ID: nht76-3.21

DATE: 04/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to White Motor Corporation's March 26, 1976, request for confirmation that the brake systems of incomplete and complete vehicles to which Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies, may be modified by White under provisions of paragraph 567.7 of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, or paragraph 568.5 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Paragraph 567.7 provides that a person may alter a previously certified vehicle prior to the first retail sale, and that the person must state that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with applicable standards if weight ratings or other than readily attachable components have been affected. The person may choose any point from the date of certification to the date alterations were completed as the date of the alterer's statement. The NHTSA would not consider White to be violating its certification responsibilities by alterations of the brake system that you describe, as long as White indicates the modifications under the provisions of paragraph 567.7.

Paragraph 568.5 of Part 568 provides that an intermediate manufacturer may modify an incomplete vehicle. Under this paragraph, the intermediate manufacturer must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document reflecting any changes that should be made in the document because of modifications by the intermediate manufacturer that have affected validity of certain statements. White could utilize this provision to modify the vehicle so long as the addendum of changes is furnished along with the incomplete document.

As a practical result of the changes you describe, the final-stage manufacturer will not, as is normally the case, be able to utilize any date between the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and the date of final completion as the basis of certification. Therefore, it may be advisable for White to issue a new incomplete vehicle document to assist the final-stage manufacturer in its certification responsibilities. Whenever this is not practical, a notation that the final-stage manufacturer's choice of dates has been limited by White's modifications should be made in the addendum to the original document.

This discussion appears to conflict with the definition of intermediate manufacturer that appears in @ 568.3. However, the definition is not intended to prevent the modifications you intend to undertake, and an interpretative amendment is being considered to clarify the breadth of the definition.

ID: nht75-1.14

DATE: 08/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Business

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether S5.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, requires that the brake fluid level warning system specified by S5.3.1 be instantaneous when the brake fluid level reaches the condition described in S5.3.1(b).

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes that a minimal interval between the occurrence of the specified condition and the appearance of the required signal is a physical fact. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of a similar requirement of Standard No. 105-75 for your information. In the case of the brake fluid level indicator, a time interval that is insignificant with respect to the time required to respond to the signal would be permissible.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ATTACH.

June 18, 1975

Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Specification S5.3 of Regulation FMVSS 105-75 includes a requirement of brake system indicator lamps but does not, as I read it, mention the time permitted for such devices to signal after the brake fluid has reached the "danger" level.

Must it be instaneous? If not, what time intervals at various temperatures do you consider adequate?

As a United States citizen I respectfully request your advice on this point at your early convenience.

Very truly yours,

W. J. JOYCE -- CONSULTANT, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

ID: nht89-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989

FROM: J. DOUGLAS SMITH -- ENGINEERING MGR., DURALITE TRUCK BODY AND CONTAINER CORP. TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO J. DOUGLAS SMITH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108)

TEXT:

As an O.E.M. manufacturer of truck bodies, Duralite is responsible for final certification on literally thousands of new straight trucks. Recently however there has been some question regarding the interpre- tation of FMVSS 108 (lamps, reflective devices , and associated equipment). It is our understanding as well as industry standard that if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body. During the last week, a customer of ours received a warning for not having clearance lights in the proper location. Corporal Talbot of the Maryland State Police said that it was their interpretation that the cab mounted lights were sufficie nt and that a new officer had interpreted the meaning differently.

A change in the interpretation of this standard would effect many thousands of vehicles already on the road. Of all the major truck body manufacturers there is only one of which I am aware that has body mounted clearance lamps visible to the front. To revise the standard at this point would cost fleets a great deal of time and money.

As it is our responsibility to build and certify new units, your immediate attention and response to this situation would be greatly appreciated. If you have any question please feel free to contact me at (301) 727-6962.

ID: nht78-1.16

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: M. H. Hollaway

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

Tires manufactured for use on passenger cars or other motor vehicles designed principally for highway use must comply with all Federal regulations applicable to those tires. Tires designed for use on farm vehicles, on the other hand, are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) a dealer may not "knowingly render inoperative" a device installed on a motor vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. A dealer who removes properly certified passenger car tires from an automobile and replaces them with tires that are specified for farm use would be in violation of section 108 in that the complying tires would have essentially been rendered inoperative by his actions. Section 108 does not apply to private individuals. Thus, a car owner would not be in violation of the law if he accomplished the tire replacement himself. Such action would be highly inadvisable, however, since these restricted use tires are not constructed in compliance with standards that ensure a minimum safe level of performance for highway operation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 16, 1977

Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20013

Gentlemen;

Will you please answer the following question?

