ID: 77-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. T. Schellhase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a groove is cut around the tire and a white compound is inserted into the groove.

Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.

SINCERELY,

February 23, 1977

David T. Schellhase

This is in response to your letter of February 17, 1977, concerning the manufacturing of tires.

I have forwarded your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of this Department, which has regulatory jurisdiction over highway safety matters, including the establishment of safety standards, enforcement of standards, and the investigation of apparent defects in motor vehicles or automobile components.

You will hear from NHTSA directly.

(Miss) Antonia P. Uccello Director Office of Consumer Affairs

Feb. 17, 1977

Dear Sirs,

I have been refered to your office by the Highway Patrol. My question is this. I have been offered a business opportunity which consists of servicing car dealers and making whitewall tires out of existing blackwall tires on both new and used cars. This is done by a machine which cut a grove into the sidewall of the tire and then a white compound is flowed into the grove. My insurance agent told me that because of the cutting of the tire he could not write me business insurance. Is the alteration of tires like I have explained illegal, as I myself question weather the process may cause tire failure or a blow out. I would certainly appreciate, any information you could offer. Thank you!

David T. Schellhase

ID: 1984-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Linda Morrow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677

Dear Ms. Morrow:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-2.48

DATE: 01/31/79

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

TO: R.C. Back -- Director, Government Relations, Ryder Truck Rental Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1979, in which you asked for confirmation of your interpretation that the new restriction on mounting height of rear side marker lamps applies only to trailers and not to trucks.

This confirms your interpretation. As is stated in Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, rear side marker lamps are to be mounted above the road surface "not less than 15 in., and on the rear of trailers not more than 60 in."

SINCERELY,

RYDER TRUCK RENTAL INC.

January 23, 1979

The Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Taylor Vinson

Gentlemen:

Effective March 1, 1979, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment is amended to require that side marker lamps be mounted on semitrailers and trailers at a height not less than 15" nor more than 60" from the roadway. The purpose of the amendment is to afford the manufacturer more flexibility with respect to trailers of unique design while satisfying the goal of making it more likely that the trailer rear side marker lamp can be viewed in the outside rear view mirror of the tractor pulling it, "acting as a reference light by which the tractor driver may check the tracking of the trailer's rear end."

On August 25, 1978, your agency issued a rule in accordance with the prior notice amending Table II of 49CFR571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table II as amended provides:

Item . . . . Height above road surface measured from center of item on vehicles at unit weight

Side . . . . Not less than 15 in., and on the rear of

Marker trailers not more than

Lamps 60 in.

The purpose of this letter is to request a formal interpretation of the table as amended. It would appear that the purpose of the rule-making procedure was to limit the application of the amendment to trailers and semitrailers.

The reference in the table, in apparent conformity with the purpose of the rule making, limits the application of the 60" limitation to trailers only. Consequently, straight trucks are not affected. Will you please confirm our interpretation of the amendment.

R. C. Back, Director Government Relations

ID: nht79-3.13

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chief, Cleveland Fire Department

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 2, 1979, in which you asked for copies of any current or recommended standards concerning the use of plastic auxiliary fuel tanks. May I apologize for the delay in this response.

I have enclosed a copy of a letter, which was sent to a company which planned to manufacturer auxiliary fuel tanks and to do some installation, that details the ways in which the safety standards and statutes administered by this agency apply to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks of all types. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that this agency issued with respect to a proposal to issue performance standards applicable to nonmetallic fuel tanks.

At this time the agency does not have any standards applicable to the use of auxiliary fuel tanks. However, several months ago we issued a consumer advisory warning against carrying fuel in portable containers in the trunks of cars. We consider this advisory applicable not only to portable containers but to any fuel container mounted in an area not normally consigned to such use. I have enclosed a copy of this advisory for your information. In addition, we are planning to issue a press release in the near future specifically addressed to the dangers of using auxiliary fuel tanks.

If you have any reports, case histories, photographs, or other material concerning any fires or fire problems caused by the use of auxiliary fuel tanks we would be most grateful if you would allow us to examine them. Your concern in this area of vehicle safety is deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

City of Cleveland

July 2, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Auxiliary Fuel Tanks for Motor Vehicles

Gentlemen:

Due to the gasoline fuel shortage, we are facing a new problem in the fire service. The use of plastic auxiliary fuel tanks has become more prevalent and responsible for vehicle fires. The concern for fire fighters, fighting a fire in a vehicle containing one of these tanks is paramount.

A copy of any standards or recommendations in effect or being considered will be used to inform the fire suppression units of this Department.

Please furnish any product manufacturers that have approval for installation.

William E. Barry, Chief Division of Fire

CC: LT. DEIGHTON

ID: nht81-2.38

DATE: 06/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midwest Polychem, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have examined the proposed label for "GRC" brake fluid you have submitted to us for comment.

