ID: nht87-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Interworld Commodities, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Isaiah Herman President Interworld Commodities, Inc. 15 West 44th Street New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Herman: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1987. One of your clients "plans to purchase a Corporation Stretched Limousine" to be shipped to Japan, and would like "to obtain the standards and regulations for the modifications that are done to the vehi cle". The car in question is a Lincoln Town Car.

We understand that the Lincoln Town Car is available from several converters in a lengthened, or "stretched" version. We further understand from a conversation that you had with Taylor Vinson of this Office that your clients intend to purchase the vehicl e and have it converted after title passes to them. The converter is subject to the restriction that it must not render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This restriction applies regardless of the future use or location of the vehicle. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to new and untitled vehicles that a manufacturer intends for export, and if the alterations to a car owned by your clients resulted in noncompliances we would regard this as only a technical violation of the restriction provided that the vehicle were shipped to japan immediately following the modifications.

I hope that this answers your questions. Forgive our delay in replying to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

10/13/87

Ms. Erika Jones Office of the Chief Council NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

I was told today via one of your staff that you can be of assistance. I have a client who, has plans to purchase a Corporation Stretched Limousine to be shipped to Japan.

They would like to obtain the standards and regulations for the modifications that are done to the vehicle. If there are none please be kind enough to send a letter stating that fact.

I further understand Code of federal Regulations Volume 49 CRF 500 Series would be helpful. Please indicate where to obtain the regulations and any other standards. They are considering purchasing a Lincoln Town Car.

Thank you

Sincerely,

Isaiah Herman

President

ID: nht87-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1987, with reference to a newly developed lamp bulb "for automotive light-signaling devices." You state that the lamp has a bulb defined in SAE J387 and that its specifications for bulb and base meet those of SAE J573. The candlepower of the new lamp bulb is said to be 40% higher than that of a conventional bulb. You have asked whether you can "use the device with this new lamp bulb" in the United States.

For lamps other than replaceable bulb headlamps Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for photometric performance, and not for bulbs. Therefore, SAE J387 and J573 are not incorporated into Standard No. 108. Any motor vehicle turn signal or hazard warning signal device using Stanley's new high-candlepower bulb photometric specifications of Standard No. 108, and does not exceed any maximum of these specifications.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. are one of the leading manufacturers of Automotive Lamp Bulb in Japan, and would like to use the newly developed lamp bulb for Automotive Light-Signaling devices.

This new lamp is one of the lamp bulb which defined in SAE J387 and the specifications of bulb and base comply with the requirements of SAE J573.

Moreover, the most important characteristic of the new lamp bulb is candlepower. In comparison with the conventional lamp bulb under the same specification, candlepower of the new lamp bulb is approximately 408 higher.

The new lamp bulb is not popular yet in your country, and we are planning to stock them at every relative automobile dealer shop for customers convenience in advance.

We would like to have your advice whether we can use the device with this new lamp bulb in your country, or not.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Sect.

ID: nht94-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1994

FROM: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Reflective Tape "Outlined Around Its Perimeter" For Emergency Rear Doors On Type A-1 Sixteen & Twenty Passenger School Buses Under 10,000 Lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Thank you for your clairification of my questions May 2, 1994 letter. You stated that the Emergency Rear Doors of Type A-1 School Buses must be outlined around the perimeter with reflective tape. This brings up a question of tape installation due to th e existance of door hinges, O.E.M. tail light position, and the proximate position of Rear Door bottom edge to bumper.

There is no problem with installing reflective tape across the top and above both doors (see enclosed picture of rear doors on color brochure). There is also no problem running the tape down the left and right sides of the two doors, although the tape w ould not be continuous due to door hinges and the tail light lenses. Tape on the hinges would not last long because water, dirt, snow and ice would get behind it and lift it off also it would be a mess. The tail light lens comes within less that 1/2 in ch of door edge and I don't think it would be a good idea to run the tape over the tail light lens.

The bottom of the Emergency Rear Doors closes on a rubber gasket that touch the anti-hitch filler strip that closes the gap between the bumper and the bus body so there is no place to put reflective tape on the outside perimeter of the door bottom unless it is put on the bottom of the doors in which case it would not be on the "outside perimeter".

Question: Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and downthe left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

Very truly yours,

ID: nht92-8.43

DATE: February 27, 1992

FROM: Kevin J. Stoll -- Technical Advisor, Russell Products Incorporated

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel FMVSS - 108, NHTSA

COPYEE: Thomas L. Russell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Kevin J. Stoll (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My purpose for writing you today is that the "Office of Rulemaking" stated to me that I should address my questions directly to you via letter.

Russell Products is a multi-line distributor to the recreational vehicle and van conversion industry. We are currently selling third brake lights to the van and R.V. industry. We also are familiar with the standards that are in effect for all vehicles that are manufactured in our industry.

