ID: 1984-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hella North America Inc. -- Walter A. Genthe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 23, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Westfaelische Metall Industrie KG is currently designing headlamps for several automobile manufacturers.

These headlamps are designed to comply with Safety Standards 108 as amended by Docket 81-11 (latest issue: Notice 7).

Preliminary requests by our customers mandate an inclusion of parking/front position lamps and/or turn signal lamps and/or side marker lamps in the overall headlamp design.

A standard U.S. light bulb, meeting FMVSS 108 and/or applicable SAE recommended practices, will be used for these respective functions.

We intend to incorporate these functions into the headlamp compartment, retaining the bulb in question by means of a sealed attachment, similar to the one used in the C6 capsule installation.

No degradation of the system will result, since both functions are contained in one sealed compartment, covered by one common lens. No impairment of the effectiveness of the headlamp function is anticipated, nor will the headlamp impair the function of the parking/position/side marker lamp.

All photometric and environmental specifications for such lamps will be met and no component will be used which is outside the scope of FMVSS 108.

To clarify our intent, a sketch showing the principal design has been enclosed.

We are requesting a statement concerning the agency's opinion in this matter; specifically, as it concerns the legality of the proposed system, whole or in part, and solicit any suggestions as to necessary changes should the system not be in compliance with FMVSS 108, as amended by Docket 81-11.

This matter is of considerable urgency, because of design and manufacturing lead times.

A reply at yyor early convenience coud therefore be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

HELLA NORTH AMERICA INC.

Walter A. Genthe President

WAG/1h

Encls.

cc: Dr. Ernst, K 1 Mr. Westermann, K 1 Mr. Fikus, AF

Insert artwork here.

MAY 21, 1984

Mr. Walter A. Genthe President Hello North America, Inc. P.O. Box 499 Flora, Illinois 62839

Dear Mr. Genthe:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect to the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment bya a "sealed attachment." You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.

The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceable bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.

Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristics of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb, design, we would like to request that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of state of the art lamp technology may be broadened.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

C6/C6 **INSERT GRAPH**

**INSERT GRAPH**

ID: aiam0542

Dear Ms. Mampe: This is in reply to your two letters of June 14, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.'; You ask whether the requirement of S4.3 that material not burn no transmit a flame front across its surface at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute includes the flashing of the flame across the surface for only a fraction of a second. The flashing of the flame as you describe it is included within the requirement, and consequently cannot occur at a rate greater than 4 inches-per-minute.; You also ask whether polyethylene covering which does not meet th standard's requirements may be used to protect the interior during shipment, if the material is marked and fitted so that its appearance would ensure that purchasers would not want to use it. You indicate that the manufacturer would also take steps to instruct dealers to remove the material. The NHTSA would consider the material to be outside of the standard's requirements if these steps are taken to prevent it from being used as a seat cover by purchasers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0287

Dear Mr. Morgan: By letter of November 19, 1970, you petitioned for reconsideration o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 - Side Door Strength (35 F.R. 16801, October 30, 1970). After consideration of the issues raised by Morgan's petition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found no sufficient justification for amending the standard and the petition is therefore denied.; Your company's petition states that the standard presents difficultie for cutaway doors, and that the structure of Morgan automobiles supplies a measure of protection through flared side fenders that extend beneath the doors. The Administration recognizes that there is considerable variety in door and side structure. However, the need to protect occupants of all vehicles from injury in side collisions dictates a uniform measure of such protection, and the Administration has determined that the requirements of Standard No. 214 are reasonable, practicable and appropriate for passenger cars.; The remaining points in your letter of November 19, 1970, are mor nearly questions for interpretation than requests for reconsideration. Your second question pertains to the height (or length) of the loading device. The standard states only that the device must not contact any structure above the bottom edge of the door window opening. There is no other restriction on the maximum height of the test device, and it is not clear, without further explanation, why Morgan would be limited to a cylinder only 4 inches high.; Your remaining question deals with the positioning of side windows Although the standard specifies that side windows shall be in the uppermost position, it does not require that side windows exist and should not be so interpreted.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator

ID: nht94-2.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ted H. Richardson -- Fleet Coordinator, Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Mt. Pleasant, Texas)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Ted H. Richardson to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9478)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone c onversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert live stock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable t o motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

(A) motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3 is c omposed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channe l livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped doll y which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute.

