ID: nht88-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/88 EST

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

TO: J. E. CARR -- PRODUCT SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-29-88, INTERPRETATION OF TERMS FOR FMVSS 124, OCC-1999

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1988, asking this agency for an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems, as it applies to the components of a diesel truck engine and accelerator control components described in your l etter. I apologize for the delay in this response.

With your letter, you provided diagrams of three different accelerator control systems and fuel metering devices for a diesel engine. The first system (Type I in your letter) was a purely mechanical system. In this system, the linkage from the accelera tor pedal connects to a mechanical governor. This governor is a device that responds to pedal displacement, and causes a rack to move, thereby controlling the flow of fuel from fuel injector pumps into the engine cylinders. The second and third systems described in your letter operate through an electrical-mechanical sequence. In the second system (Type II in your letter), mechanical linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to an electronic pedal position sensor. When the vehicle operator puts pre ssure on the accelerator pedal, this sensor converts that movement into an electrical signal. The electrical impulse travels through a wire to an engine control module (ECM). The ECM interprets pedal position and engine speed from the sensor impulse, an d determines how much fuel must go to the engine cylinders either to maintain or reduce speed in consequence of pedal movement. In turn, the ECM sends a signal to a motor which moves a fuel rack to control the flow of fuel from the injector pumps into t he engine cylinders. In the system you call Type III, the ECM sends a signal directly to individual fuel injector pumps without the intervention of a rack. Otherwise, Type II and III are the same.

On October 28, 1988, at the agency's invitation, you met with us to further explain the background information for this request and why Caterpillar believes that particular components were included in either the accelerator control system or the fuel met ering device. During the

course of that meeting, you agreed with us that Caterpillar's principal concern was not whether any particular component was part of the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. Instead, you were concerned with the requirement that the th rottle "shall return to idle" under specified conditions. You explained that your ECM is designed to shut off the engine, rather than return the throttle to idle, during many failure modes. We conclude that the requirement that the throttle "return to i dle" is satisfied by a system that shuts off the engine in the specified circumstances.

As S2 of Standard 124 makes clear, the purpose of the standard is to prevent runaway vehicles when certain malfunctions occur in the accelerator control system. If such malfunctions do occur, the standard ensures that the engine will not continue at a hi gh speed, but will return to idle, so that the driver can safely brake the vehicle and get it off the road. In both the Type II and III systems referred to in your letter, the agency understands that a failure in the ECM circuitry, or a failure of the c omponents that respond to the ECM, will either return the throttle to idle or shut down the engine. Either of these results would serve the purpose of Standard 124. Therefore, we interpret the phrase "return to idle" to be satisfied by returning to idl e or going beyond that throttle position to shut off the engine. Accordingly, based on the information you have provided, it appears that your Type II and III systems would comply with Standard 124 regardless of whether the ECM and other components are considered part of the acclerator control system or the fuel metering device.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-1.31

DATE: 04/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregroy; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Vance Hartke - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY; FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1976, enclosing a letter from Mr. Dennis Oser concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975, and applies to non-passenger-car tires manufactured on and after that date. From his reference to "April 1, 1976", Mr. Oser appears to be concerned with the effective dates of 49 CFR 393.75, a regulation issued by the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS). That regulation addresses the type of tires with which motor vehicles in use in interstate commerce must be equipped. Accordingly, I have forwarded your letter to the BMCS for further reply.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

United States Senate

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

March 30, 1976

James Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I am enclosing for your review a letter that I have received from Mr. M. Dennis Oser. Mr. Oser inquired as to whether it would be feasible to amend MVSS 119 so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as a it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976. Would you please review Mr. Oser's letter and provide me with your response.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

VANCE HARTKE, Chairman -- Surface Transportation Subcommittee

Enclosure

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Vance Hartke United States Senate

My dear Senator Hartke:

Enclosed, please find copies of letters concerning subjects of importance to this company and the trucking industry.

Any help you can give by lending your support will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosures

February 19, 1976

Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

RE: MVSS119

Please consider changing the subject standard so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976, regardless of date of purchase. The following two reasons appear to be the only applicable facts in this situation:

1. Safety will not be compromised by making the requested change.

2. There will be no adverse economic impact on the industry or this company if the requested change is made.

Sincerely,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Lionel Van Doerlin -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, House of Representatives

Dear Representative Van Doerlin:

Within your jurisdiction as an oversight committee for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, please accept the enclosed copy of a letter to the Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety with regard to MVSS119.

Further, with regard to MVSS121, any priority your committee could assign in its oversight role to putting this standard high on its agenda could be of significant impact economically to the trucking industry. The confusion and frustration being felt throughout the operating segment of this industry is disastrous.

Yours very truly,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard A. Gomes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 17, 1985 Mr. Richard A. Gomes, Supervisor Technical Support, Room 28 New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11207 Dear Mr. Gomes: This responds to your June 21, 1985 letter to this office concerning our requirements for emergency exits under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in our response. In a July 15 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that your question concerns the side rear door on transit buses which is used to unload passengers. The door in question is not intended as an emergency exit, and the buses have the requisite emergency exits in compliance with Standard No. 217 without the need to count the rear exit door. Typically, passengers can exit the bus by pushing handles which open the door, after the driver activates a mechanism located in the driver's compartment. The Transit Authority would like to place another activating mechanism near the rear exit door that can be operated "in an emergency." You propose to place the second mechanism in a "break-away" plastic case and ask whether we have standards specifying requirements for materials used for that purpose. There are no safety standards setting requirements for the material you wish to use to cover the secondary release mechanism. Your question, however, raises the issue of the applicability of Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements to the rear exit door. this question arises in cases where a label is attached to a door indicating that is is to be used in an emergency. From your description, it appears that a label would be attached to the mechanism at the rear door instructing passengers how to open the door in an emergency. We have stated in the past that a door that is not labeled or intended as an emergency exit need not comply with the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217. However, if a door were labeled with instructions on how to open the door in case of an emergency, such as "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down," then the label indicates that the door is intended for use as an emergency exit. Such a door must comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, since the label indicates to the occupants that the door is suitable for use in an emergency and it is likely that rider would use the door as an emergency exit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in emergencies. One purpose of Standard No.217 is to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. While the standard does not explicitly prohibit a plastic case around an emergency exit release mechanism, it is obvious that any type of design or device which would inhibit the release of the mechanism would not be allowed. We urge you to ensure that the release mechanism is easily accessible to bus occupants and that the plastic case does not unnecessarily impede its operation. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person selling you a new bus with the rear exit door marked as an emergency exit must ensure that the door meets Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. The Transit Authority may modify its buses by labeling the rear exit door with instructions for use in an emergency after it receives delivery of the vehicles without regard to our safety standards, since our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of vehicles by their owners. However, we would urge the Transit Authority to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 30, 1985

