ID: 9984

Victor Larson, P.E.
Cryenco, Inc.
3811 Joliet Street
Denver, CO 80238

Dear Mr. Larson:

This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicuity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility

in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers equipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinets were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicitly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefits of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comparable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/14/94

ID: 77-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment applies to fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

No requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to fog lamps and they are subject to regulation by the individual states. Pursuant to S4.1.3, however, they may be prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

You also asked that, absent inclusion of these lamps in Standard No. 108, your letter be treated as a petition "for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to include such lighting requirements . . . for optional use on passenger cars." Your submission does not meet the requirements of our procedural regulations, a copy of which I enclose. Specifically, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.4(c) you should "set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary." Among these facts should be reasons why you are petitioning for "optional" rather than mandatory use on passenger cars, and why other vehicles are not included in your petition (if, in fact true).

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 21, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108

FMVSS 108 specifies performance requirements for certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment for use on passenger cars. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests interpretation as to whether or not this standard applies to the performance and installation of fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

This request for interpretation specifically concerns those fog lamps currently used in Europe and subject to EEC regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.

These requirements include a minimum candela output of 150 cd to a maximum of 300 cd measured at any test point within +/- 10 degrees right and left of the lamp axis and +/- 5 degrees up and down on the vertical axis.

The effective projected luminous area for these types of lamps is 140 sq. cm (21.7 sq. in.) maximum. These lamps are wired so as to be switched on with the headlamps and front fog lamps. The color emitted from the lamp when lighted is red within the appropriate SAE-CIE coordinates. The lamp is installed on/or at the rear of the vehicle, left of the centerline, no closer than 100 mm from the stop lamp.

Should this type of lighting device be subject to the current requirement of FMVSS 108, an interpretation is requested as to which aspect of performance this lamp should be designed.

Should this type of lighting device not be subject to the above standard, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby petitions for rulemaking to amend Standard 108 to include such lighting requirements as previously described for optional use on passenger cars.

Samples of these types of lighting devices can be made available for review and testing. Should additional data be necessary to further evaluate this type of lighting system as currently regulated by EEC, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: aiam4259

Dear Mr. McCarthy: It has come to our attention that a recent Alabama Supreme Cour decision has led some dealers to question the appropriate certification to make when issuing odometer disclosure statements. Although we have not received any inquiries from your members at this time, we have been contacted by others in the industry. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position concerning the certifications to be made on odometer disclosure statements.; Congress found that purchasers rely on mileage as an indicator of th value and condition of vehicles and enacted Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S1981 *et seq*. Section 1988(a) of the Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure (1) of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer or (2) that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is know to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled. To carry out this mandate, Federal regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 580 was promulgated. Furthermore, Section 1988(a) states that no transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under the section or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rule.; A Senate report interprets Section 1988 as placing duty on auto dealer to alert purchasers of irregularities in odometers when, in the exercise of reasonable care, they would have reason to know the odometer reading is inaccurate. S. Rep. No. 92-413, (92nd Cong., 2nd Sess.), 1972 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3971-3972. If a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage and should not be relied upon, that purchaser, when selling the vehicle, should certify the same. However, if a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that to the best of his knowledge the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage the vehicle has been driven, and he has no reasonable suspicion that the reading is inaccurate, when selling the vehicle, he should not certify that the reading is inaccurate. If transferors certify the reading as inaccurate in the latter situation, it is the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that they violate the regulations prescribed under Section 1988, 49 C.F.R. S580.4.; The Federal regulations provide for the inclusion of two sets o certifications on odometer disclosure statements. If the dealers truly wish to insulate themselves from liability when they have a reasonable suspicion that the mileage on the odometer has been altered, they *should* certify that the reading is not accurate, and check the third statement in the first set of certifications. However, none of the three statements in the second set covers a situation where a transferor suspects that an odometer reading is inaccurate, but the odometer was not altered, set back or disconnected in his possession. The Agency allows a transferor to check the first statement and cross out the lines which read, 'and I have no knowledge of anyone else doing so' provided that though crossed out it can still be read. Alternatively, we have no objection to a transferor writing and checking a fourth statement which would read:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer of said vehicle was not altered set back, or disconnected while in my possession.; <<

ID: 18260b.drn

Mr. Bob Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P. O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your new school bus emergency exit door locking system (the "VANDAL-LOCK") meets S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 217, "Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release," without the addition of a key device. I regret the delay in this response. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Your letter describes the VANDAL-LOCK as a locking system that consists of a "dead bolt, cover and ludwig snap bolted to the body, and a guide mounted to the door." The cover contains a switch that is activated if the dead bolt is moved to the locked position. Activation of the switch prevents the operation of the engine starting system. If the engine is not already operating, it cannot be started as long as the dead bolt is applied to the exit. If the engine is operating and the dead bolt is closed, a warning buzzer will sound at the driver's compartment. The ludwig snap is a device used to keep a bolt in place so that an open bolt does not inadvertently close and a closed bolt does not inadvertently open.

