ID: nht74-2.14

DATE: 09/30/74

FROM: R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 28, 1974, question whether a "logging pole trailer", which consists of a beam to which an exle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accommodate different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, Air brake systems:

"Heavy hauler trailer" means a trailer with one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front-end structure" as that term is used in @@393.106 of this title.

The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and as such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or "reach", together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.

ID: nht80-1.14

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1979, requesting an interpretation as to whether the VIN plate samples you enclosed with your letter comply with the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

You enclosed two proposed VIN plates in your letter, one for automobiles and one for motorcycles. The VIN plates themselves and the preprinted lettering which appears on them seem to conform to the requirement of Standard No. 115. The lettering is clear and indelible, as required by S4.3, in that it cannot be removed without damage to the surface on which it is printed. Further, the plate when riveted to the vehicle would be considered to be permanently affixed in that it cannot be removed without damage (S4.3). The type face utilized for the lettering consists of capital, cans characters with a minimum height of 4 mm as required by S4.3.1.

The letters stamped on the automobile VIN plate, "SL5322AS000001", can hardly be seen, and would not appear to meet the requirements of S4.3 and S4.4.

ID: nht80-1.44

DATE: 04/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aveco Trucks of North America, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You described a bulb check button which could be activated at any time by merely pushing it in, but which when released would be automatically deactivated. You asked whether the possible activation of this button at any time would take it out of compliance with section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80.

This section states that "a telltale shall not emit light except. . . during a bulb check upon vehicle starting." This provision was intended to prevent the driver from accidently leaving the bulb check control activated and thereby creating a situation where a defective functioning of the vehicle would go unnoticed by the driver. Since the bulb check control that you described cannot accidently be left in the on position since it is deactivated when the driver releases it, section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 would not operate so as to prohibit use of this device.

I hope that you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending you this response.

ID: nht94-7.22

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Roger W. Bruett -- Chief; Signed by Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Carol I. Morton (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It has come to our attention, new headlamps are being installed on BMWs, 750 models. These lamps are called XENON and are "Hella SSB 352 (lower beam) and Hella SSB 328 (upper beam) with replaceable bulb headlamp with glass lens and plastic reflector.

This office received a complaint from a BMW Dealership indicating an owner of one of these vehicles is being continually stopped by law enforcement because of these headlamps. The reason for concern from the officers, is the intensity of the light beam from these lamps is much whiter and appears to be stronger.

We would like to know if these headlamps are legal for use on motor vehicles. A report was sent to us stating they meet all the requirements of the FMVSS 108. This report was generated by ETL Testing Laboratory in New York.

I would appreciate your response on this subject as soon as possible.

ID: nht94-7.38

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Amendment to FMVSS 571.217 published in the Federal Register November 11, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Eric T. Stewart (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

The background to this amendment indicates that the "final rule requires a minimum of 1 inch wide retro-reflective tape ...." (page 49421). The actual amendment reads that the retro-reflective tape is to be "a minimum 3 centimeters wide". (page 49425) (CFR571.217 S 5.53(c)). These two dimensions are not the same since 1.00 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.

I believe that the intent of this rule making was to make the retro-reflective tape 1.00 inch wide and an error has taken place in converting the dimension to metric units. I am requesting written clarification indicating how wide NHTSA wants the retro-reflective tape around the outside perimeter of a school bus emergency door.

If you have any questions, please call me at (419) 221-2525.

ID: nht93-7.24

DATE: October 14, 1993

FROM: Amantha L. Barbee -- Sales Coordinator, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Amantha L. Barbee (A41; Std. 102; Part 571), letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone, letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chuck Anderson, and letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

I am writing you in search of information pertaining to the van versus school bus issue. I am the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc. I have found many Head Start Agencies to be using vans to transport students to and from the program. When I have asked the directors of the agencies why they are not using FMVSS as a guide for transportation. The answer across the board is, "because we have not been told otherwise."

If I understand the ruling correctly, this practice should be illegal. I am asking your help in clarifying this issue for me. If indeed this is unlawful, what can be done within the organization to rectify the situation?

I would appreciate any assistance you could offer. I can be reached at the above address or at (919) 841-5794.

ID: nht94-3.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York School Bus Distributors Assn. (Penn Yan, NY)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217(2))

TEXT:

As a liaison and so termed "answer man" for the NYS School Bus Distributors, a question has arisen relating to vehicles (school buses) less than 4,356 kilograms - and pupil capacity - because of special use - handicapped and other - having a passenger se ating capacity ranging from as low as two (2) to as much as sixteen (16) seated or wheelchair positions in combination.

The direct question - do these vehicles - less than 4,356 kilograms, have to be equipped with the retroreflective tape as depicted in S5.5.3 (c) "school bus"?

The question really arises in the fact that - in most other instances where GVWR is depicted as a related factor - unless there is a GVWR related factor for a lesser capacity the lesser capacity is not required or mandated to meet the same factors as the stated GVWR. (See S5.4.2.1 of the amended FMVSS 217

Any response to the "question" will be greatly appreciated, by myself and the membership of the association.

ID: nht93-2.16

DATE: March 15, 1993

FROM: Kirk Brown -- Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-22-93 from John Womack to Kirk Brown (A41; VSA S108(a)(2)(A); FMVSS 124)

TEXT: I am requesting your opinion whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from School Services and Leasing, Inc. which has requested this opinion from the state of Illinois and, apparently, other states. Rather than have each state render possibly differing opinions on this question, it would be appropriate for NHTSA to respond to this company's questions.

If it is your opinion that this modification would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses, would you also advise this company whether it might obtain a waiver for this modification for particular buses.

I look forward to a response to these questions from you.

Attached to letter dated 2-22-93 from George Marter, School Services and Leasing, Inc. to Curt Brown, Illinois Department of Transportation.

(Text omitted)

ID: nht93-8.18

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/93 from Dennis G. Moore to John Womack (OCC-8992)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, "requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted." It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches "'inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles."

With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...." The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to "indicate" the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point.

ID: nht76-3.3

DATE: 05/05/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your April 14, 1976, letter concerning the meaning of the effective dates of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You are correct in your understanding that a vehicle's date of sale is irrelevant to a determination of which standards are applicable to it. 49 CFR @ 571.7(a), Applicability, specifies in relevant part:

. . . each standard . . . applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacturer of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.

For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a chassis, you are permitted by 49 CFR @ 567.5(a) (7) to treat as the time that manufacture is "completed" for the purposes of @ 571.7(a) any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture, regardless of when the body or chassis was sold. Please note that you must be consistent in your choice of completion date, e.g., you may not choose one date to determine applicability of certain standards while choosing another date for other standards.