ID: nht88-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 25, 1988

FROM: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO AMNON SHOMLO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108

TEXT: Enclosed please find samples of our PEACE decal. It is designed to be placed in front of the center highmounted brake light to project the word "PEACE" when the brake is applied.

If you separate the decal from its protective paper, you will notice that the white letters and design are printed on transparent plastic, in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specif ied candela.

Prior to marketing this decal we would like to know what Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product. If your office is not in the position to fully examine and a pprove the intended use of this decal, please advise where and how we can go about attaining such an authorization/certificate of approval.

I can be reached at (904) 731-6409 daily from 9-5pm. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht95-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY ECHT (STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel,

Thank you for your March 2, 1995 interpretation clarifying the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with regard to deceleration warning systems. In the interpretation, you cited paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 as the basi s for prohibiting the flashing of a vehicle's stop lamps. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108, however, states:

Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash.

Based on paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108 and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or leading vehicles are moving slowly or stopped, we seek your opinion on the followin g questions:

1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking-induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissibl e under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver.

2. If such a device is permissible in principle, would the rear lighting configuration of the vehicle on which it was installed affect its permissibility? Specifically, on which of the following vehicles would installation of the device be permissible?

a) a vehicle with red, combined stop/turn signal lamps

b) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, red turn signal lamps

c) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, amber turn signal lamps

Once again, we appreciate your consideration of our request and thank you for your prompt action. As before, Saline Electronics, Inc. has no objection to this letter and your response to it becoming a part of the public record.

Sincerely,

ID: 8744

Mr. Richard Glover
Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co.
1801 Commerce Dr.
Piqua, OH 45356

Dear Mr. Glover:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard.

You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on "date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents." You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible "mis-keying" of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded "quiet zone" to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded.

It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following:

No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a.

The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be

reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not.

Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form.

We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words "please print" after the instructions to the consumer "just fill in your name and address." "Please print" is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, "please print" is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:10/20/93

ID: nht93-7.29

DATE: October 20, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Glover -- Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from Richard Glover to Deirdre Fujita (OCC-8744)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard.

You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on "date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents." You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible "mis-keying" of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded "quiet zone" to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You, are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded.

It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space, for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following:

No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a.

The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not.

Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form.

We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words "please print" after the instructions to the consumer "just fill in your name and address." "Please print" is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided

that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, "please print" is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht71-1.31

DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1971

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1971, concerning the application of GVWR and GAWR (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) to semitrailers.

Your position is that the term "gross vehicle weight rating" is not meaningful when applied to semitrailers because the amount of cargo a semitrailer can carry depends upon the tractor that pulls it. You request that a different expression, "rating based on load-carrying capability" be used "for purposes of certification" (assumedly on the certification label). If that alternative is found unsatisfactory you request our concurrence with the following: "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the King-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length." You also mention that gross vehicle weight rating has particular industry meaning and note that confusion "will certainly arise when state and Federal governmental authorities are using the same term to mean two different things."

As we indicated in our meeting with you of November 4, 1971, we do not agree that the concept of GVWR is meaningless when applied to a semitrailer. The definition of GVWR, "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle" (49 CFR @ 568.3), can be applied to a semitrailer without considering the load-carrying ability of a tractor. The fact that certain tractors should not be attached to a particular semitrailer loaded to its GVWR does not mean that the trailer cannot be so rated.

With regard to your first question, "rating based on load-carrying capability," while we do not grant your request that this language be substituted on the label, we believe that a GVWR based on operational load-carrying capability, as long as the weight of the vehicle is included, would be within the definition of GVWR in 49 CFR 568.3. Similarly, your other statement, "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length" is likewise consistent with the definition of GVWR. With reference to your claim concerning confusion of State and Federal regulation, we believe that if problems in this regard are properly presented to a State government, any ambiguities can be satisfactorily resolved.

You also ask, with reference to Gross Axle Weight Rating, whether speed limitations can be included on the certification label. The regulation does not allow such weight limitations to be included within the listing of the required information, although it may be placed on the vehicle in any other location.

ID: nht71-5.63

DATE: 10/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1971, concerning the application of GVWR and GAWR (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) to semitrailers.

Your position is that the term "gross vehicle weight rating" is not meaningful when applied to semitrailers because the amount of cargo a semitrailer can carry depends upon the tractor that pulls it. You request that a different expression, "rating based on load-carrying capability" be used "for purposes of certification" (assumedly on the certification label). If that alternative is found unsatisfactory you request our concurrence with the following: "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length." You also mention that gross vehicle weight rating has particular industry meaning and note that confusion "will certainly arise when state and Federal governmental authorities are using the same term to mean two different things."