Generally, the label appears to meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 (36 F.R. 11937, June 24, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 21594, November 11, 1971). The words "or(Illegible Word)" in your conformity statement are redundant; since the standard is a minimum requirement, "conforming to" and "exceeding" it mean exactly the same thing. If the fluid packager is an entity other than Curley, the packager's name or code identification must appear either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can. We assume that the required serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging will be stamped either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can.

GRC

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

GRC

HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

DIRECTIONS

FILLING: Check fluid each month or every 2000 miles. Fill Mailer cylinder to within one-half inch of top.

BLEEDING: Remove plug from bleeder screw and insert bleeder hose. Place other and of bleeder in clean container partially filled with G.R.C. Brake Fluid. Lossen bleeder screw and pump brake pedal slowly until air bubbles stop and fluid is clear. Tighten blender screw and follow same instructions on all four wheels, Moster cylinder fluid level must be checked after bleeding each wheel and keep fluid level to within 1/2 inch of top.

CAUTION: FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

(Illegible Lines) GURLEY REFINING DESIGN GCR SUPER HEAVY DUTY BRAKE FLUID (Illegible Word) 2700-1 S.O. 244-3191 SIZE 211 X 407.5 C.E. 4.595 X 8.364 B.P. DATE 10-19-71

(Illegible Lines) (Illegible Word) AS DETAINED APPROVED AS SUBMITTED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: DATE NO. PROOFS 20 PROOF DATE 11-3-71 CHANGE A CHANGE B CHANGE C ARTIST D/TCA

ID: nht81-3.28

DATE: 10/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Johnson, Campbell & Moesta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards or regulations concerning the use of brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Vernon Bloom of the NHTSA apparently told you that the agency has no standards regarding vehicle fuel lines.

Mr. Bloom is correct in his statement that no Federal safety standards or regulations preclude the use of brake hose as a vehicle fuel line, and that there are no standards directly relating to fuel lines. However, the agency does have a safety standard which indirectly involves fuel lines. Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements governing fuel systems on new motor vehicles. The standard specifies the maximum amount of fuel leakage that may occur following a barrier crash test of a new vehicle. Although the individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, do not have to meet specific requirements, each component obviously must be durable in order for the entire system to meet the general performance requirement of Safety Standard No. 301. Therefore, you should ascertain whether the brake hose you intend to use as a fuel line would compromise a vehicle's ability to comply with that standard.

I would also point out that, although there are no safety standards directly relating to fuel lines, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects which may occur in their vehicles or equipment. Section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. Under these provisions, you would be responsible if it were determined that your fuel lines constituted safety-related defects.

SINCERELY,

JOHNSON, CAMPBELL & MOESTA, P.C.

September 8, 1981

Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

On September 1, 1981 I spoke with Mr. Vernon Bloom, Engineer for NHSTA in Washington, D.C., as to whether or not NHSTA had any standards as to the use of Synflex brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Bloom has informed me that NHSTA has no standards regarding fuel lines.

I am writing this letter requesting a formal written statement that NHSTA has no standards as to fuel lines.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Daniel M. Jaworski Legal Assistant

ID: nht81-3.3

DATE: 07/31/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. J. B. Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 779 Chanute, Kansas 66720

Dear Mr. Fitzjohn:

This responds to your June 2, 1981, letter asking about the requirements for reservoir tanks for air brake systems. In particular, you ask whether section S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 are the only Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of the reservoirs.

The two sections that you referenced in your letter are the only sections specifying requirements for the construction of reservoirs for air brake systems. For additional guidance in the construction of reservoirs, you should refer to SAE Standard J10b titled "Automotive and Off Highway Air Brake Reservoir Performance and Identification Requirements." This standard will provide you with the prevailing industry practice in the construction of reservoirs.

You should be aware that you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if there were any defect relating to motor vehicle safety in your product.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 2, 1981

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 400 Seventh St. Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Gentlemen:

As a manufacturer of pressurized containers, we from time to time are asked to design and or manufacture components for over the road vehicles; and as such have been approached recently by a prospective customer to manufacture a reservoir under the provisions of the "Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121." However, this is where the problem arises. The standard as written does not specify in detail the construction of the reservoir, with respect to materials to be used or the wall thickness of the tank, or list a reference to any other document to which this information is found.

It is imparative for us to manufacture components in the least expensive way and still maintiin a high degree of quality. Therefore, to exceed provisions of a standard only enhances the construction costs.

We would appreciate an opinion on the clarity of sections S5.1.2 through S5.2.1.5 as to whether the construction of said reservoir meet only the provisions of sections S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3; or are there additional requirements not contained therein.

We appreciate any consideration to this matter you can give us in a short amount of time.

Respectfully,

Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc.