With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not c onsidered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour ar e not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor veh icles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, inclu ding FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9478

Mr. Ted H. Richardson
Fleet Coordinator
Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1540
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456-1540

Dear Mr. Richardson:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3

is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:120#VSA d:4/12/94

ID: nht94-6.38

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ted H. Richardson -- Fleet Coordinator, Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Mt. Pleasant, Texas)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Ted H. Richardson to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9478)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

(A) motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3 is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-2.34

DATE: 02/17/76

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

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1975, referring to our letter to Ideal Corporation of September 17, 1975. You commented that "customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications." You have requested "confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6 is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle." Your interpretation is incorrect.

Although the NHTSA does not approve of the use of variable-load turn signal flashers as replacement for fixed-load flashers, the choice of replacement equipment for a vehicle in use is that of the consumer, and is not subject to Federal control. We have no authority to require that the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher replace it with a fixed load flasher. This may be the reason for your confusion with respect to the NHTSA's reaction to Ideal Corporation's petition for rulemaking. It was not necessary to amend the standard as requested by Ideal, since it already allowed the type of replacement suggested, and this agency generally does not regulate modifications by consumers. Such an amendment would have been superfluous.

As indicated in our letter to Ideal, we continue to believe it preferable that consumers be informed that a variable load flasher will not provide an outage indication. To this end the NHTSA is considering rulemaking that would require labeling on containers of variable-load flashers.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

December 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have recently seen your letter of September 17, 1975 to Mr. Martin Rothfield, General Manager, Flasher Division, Ideal Corporation. In your letter there appears a statement which relates to the meaning and interpretation of the provisions of @ 4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 (as amended effective June 6, 1974).

Your letter is a discussion of the meaning of @ 4.5.6 regarding permitting the use of variable-load flashers. We believe your letter was intended to mean that a variable-load flasher may be used as replacement equipment for a fixed-load flasher on any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6. S2 specifies passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, (except pole trailers and trailer convertor dollies), and motorcycles. @ 4.5.6 provides an exception to its provisions for a truck (including a truck capable of accommodating a slide-in camper), bus, multi-purpose passenger vehicles (but only those 80 or more inches in overall width), or for any vehicle (including a passenger car and multi-purpose passenger vehicles less than 80 or more inches in overall width) equipped to tow trailers. That is to say, if any vehicle specified in S2 ordinarily requires an illuminated pilot indicator and also turn-signal lamp failure indication under @ 4.5.6, it would be excepted from those requirements and still be in compliance with the Standard if it was one of the class of vehicles within the meaning of the "except where" language of @ 4.5.6. Consequently, it would be a vehicle as specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6.

Customers of Ideal Corporation see a much broader meaning to your letter. We disagree with that meaning and would like to have your concurrence with our interpretation of your letter as indicated above. In this connection we would like to trace the history of @ 4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as we know it, since our interpretation is based upon such history.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 ("Standard 108" or the "Standard") as it existed at the time of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued on January 3, 1970, provided in pertinent part as follows:

"@ 3.4.7 - Except on vehicles using variable-load flashers, a means for indicating to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized, shall be provided in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966."

In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning Standard 108 which was issued on January 3, 1970 (35 FR 106), the preamble of the NPRM noted:

". . . @ 3.4.7 [of Standard 108] currently exempts all vehicles using variable-load flashers from the requirement for providing an indication to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized. This should apply only to those vehicles which are equipped to tow trailers (which require variable-load flashers and a turn-signal circuit), and it is proposed that the exemption be restricted accordingly (@ 3.5.6)."

The text of @ 3.5.6 as proposed in the NPRM reads as follows:

"All vehicles having turn-signal operating units shall have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on truck tractors and vehicles equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966."