However, the purpose for this letter is that I am currently designing a third brake light for the truck cap and truck camper vehicles. Listed below are a few questions that I have not been able to find rulings on. I would appreciate any help or insight that you may have in obtaining the answers to these questions.

1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal?

If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?

2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake fight on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?

3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationary. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear.

Would this application be approved?

4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated mailings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings.

If you have any questions or would require additional information, please don't hesitate to call me at 1-800-545-5620. I appreciate your help in advance.

ID: nht93-6.5

DATE: August 9, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee

TITLE: Preemption of State Additional Lighting Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (VSA S103(a)), letter dated 5/12/94 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

The State of Michigan in their letter of May 16, 1989 (enclosed) requires that:

(8) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be operated on the highways of this state at the times specified in section 684 unless equipped with all of the following lamps and reflectors, in addition to any other lamps and reflectors required under this act:

(c) Two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

In our letter of May 12, 1989 we advised Lt. Mohr that "it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ" from it. Lt. Mohr responded in his May 16, 1989 letter that "the lamp is not a marker lamp" per the NHTSA letter of December 10, 1974 to the California Highway Patrol.

It is our opinion that paragraph (8)(c) of Section 719 of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is not enforceable as it is preempted by Subsection (d) of Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states that:

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard established under this title is in effect, no State of political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or items of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

Our opinion appears to be supported by NHTSA interpretations issued December 29, 1971, January 30, 1973, December 10, 1974, April 22, 1975, and December 10, 1984 (enclosed).

Please advise us as to whether Michigan may enforce their requirement for two "clearance" lamps located 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of a semitrailer and located as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

ID: nht76-5.48

DATE: 09/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. J. Hurlbutt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 13, 1976, asking whether Federal regulations prohibit the installation, by a dealer, of a rear seat in a 1976 Chevrolet Blazer.

Federal regulations do not prohibit such installation by a dealer. If a dealer installs a seat prior to first purchase of the vehicle, the seat must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, 49 CFR 571.207.

In this case, you have already taken possession of your vehicle and desire that the dealer now install the seat. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq.) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This does not prohibit a dealer from installing seats in a vehicle that has already been purchased. It simply means that such installation cannot destroy the vehicle's compliance with any motor vehicle safety standard.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

SINCERELY,

Hugh Oates, Attorney National Highway Traffic Safety Bureau

August 13, 1976

Ref: motor vehicle seat installation regulations

I would like to thank you for your time and interest during our conversation last week.

On May 10, 1976, I took delivery of my factory order 1976 Chevrolet Blazer. I ordered this vehicle with a rear seat, but the seat was left off the order form by the salesman. I took delivery of the vehicle only on the salesman's assurance that the seat could be ordered and installed at the dealership. Several weeks later, when I went back to check on the progress, I was informed by both salesman and parts manager that it was against Federal Safety Regulations for a dealership to install the seat. The dealer "restated" this position to me again on August 9, 1976. The dealer did, however, offer to help locate a used seat through a salvage yard and install it. I think that you would agree that this is a very confusing situation.

I would request your staff to follow whatever course they deem reasonable. I would also ask for a written opinion from you in regard to the Federal Regulations. I would appreciate this orinion as soon as possible.

Thanking you in advance for your expected help and co-operation, I am, Robert J. Hurlbutte

ID: nht78-1.32

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1978, letter asking whether the joint connecting the front roof cap to the windshield header is considered a joint subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Standard No. 221 applies only to joints connecting body components to body panels in a bus body. Bus body is defined as "the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting." Any joint falling outside the area prescribed for the definition of bus body is not considered a joint subject to the standard.

If the joint to which you refer is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting, it is not subject to the requirements of the standard. The location of this joint, however, is not clear from your letter. The second paragraph of your letter indicates that the lower portion of the windshield glass extends forward of the referenced joint. If the lower portion of the windshield mounting as well as the glass is forward of the joint in question then that joint lies within the area defined as the "bus body" and is subject to the requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

January 5, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: 571.221 Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

Section S4 defines a bus body as follows: "Bus body" means the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Blue Bird school buses have a joint between the front roof cap and windshield header which is forward of the upper portion of the windshield glass, rubber and metal flange mounting. This joint "A" is illustrated in the enclosed photograph. The lower portion of the windshield glass protrudes forward of the subject joint. Based on paragraph S4, it is our understanding that joint "A" between the front roof cap and windshield header is exempt from the requirements of S5 because it is forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.