You state that some States want VANDAL-LOCK to be modified by replacing the ludwig snap with a key device, which would allow the driver to have control of the dead bolt's position, since the key would be the only means of operating the dead bolt. You believe that the VANDAL-LOCK system without the key device meets S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 217 and wish NHTSA to confirm your position.

S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 217 states:

The engine starting system of a bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated and the exit opened by a person at the exit without a special device such as such as a key or special information such as a combination.

This section requires an engine interlock that prevents the engine from being started if any emergency exit is locked from inside or outside the bus. Your VANDAL-LOCK would prevent the starting of a vehicle as long as the door is in the locked position (i.e., the engine cannot be started as long as the dead bolt is applied to the exit). A school bus with such a system would meet S5.2.3.3 (assuming, of course, that the interlock system performs as required on the vehicle). That section does not require a specific means of unlocking a door, e.g., by means of a key.

As to whether Standard No. 217 prohibits a key-operated device, the answer is no. We have addressed "vandal locks" in previous interpretation letters. Our position has been that nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the emergency door in the locked position. I have enclosed copies of our December 17, 1982 letter to Mr. M.B. Mathieson and our November 27, 1990 letter to Mr. Cal Karl on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:217#VSA
d.3/30/99

ID: aiam1973

Dear Mr. Gobeille: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1975, seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, with regard to an accelerator control system which contains either elements in parallel or a complete parallel system.; The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 124 are met if, after severance or disconnection of any component of the accelerator control system, the throttle returns to the idle position within the time specified in S5.3, measured from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver, *or* from the disconnection or severance. You are correct in your interpretation that Standard No. 124 is intended to protect against a single severance, and that there are no requirements in Standard No. 124 concerning the severance or disconnection of the remaining one(s) of two or more parallel elements in an accelerator control system.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0482

Dear Mr. Hoffman: Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of August 27 1971, asking if Department of Transportation safety equipment applicable to trailers is required for portable asphalt mixing machinery.; It is our current position that portable asphalt mixing machinery is 'trailer' and must be equipped with the lamps and reflectors required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am enclosing a copy for your information. A temporary lighting harness is an acceptable means of conformance. Mud flaps, incidentally, are not required under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4679

Dear Mr. Kossover: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, l989 to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have enclosed photographs of a semi-trailer that you are constructing, and wish to know whether the location of the rear turn signal, stop, and taillamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. l08 requires each of these lamps to be 'on the rear'. In addition, the SAE requirements for each of these lamps that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08 require that visibility of each lamp shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all photometric and visibility requirements with these obstructions considered. In addition, signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The lamps on your semi-trailer are mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle. In that position the lamps are not mounted 'on the rear'. Further, we question whether the 45 degree visibility requirements would be met, especially for the inboard lamps. We do not know whether the extended portion of the vehicle between the lamps is a sufficient obstruction to affect compliance with the photometric requirements. Overall, it does not appear that this design complies with Standard No. l08. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /;

ID: aiam4499

"Dear Ms. Bakker: This letter is in response to your request for a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft line beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the marking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be installed in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987 model year. For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. This line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant. You posed the following questions: 1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant? ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line. As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term 'line' as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.' As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term 'line' in 541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the groups have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner. With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows: The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles. The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line. With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms 'model, make, and line' as follows: 'Make' refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. 'Line' refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. 'Model' refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 52 FR 59, at 65, January 2, 1987. In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the further description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not 'similar in construction or design.' Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the same name as other Civics. On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not 'similar' in construction or design. In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger cars. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line. 2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used? ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all models in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform to Part 541. 3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style? ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full effect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541. 4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time? ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541.3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541.5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high theft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6. There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-I. When a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line under Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption for that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option -- that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line, in accordance with 541.6. If a manufacturer has complied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehicle, as posited in your example, the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both, of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line, it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question. Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major parts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543. Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3552

Dear Mr. Robertson: This is in reply to your letter of March 4, 1982, to the Administrato asking several questions about modulating headlamps for motorcycles.; As of now, a decision is still pending on Harley-Davidson's petitio for rulemaking to allow modulating headlamps. At present, three States by statute permit use of such a device (Wisconsin, North Carolina, and California). We are unsure of the position of the remaining States though we do know that our local jurisdictions of Virginia and Maryland prohibit them. We would suggest that you contact a motorcycle trade organization such as the American Motorcyclist' Association with the thought that it may have a definitive list.; If Harley-Davidson's petition is granted, the agency would publicl propose that Standard No. 108 be amended to allow installation of a modulating headlamp. After evaluating comments from interested persons, and if it still appeared appropriate, the agency would then amend the standard. As of the effective date of the amendment, it would then be legal to equip a motorcycle with a modulating headlamp, and to use it in any State. The reason for this is that the amendment to Standard No. 108 would preempt any State regulation that differed from it.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5466

Dear Mr. Wareham: We have received your letter of December 9, 1994, t John Womack, the Acting Chief Counsel who responded to David Lee on January 26, 1993. This will confirm that his opinion regarding the 'Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor' remains the official position of this agency. We shall be pleased to meet with you when you come to Washington late in January. You may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office to make arrangements (202- 366-5263). We will be particularly interested in learning more about how the device 'will be marketed as a D.I.Y. installation by the car owner.' Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;