In the ammouncement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on October 1970 (35 FR 16840) the preamble states:

"(p) It was proposed that all vehicles be equipped with a turn-signal pilot indicator, and that those vehicles not equipped to tow trailers (i.e. vehicles with a fixed load flasher) be provided with a lamp failure indicator . . . .

Many comments objected to the proposal for a lamp failure indicator on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width. Heavy-duty flashers used on these vehicles are not presently available with a failure indicator. However, this type flasher is considerably more durable than the fixed load type, used on vehicles of lesser width, which indicates a lamp failure, and the continued use of present heavy-duty flashers for wider vehicles is warranted. Also, vehicles of 80 inches or more overall width are generally used commercially, and many of them are subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration; such vehicles are more frequently inspected and failed lamps more promptly repaired. For the foregoing reasons, vehicles of 80 or more inches overall width are excluded from the requirement in the amended Standard for a turn-signal lamp failure indicator." [Emphasis added.]

The Standard was thereupon amended, effective July 1, 1971, so that @ 4.5.6 provided:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on a truck, bus or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches overall width, and on any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn-Signal Lamps," June, 1966."

Following the foregoing amendment to Standard 108 on October 31, 1970 (35 FR 16840), petitions for reconsideration of the amendment were filed by a number of manufacturers. In response to those petitions the NHTSA on February 3, 1971 (36 FR 1896 to 1897) stated:

"8. Paragraph S4.5.6 International Harvester asked that the exemption for lamp outage indication be extended to vehicles equipped with auxiliary lamps or wiring, since these vehicles, like vehicles equipped to tow trailers, use variable-load flashers. However, fixed-load flashers providing lamp outage indication are available on the market for the increased load of an auxiliary lamp. The manufacturer can provide the appropriate flasher with foreknowledge of the intended end configuration of the vehicle, and International Harvester's petition is therefore denied."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was then the subject of the following proposed amendment published on January 3, 1974 (38 FR 822) pursuant to a petition by the Ford Motor Company.

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn-Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard as it existed prior to January 3, 1974, exempted from the requirement of turn-signal lamp failure indication a class of vehicles which included only a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers (the "Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles"). Such class of vehicles had to use a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate so as to comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108.

The 1974 proposed Rule Making originally was intended to only add "a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper" to the list of Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles. Such exemption, as contained in the Standard prior to the 1974 amendment, was obviously a result of (Illegible Word) NHTSA's judgment that while it recognized the value of lamp failure indication, it also recognized that there were certain vehicles on which a uniform flash rate within the flash per minute perimeter of Standard 108 was more beneficial than a lamp failure indication, and on which uniform flash rate could not be obtained without the use of variable-load flasher which without special circuitry could not provide the lamp failure indication. Accordingly, the NHTSA obviously concluded that those vehicles and only those vehicles which would require a variable-load flasher so as to ensure a uniform flash rate, need not comply with the lamp failure indication requirements of @ 4.5.6.

In the announcement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on May 31, 1974 (39 FR 20063) Mr. James B. Gregory, Administrator, NHTSA, stated:

"The NHTSA has determined that the availability of variable load flashers ensuring flash rate control within the limits of the standard is desirable, and should be permitted on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers, despite the lack of lamp failure indication. In order to make clear the intent of the regulation, language is being added to specify that the exception applies only to vehicles with variable-load flashers."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was ultimately amended, effective June 6, 1974, (39 FR 20063) to read as follows:

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."

(The enumeration of vehicles in the "except where" language - to wit a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any vehicle equipped to tow trailers being hereinafter referred to as "Excepted Vehicles").

The Standard therefore presently requires each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit to also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and further requires turn-signal lamp failure indication (sentences 1 and 2, @ 4.5.6). The effect of that requirement is to either (1) mandate the use of a fixed load flasher on all vehicles, including certain vehicles in which the use of a fixed load flasher will increase the flash rate to a level generally exceeding the maximum specified by Standard 108, or (2) render such vehicles which must use a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate and hence comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108, to be in non-compliance with the provisions of $ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 relating to turn-signal lamp failure indication unless such vehicle is also equipped with special circuitry which is necessary to sense and indicate a failure in a variable-load system.