Would you please give us a ruling on this at your earliest convenience.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

Windshield Glass

Windshield Mounting Rubber

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.3

DATE: 10/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Southern Railway System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 24, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, would apply to trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, although the painting of the trailers and their delivery to Southern had not been completed.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall --

(1) manufacture for sale, sell . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

We consider a vehicle to be "manufactured" for purposes of the Act where the vehicle has been completed in all respects except for the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations such as painting undertaken at a later date. A discussion of this point appears in the preamble to a recent Standard No. 121 rulemaking action (39 FR 17564, May 17, 1974). As for possession of the trailers by Southern, delivery of the vehicle is not considered a element of the manufacturing process.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Southern Railway System

Law Department

September 24, 1974

T. W. Herlihy -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

Southern Railway Company is in the process of taking delivery on 1,000 new trailers from the Fruehauf Corporation. These units are being built in Ft. Madison, Iowa and are being shipped over the road to St. Louis, Missouri, where Kux Manufacturing Company is stenciling them. They are then delivered to Southern at our East St. Louis, Illinois Intermodal Facility.

There is no question that Fruehauf will complete the manufacture of these units by January 1, 1975. On the other hand, there is serious doubt that Kux will complete the stenciling by that date and make delivery of all 1,000 units to us. MVSS 121 (the new "brake law") applies to units manufactured after January 1, 1975. Is our understanding correct that as long as the trailers in question are manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, they will not be required to be fitted with the new brake system, even though some of them may actually be delivered after January 1, 1975?

I would appreciate your advice, confirming the foregoing understanding of the law.

With many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

William P. Stallsmith, -- Senior General Attorney

cc: C. E. Webb -- Assistant Vice President-Engineering & Researh, Southern Railway Company

ID: nht74-3.43

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: City of Philadelphia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1974, inquiring whether manufacturers of 4-door sedans to be sold to the City of Philadelphia at police vehicles may, consistently with Federal requirements, remove the window and door handles from the rear doors. You state that the vehicle manufacturers claim that Federal requirements prohibit them from modifying the vehicle in this fashion.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206) requires each passenger car rear door to have a locking mechanism that is operable from within the vehicle and that, when engaged, renders the outside an inside door handles inoperative. This requirement applies to the locking mechanism. We do not interpret it to require an inside door handle. There are no Federal standards which require the installation of passenger car window handles.

The fact that in this case the vehicles are intended for government use is immaterial. To clarify the phone conversation which preceded your letter, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) allows a State or its political Subdivision to require that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use meet a higher standard of preformance than the Federal safety standard, but all vehicles must meet the Federal safety standards.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

March 5, 1974

Lawrence Scheider Chief, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The City of Philadelphia is in the process of purchasing 1,000 four-door passenger Sedans to be used as police vehicles. We have requested the bidding manufacturers to remove the window and door handles from the rear doors of the vehicles. We have been told by the manufacturers that there is a federal regulation which prohibits this modification.

On March 1, 1974, I spoke via telephone with Mr. Stanley Feldman, Esquire, from your office regarding this matter. It was Mr. Feldman's opinion that modifications which are normally adhered to by federal regulations may be changed to suit our particular needs since the City of Philadelphia is a political sub-division of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I would appreciate receiving your written verification on Mr. Feldman's opinion prior to any further negotiations with the vehicle manufacturers.

Please send your response to the undersigned, City of Philadelphia, 1600 Municipal Services Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

CHARLES W. MURPHY

Safety Director

ID: nht74-3.50

DATE: 06/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Assoc., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of April 7 and April 8, 1974, regarding Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires." Your April 7 letter asks whether Standard No. 117 requires treadwear indicators to be straight across the tread face. Your letter of April 8 encloses two sample rubber labels and asks whether each conforms to the requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 117.

Paragraph S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117 does not specify a configuration for treadwear indicators. Rather, it incorporates by reference the requirements for treadwear indicators of S4.2.1(d) of Standard No. 109, which calls only for a treadwear indicator that provides a "visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch." We do not construe this language to require a straight-across treadwear indicator and other configurations are therefore permitted.

With respect to the labels you enclose in your letter of April 8, each would conform to all of the requirements of S6.3 (which includes the requirements for both affixed (S6.3.1) and permanent (S6.3.2) labeling) if the tires to which they are affixed are of neither bias-belted or radial construction. If they are of either of these construction types, that information would have to be included either through affixed or permanent labeling, including retention of the original casing labeling.

AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.

April 7, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In the manufacture of retreaded tires we have a need for clarification as to what constitutes a "tread wear indicator."

We are aware of a specific height requirement of 1/16" but are not clear as to whether it must be straight across the tread face or if some other type of configuration is acceptable.

Thank you for your assistance.

E. J. Wagner

Managing Director

AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.

April 8, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have enclosed two sample rubber labels that we have been recommending to retreaders to affix to the sidewall of their product in order to comply with Section S6.3 as it now stands.

There has been some question as to whether this label complies with the requirements of S6.3.

May we have your views on this?

Thank you for your assistance.

E. J. Wagner

Managing Director