Is it unlawful to use tires on a passenger car that are marked "Farm tires"?

These tires are passenger car type tires with white sidewalls. However, a local tire store refused to install them because of the markings.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours Truly,

M. H. Hollaway

MARCH 7, 1978

M. H. Holloway

Dear Mr. Holloway:

This is in further reply to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

We inadvertently neglected to point out in our February 14, 1978, response to your letter that any tire which is marked with a Department of Transportation (DOT) symbol is presumed to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to it. Any tire with such a symbol may therefore be mounted on a motor vehicle without violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the former tires are removed, regardless of the appearance of words associating the tire with farm use.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: 22038

Mr. Ronald E. Kish
Plastics by Design
P.O. Box 220
Marcellus, MI 49067





Dear Mr. Kish:

This is in reply to a recent undated fax you sent Richard Van Iderstine of this agency about a license plate lamp design for a cargo utility trailer. The lamp would be mounted to the left of the door-mounted plate on the trailer frame.

The standard that applies to your question is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires trailers to be equipped with a license plate lamp, or lamps, in accordance with SAE Standard J587 OCT81, License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps), and located "at rear license plate, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides."

Conventional license plate lighting systems consist of either one lamp illuminating the plate from the top, or two lamps illuminating the plate, one from each side. These systems are intended to ensure a reasonably uniform distribution of light on the surface of the plate. We are not conversant with the use of a single lamp to illuminate the plate from one side only. The lamp must comply with SAE J587 and we cannot determine from your two-dimensional drawing whether it does so. I enclose a copy of SAE J587 so that you may make this determination. I call your attention to Paragraph 6.5 which specifies that:

When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plate of the plate, this angle being measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate.

If you are asking whether a design is acceptable in which the lamp is mounted on a fixed part of the vehicle, and the lamp on a moveable part, our answer is yes, provided that SAE J587 is met. Compliance of the vehicle is determined with deck lids and doors shut.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:8/25/00:62992:OCC 22038
cc: NcC-01 Subj./Chron
interps std. 108; redbook -2
ztv; 22038; U:\ncc20\interp\108\22038.ztv

ID: aiam4953

"Dear Mr. Eisert: This responds to your letter of October 25, 1991 requesting a waiver from the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards so that you can purchase a new vehicle that has been modified to allow you to operate the vehicle from your wheelchair. The safety requirements for new light trucks and vans were upgraded as of September 1, 1991. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 'to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs.' On January 9, 1992, this agency granted that petition. You should understand that the granting of a petition for rulemaking signifies that the agency believes a further review of the issues raised in the petition appears to have merit, but it is not a determination that the light truck and van crash test requirement should be amended. Any determination to amend the crash test requirement would be made in the course of a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. By addressing the issue comprehensively, in response to this petition for rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to each of the individual requests, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection. However, we are aware that you and others need more immediate relief than rulemaking can offer. To afford more immediate relief, we announced in a January 21, 1992 letter to Representative Porter Goss that this agency will not conduct any crash testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. We have also notified the van converter mentioned in your letter ofthis policy. This should allow you and others to purchase new vehicles while the rulemaking action is pending. With regard to your request for a waiver to have the rear seats in the van you will purchase moved rearward of the side door, the agency is not aware of any reason that would prevent a van converter from making this modification in such a way that the rear seats would continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after they were moved. There is, therefore, no need for us to grant such a waiver. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: American International Conversions FAX 813/586-6627";

ID: nht95-5.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test proc edure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not spe cify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met un der all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHT SA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the bas is for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10975

Helen A. Rychlewski
MGA Research Corporation
900 Mandoline Street
Madison Heights, MI 48071

Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage

the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201 d:8/4/95

ID: nht68-4.2

DATE: 08/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the method of operating school bus signal lamps as required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S3.1.3.2(b)(2) of Standard No. 108 requires that the system of red and amber signal lamps shall be wired so that the red signal lamps are automatically energized, and the amber signal lamps are automatically de-energized, when the bus entrance door is opened. Paragraph S3.1.2 of the standard does not permit the installation of an additional lamp, reflective device or associated equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

Therefore, the criteria for determining the compliance of an additional manual switch for controlling operation of the signal lamps is whether or not the manual switch would impair the effectiveness of the required automatic entrance door switch. A manual switch which overrides the entrance door switch only while the entrance door is closed does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required automatic switch. However, a manual switch which controls operation of the signal lamps while the entrance door is open would definitely impair the effectiveness of the automatic switch.

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. Therefore, the above comments are 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 the standard.

Thank you for writing.