We submit that taken in its entirety the language of the Standard 108 and the history of its amendments require the interpretation that only those vehicles which require a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate within the limits of Standard 108 should use a variable-load flasher and hence be exempted from the lamp failure indication provisions of Standard 108.

As further support of this we recall that Messrs. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn filed a petition for rule making on January 19, 1971 on behalf of Ideal Corporation for an amendment of @ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 which proposed to add the following sentence to @ 4.5.6:

"Variable-load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 herein, where such devices shall operate in accordance with Tables I and III, as applicable."

The effect of such proposed amendment would have been to render meaningless the turn-signal failure indication requirement of Standard 108 because to permit variable-load flashers as replacement equipment for any vehicles contemplated by paragraph S2 (which includes passenger cars as well as the Excepted Vehicles) would mean no turn-signal failure indication on any passenger car having a variable-load turn signal flasher without needing one to ensure a uniform flash rate.

In reviewing the petition for rulemaking, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel, in a letter dated February 23, 1971 addressed to Mr. Earl W. Kintner, states among other things that:

"[Ideal] wishes to continue its established marketing practice of selling variable-load flashers in the after market and of advertising these flashers as "all purpose" flashers. We understand further that variable-load flashers frequently are purchased as replacements for fixed load flashers. When a variable-load flasher is installed as a replacement for an original equipment fixed load flasher, it does not provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6. Your client therefore questions whether, under these circumstances, it would properly certify compliance with Standard 108 when the standard becomes applicable to replacement equipment."

After reciting the sentence proposed to be added to the Standard by the petition, Mr. Schneider continues as follows:

"In our view Standard 108 permits your client to continue its practice and to properly certify compliance. S2 states in pertinent part that the standard applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this Standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

Such statement was obviously intended to mean that should an owner of a vehicle requiring a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate choose to use a variable-load flasher, the manufacturer of that variable-load flasher did not have to have such variable-load flasher meet the turn-signal failure indication requirement of the Standard in order to certify that such variable-load flasher meets the other requirements of Standard 108. This is evidenced by the following language taken from Mr. Schneider's comment quoted above:

"For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher."

As long as a variable-load flasher is to be used on an Excepted Vehicle, Ideal could continue to certify compliance to Standard 108 even if it knew such flasher was to be used to replace a fixed load flasher on an Excepted Vehicle. Standard 108 provides a specific exception for that situation. Mr. Schneider knew that. He also knew that @ 4.5.6 required each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and he knew that Ideal's proposed amendment would render such requirement meaningless and detract from safety. This is evidenced by the concern expressed in the following language quoted from Mr. Schneider's response to the Ideal's 1971 petition for rule making:

"Although there presently is no legal prohibition on the advertising and sale of variable load flashers, we believe that your client should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacements for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication. While the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher should be free to balance the merits of a fixed load flasher (such as the outage indication) with those of a variable load flasher (such as the continuing flash), he should not be misled as to the characteristics of each type, including the one with which his vehicle was originally equipped.

Please advise us within 10 days of the date of this letter if you wish to pursue this petition further; otherwise we shall consider the petition withdrawn."

Ideal apparently then withdrew its petition.

Reference must again be made to the 1974 Rule Making (38 FR 822). It is clear that the meaning of the statements contained in your letter are clearly as we interpret them when read in light of such rule making. @ 4.5.6 as originally intended to be amended in January 1974 read as follows:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

It is obvious that the underlined language could be interpreted to read that it would appear to mandate equipping such vehicles with variable-load flashers originally. Such was not the intent, for they could be equipped with a fixed-load flasher (having turn-signal lamp failure indication but non-uniform flash rate), and hence the clarifying language was added to the June 6, 1974 final version of the rule which makes it clear that you need the pilot indicator and that the failure of the lamps to operate must be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used as either original or replacement equipment on an Excepted Vehicle.