As we indicated in our meeting with you of November 4, 1971, we do not agree that the concept of GVWR is meaningless when applied to a semitrailer. The definition of GVWR, "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle" (49 CFR @ 568.3), can be applied to a semitrailer without considering the load-carrying ability of a tractor. The fact that certain tractors should not be attached to a particular semitrailer loaded to its GVWR does not mean that the trailer cannot be so rated.

With regard to your first question, "rating based on load-carrying capability," while we do not grant your request that this language be substituted on the label, we believe that a GVWR based on operational load-carrying capability, as long as the weight of the vehicle is included, would be within the definition of GVWR in

49 CFR 568.3. Similarly, your other statement, "For semitrailers, GVWR shall be taken to mean the structural capability of the vehicle when supported by the king-pin and axles with the load uniformly distributed throughout its length" is likewise consistent with the definition of GVWR. With reference to your claim concerning confusion of State and Federal regulation, we believe that if problems in this regard are properly presented to a State government, any ambiguities can be satisfactorily resolved.

You also ask, with reference to Gross Axle Weight(Illegible Word) whether speed limitations can be included on the certification label. The regulation does not allow such weight limitations to be included within the listing of the required information, although it may be placed on the vehicle in any other location.

ID: nht76-1.26

DATE: 01/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark I. Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: File

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On January 23, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Walt Robbins (750-2600) concerning the interpretation letter mailed from this office to him on January 20, 1976. (The subject of that letter was the application of Standard No. 109's labeling requirements to a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire".) Mr. Robbins asked three questions:

1) Were the four labeling examples set out in the letter intended to be restrictive or merely a model, with respect to the cord materials used in the tires (e.g. would a similar label that specified "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 POLYESTER RADIAL PLY" instead of an aramid radial ply also be permissible)? I explained that, in that respect, the examples were merely a model, so that his suggested alternative would be permissible.

2) When would the rule that was discussed in the letter be issued? I declined to give a prediction, explaining generally the uncertainties in the rulemaking process.

3) What was the real reason for inclusion of the suggestion that he consult the FTC concerning advertising of the tires in question? I explained that he could take the sentence on its face and that the NHTSA was not, in the letter, taking any position on the use of the word "radial" in the advertising of such tires.

ID: 15203a.mls

Mr. John Gano
The Gradall Company
406 Mill Avenue S.W.
New Philadelphia, OH 44663

Dear Mr. Gano:

This responds to your inquiry about whether hydraulic excavators are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. According to your letter, the excavators are "mobile, multi-purpose construction machines capable of incidental travel on and off highway as a means of getting to and from the location of their primary function" of hydraulic excavation. You state that the machines are not equipped with drive train ratios, engine power or suspension systems that are typical of on-highway vehicles. You further state that a typical excavator "is anticipated to accumulate approximately 3000 miles annually with 20% spent on secondary roads and highways and 80% spent off-highway."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"Any 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."

It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the various hydraulic excavators you describe are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/7/97

ID: nht75-1.50

DATE: 11/18/75

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

TO: Tong Shin Chemical Products Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry concerning the addition of the symbol "DOT" to tires imported into this country, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of this office.

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto the sidewall of tires an identification number and the symbol DOT. The position of the identification number and DOT symbol is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of the Regulation. The symbol DOT, as stated in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, 49 CFR 571.109, constitutes a certification that the tire conforms to all applicable safety standards.

Neither Standard No. 109 nor Part 574 prohibit the branding of the symbol DOT onto the tire after manufacture, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material. By branding the symbol DOT onto the tire you are certifying that the tires meet all the requirements of the motor vehicle safety standards based on information which, in the exercise of due care, you know to be accurate.

If you have further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht72-2.13

DATE: 11/20/72

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

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1972, to Mr. Schneider asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed photographs of boat trailers marked to show your understanding of the language "as far forward as practicable" and ask for our views.

Table II and Table IV of Standard No. 108 require that front side reflex reflectors and lamps on trailers, including boat trailers, be located as far to the front as practicable, Recognizing that a literal interpretation of the standard would require that these devices be installed on the trailer tongue and that in many instances it would be impracticable to do so, the NHTSA added paragraph S4.3.1.3 to allow a location as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue." The intent of the regulation is that the device be mounted as far to the front of the vehicle as the manufacturer determines is practicable, and a definition of "trailer tongue" is immaterial for this purpose. If the angled portion of the frame is deemed "practicable", and the device is located there, it must be mounted, as you suggested, in a position such that it meets the photometric requirements at the specified angles with respect to the vehicle.