CDF/pac

ID: nht87-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: A.L. Bragg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH S4.1.1.3 WHICH STATES: "INTERMEDIATE SIDEMARKER DEVICES ARE NOT REQUIRED ON VEHICLES LESS THAN 30 FEET IN OVERALL LENGTH"

Dear Ms. Jones:

We would appreciate it if you could clarify the above referenced section of 108 as it pertains to both tables 2 and 3 which state that trailers, both under 80 and over 80 inches, require intermediate side marker lamps. However, a footnote in both of thes e tables points out paragraph S4.1.1.3 which does not require intermediate sidemarkers on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length. Our question is in regard to the proper interpretation of vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length. In the case of trailers, does this mean just the trailer as it sits by itself or does it include the power unit that may be pulling the trailer? In the case of straight trucks, that is, trucks in which the power unit and the trailer are not separable, our understanding is that the overall length refers to everything between the front and the rear bumpers.

Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to contact us if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

TRUCK-LITE CO., INC. A.L. Bragg Laboratory Manager

ALB/bme

cc: B. Yorks J. Swanson J. Latona B. Maternowski

Mr. A. L. Bragg Laboratory Manager Truck-Lite Co., Inc 310 East Elmwood Ave. Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1986, in which you ask how the overall length of vehicles is calculated in determining whether they are to be equipped with intermediate side marker lamps.

With respect to trailers, you ask whether overall length includes the towing unit. No, the overall length to be calculated is only that of the trailer.

As for trucks, you assume that overall length "refers to everything between the front and rear bumpers." I assume that you are including the bumpers in the quoted phase, and that would be correct.

If you have any further questions we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

ID: nht81-1.29

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1981. According to your letter, you have been told that Federal motor vehicle safety standards are only "Federal Specifications" and not considered to be "Federal laws". You have heard it said that a "side marker lamp is not an 'illegal lamp'" simply because it does not meet the photometric requirements specified in Table 3, Column 5 of DOT 108 (SAE J592e July 1972). You have asked our opinion on the matter.

We are glad to set the matter straight. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an agency of the Department of Transportation, in implementation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In that Act, Congress provided this agency with authority to specify requirements to be met by motor vehicles and equipment, and these requirements have the force of Federal law. The Act provides for a civil penalty and injunctive sanctions if the standards and other implementing regulations are not met. It is unimportant what people call the Act and standards, as long as they realize their purpose and the consequences of noncompliance.

Standard No. 108 is unusual in that it only requires that lighting equipment be designed to conform, rather than per se conform. In this sense, the failure of a single side marker lamp to meet the photometric requirements incorporated into Standard No. 108 may not necessarily be considered a noncompliance but a larger number of failing lamps could cause NHTSA to question the adequacy of the lamp's design and conclude that a noncompliance existed meriting notification and remedy.

I hope that this explanation is helpful to you.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have been told that Department of Transportation standards, and specifically DOT 108, are only "Federal Specifications" and are not now and have never been considered to be federal laws.

We have read comments made to this effect and have heard it said that a side marker lamp is not an "illegal lamp" simply because it does not meet the photometric requirements specified in Table 3, Column 5 of DOT 108 (SAE J592E July 1972).

Would you be kind enough to forward to me NHTSA's opinion on this matter.

Your early response is most urgently requested.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Senior Vice President

ID: nht81-1.38

DATE: 03/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Halliburton Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Ralph Houser Environmental Engineer Halliburton Services Drawer 1431 Duncan, OK 73536

Dear Mr. Houser:

This is in response to your letter posing a number of questions concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) to trucks rebuilt by your company using a variety of new and used components.

Section 571.7(e) of Part 49, CFR, provides that when a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured unless the engine, transmissions and drive axle(s) are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. If the truck is considered newly manufactured, a new vehicle identification number (VIN) must be assigned to the vehicle. In all other circumstances, the vehicle assumes the VIN of the vehicle most significantly represented in the reconstructed vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

(405) 251-3569 October 29, 1980

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation NOA 30 Room 5211 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir: RE: 49 CFR Parts 571.7(a), 571.7(e), 571.115

Halliburton Services requests a written interpretation from your office regarding Vehicle Indentification Number (VIN) requirements under the circumstances as described below.

A. A truck is purchased by a company. The company uses the truck for a period of 10 years. At that time the truck is rebuilt by the company using a new cab only. Does this rebuilding operation require the issuance of a new VIN for the truck?

B. A truck is purchased by a company. The company uses the truck for a period of 10 years. At that time the truck is rebuilt by the company using a new cab and a new engine. Does this rebuilding operation require the issuance of a new VIN for the truck?

C. A truck is purchased by a company. The company uses the truck for a period of 10 years. At that time the truck is rebuilt by the company using a new cab, new engine and new transmission. Does this rebuilding operation require the issuance of a new VIN for the truck?

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Ralph Houser Environmental Engineer

RH:jw Certified Mail cc: Nelson Erickson Bill Gilchrist Richard Mize Scott Morris Dale Bragg