Your reference to "any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard" obviously does not refer to all passenger cars per se (one class covered by S2 but not enumerated as such in the list of Excepted Vehicles in @ 4.5.6), but to passenger cars "equipped to tow a trailer." For you could not have intended to disregard the explicit provision for turn signal pilot indication and turn signal lamp failure indication which has been an integral part of Standard 108 since prior to January 1970.

In reliance upon your letter of September 17, 1975 to Ideal Corporation, customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications. In view of the foregoing discussion contained herein we believe that your letter is not being read as you intended and we request confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6, is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle.

That is our interpretation of @ 4.5.6 and we have so advised our customers. There is confusion on this point and we would like to have the matter cleared up.

Very truly yours,

Kenneth R. Arnold -- Secretary and General Counsel

ID: nht75-3.11

DATE: 11/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1975, posing several questions relating to Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302. We are sorry for the delay in responding, but unfortunately your letter was filed in the docket as a response to a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 302.

Your first question relates to the requirement that the surface of the specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space face downward on the test frame. This requirement is now found in S5.2.2 of Standard No. 302, as published on September 16, 1975 (40 FR 45746). Through error, S5.2.2 was not amended when the standard was first amended on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). This requirement applies to all test samples regardless of their thickness.

Your second question lists five components and asks whether they are included within Standard No. 302 as amended by Docket No. 3-3, Notice 7, and whether they would be included within Standard No. 302 if the amendment proposed by Notice 8 is adopted. Our answers follow:

1. The wiring harness illustrated in your letter need not currently meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet the requirements if it was located within 1/2 inch of the surface of the floor covering and Notice 8 was adopted as presently proposed.

2. The roof lamp need not currently meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted as proposed.

3 and 4. The door lock and door handle knobs need not meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to if Notice 8 was adopted.

5. The floor grommets need not currently meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted and they were within 1/2 inch of the surface of the carpet.

You are correct, therefore, in your analysis of the effect of Notice 8 as stated in your letter.

Your third question relates to whether the air space located behind the instrument panel and underneath the seat will be considered as part of the occupant compartment air space if Notice 8 is adopted. Assuming that the air behind the instrument panel is sealed off from the passenger compartment, it would not be considered part of the occupant compartment air space. The air under the seat cushion would be considered part of the occupant compartment air space unless it too is sealed off from the passenger compartment.

We trust these answers will be helpful to you.

YOURS TRULY,

ID: Katz.1

ID: nht88-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-27-87, TO NHTSA FROM CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the location of the clutch, brake and accelerator controls in a school bus that you drive. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that the seat of the school bus is about four inches too far to th e right, and that these controls are therefore not in the usual location relative to the seat. You stated: "In order to reach the brake pedal I have to cross my right foot over my left," and expressed concern that a driver might accidentally hit the acc elerator instead of the brake. You asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, prohibits placing controls in such difficult to reach locations and, if not, whether there is any way to get the law changed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards covering new motor vehicles and/or new motor vehicle equipment. Since these standards do not apply to used vehicles, the issue of whether the bus you drive was required t o meet Standard No. 101 depends on its date of manufacture.

As you noted in your letter, Section S5.1 of Standard No. 101 requires that certain controls, including the service brake; accelerator; and clutch; be "operable by the driver" when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment required by St andard No. 208. You asked whether, with this wording, any control that can be reached at all, even with difficulty, must be considered "operable." One of the stated purposes of Standard No. 101 is "to ensure the accessibility . . . of motor vehicle cont rols . . . in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls." Thus, it is the intent of section S5.1 to ensure that drivers are able to operate specified controls as part of the normal driving task. We note, however, that neither Standard No. 101 nor any other standard specifies the precise location of the service brake, accelerator and clutch controls, either relative to each other or to the seat.

In answer to your question concerning how you may be able to get requirements changed "to forbid putting controls in difficult to reach locations," interested persons may petition the agency to commence rulemaking to issue or amend safety standards. I a m enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation which sets forth procedures for submitting petitions for rulemaking.

I am forwarding your letter to NHTSA's Office of Enforcement, which investigates consumer complaints about safety. A copy of this correspondence is being placed in the public docket. ENCLOSURE