No. 122 without the sidecar being equipped with a brake, then the sidecar need not have a brake.

I hope this answers your questions.

ID: nht79-1.11

DATE: 01/09/79

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 9 1979

NOA-30

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of October 25, 1978. You asked whether a webbing guide you are planning for the rear seat belt in station wagon vehicles would have to comply with the strength requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

The agency has examined the drawings included in your letter and discussed this new webbing guide with Volvo engineers. We have concluded that the webbing guide would not qualify as an "anchorage" and, therefore, would not have to comply with the Standard 210 requirements for anchorages. The standard defines "anchorage" as a device that transfers seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Your proposed webbing guide is not intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure, and will only be added to increase the comfort of the assembly. As you indicated, the device marked "B" on your drawings would qualify as an anchorage and would have to meet the strength requirements of the standard.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 25, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 900 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS No. 210

Dear Mr. Levin:

Volvo is planning to modify the belt geometry of the rear seat belt in our station wagons. We will introduce an extra webbing guide, which is marked "A" on the enclosed sketch. This modification will improve the belt use comfort and will thereby encourage increased seat belt usage.

It is Volvo's interpretation that this webbing guide is not a seat belt anchorage and is therefore not required to meet the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.2. Please confirm whether our interpretation is correct. The device which Volvo uses "for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure", is marked "B" on the enclosed sketch, and is designed to meet the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.2.

If additional information is required on this issue, don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely yours,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning & Development

Manager, Regulatory Affairs

WS/dpl ENCLOSURE (1)

ID: nht71-4.38

DATE: 11/02/71

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

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent telephone inquiry as to whether the recent amendment of Standard 215, Exterior Protection, requires that vehicles meet the photometric requirements of Standard 108 after being subjected to the Standard 215 impacts.

S5.3.1 of Standard 215 reads:

"Each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, shall be free of cracks and shall comply with the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

S4.3.1.1 of Standard 108 reads in relevant part:

"Each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. In addition, no part of the vehicle shall prevent the device from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice." (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, although the actual photometric tests may be considered "bench tests", that is, tests whose procedures include removing the devices from the vehicle, the above provision of Standard 108 requires that the configuration of the vehicle external to the devices not prevent them from meeting the photometric requirements. The test procedures themselves require the devices to be placed

in their actual orientation on the vehicle. Therefore, the provision in Standard 215 that the lamps and reflective devices shall meet all the requirements of Standard 108 after the impacts includes the photometric requirements.

ID: nht74-1.36

DATE: 09/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Societe de Signalisations Automobiles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 17, 1974, concerning NHTSA's proposal to apply a manufacturer's identification code to motor vehicle lights.

Motor vehicle lights, including those imported in the United States, subject to MVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, would be required to be marked with a manufacturer's identification code under the NHTSA proposal. Just as all motor vehicle lights must meet the performance requirements of Standard 108, if the proposal is adopted as a final rule they would be required to meet the manufacturer's identification code requirement as well.

Thank you for advising us of your views in this matter. We will take them into account in formulating further action.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 17, 1974

Dear Sirs,

Further to the publication of your project in the Federal Register of the 5.6.74 modifying the mode of assigning an identification code we have to inform you that for the little trafic lights still existing nearly everywhere in the world, it will be very difficult to find an aera authorising all the markings.

Unfortunalty, we see no solution to suggest to you but we want to point out the difficulties there will be to account for all of the markings.

Yours faithfully

The Secretary General -- R. VIBART