FROM: NHTSA

TO: K. Douglas Scribner -- Mini City, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on "antique and classic automobiles." You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for "classic" cars.

It is unclear when you refer to a "DOT number" whether you are referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, or that identification number together with the symbol "DOT." The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information.

In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements.

Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer were manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sales of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements.

If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured after 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation.

If you need any further information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

Mini City Ltd.

SEPTEMBER 16, 1985

JEFFREY R. MILLER -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Further to conversations with your office today, regarding DOT Standard 109 and its application to our marketing of tires for antique and classic automobiles, I am writing to request a copy of the "interpretation book" which will explain qualifying exceptions or exemptions.

Basicall, we have dealt, and wish to continue dealing, in tires which are obsolete in nature (non-radial, odd sizes, etc.) but which are necessary for authentic replacement tires on antique and classic cars.

Some of these are still supplied by their original manufacturers (Firestone, Goodyear, Dunlop, etc.) and some are reproductions made from original molds (Denman, Lucas, etc.). None of these have ever carried DOT numbers.

I look forward to your reply at your early convenience.

Sincerely,

K. Douglas Scribner -- President

ID: 1985-04.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. K. Douglas Scribner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Douglas Scribner President Mini City Ltd. 876 Turk Hill Road Fairport, NY 14450 Dear Mr. Scribner:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on "antique and classic automobiles." You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for "classic" cars.

It is unclear when you refer to a "DOT number" whether you are referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, or that identification number together with the symbol "DOT." The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information.

In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements.

Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer were manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sales of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements.

If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured after 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109,you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation.

If you need any further information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 Attn: Jeffrey R. Miller

Further to conversations with your office today, regarding DOT Standard 109 and its application to our marketing of tires for antique and classic automobiles, I am writing to request a copy of the "interpretation book" which will explain qualifying exceptions or exemptions.

Basically, we have dealt, and wish to continue dealing, in tires which are obsolete in nature (non-radial, odd sizes, etc.) but which are necessary for authentic replacement tires on antique and classic cars.

Some of these are still supplied by their original manufacturers (Firestone. Goodyear, Dunlop, etc.) and some are reproductions made from original molds (Denman, Lucas, etc.). None of these have ever carried DOT numbers.

I look forward to your reply at your early convenience. Sincerely, K. Douglas Scribner President KDS:se

ID: 1985-04.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kenneth E. Deane -- Application Engineer, Mallory Timers Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth E. Deane Application Engineer Mallory Timers Company P.O. Box 986 Indianapolis, IN 46206

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp and the acceptability of a switch you have designed, you have asked whether the new lamp and the vehicle's primary stop lamps "must be energized simultaneously, or that the low mount light must come on first, followed by the high mount light within 35 milliseconds." You have designed a switch which would energize these lamps within 80 milliseconds of each other.

Paragraph S4.5.4 requires that the stop lamps on a vehicle be activated upon application of the service brakes, and, further, that the center high-mounted stop lamp shall only be activated upon application of the service brakes. We interpret this as meaning that all stop lamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously. Lawrence J. Fogel's "Human Information Processing" (Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1967), p. 101) indicates that the eye cannot discern delays of 50 milliseconds or less. Therefore, we believe that an observer would not be able to detect a 35 millisecond delay but would be able to detect an 80 millisecond delay. Accordingly, a 35 millisecond delay would be considered to be "simultaneous," but an 80 millisecond delay would not.

You have also asked whether "slow 'teasing' of the brake pedal must not cause intermittent 'blip' flashing of the high mount light when the hazard warning signal is employed." A center high-mounted stop lamp is allowed to flash with the hazard warning system on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1986, but it must be steady burning at all times on passenger cars manufactured on or after that date.

I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 25, 1985 Mr. Taylor Vinson SMVSS108 NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024

Dear Mr. Vinson:

I have been referred to you by Mr. Kevin Cavey of the NHTSA for a clarification of one of the requirements for the High Mounted Brake Light on passenger cars.

We have designed and tooled a brake switch for this application in which the low mount brake lights and the high mount brake lights are energized within 80 milliseconds of each other. (This is at a brake lever actuation speed of 5mm/second.) To further clarify, either light could come on first, followed by the other light within 80 milliseconds.

Recent inputs from our customer, B-O-C Detroit, indicate that both lights must be energized simultaneously or that the low mount light must come on first, followed by the high mount light within 35 milliseconds. Also that slow "teasing" of the brake pedal must not cause any intermittent "blip" flashing of the high mount light when the hazard warning system is employed. In conversation with B-O-C engineering they indicated that they "think" this is the NHTSA requirement.

A complete redesign of our already tooled product would be necessary to meet these new requirements at considerable cost and subsequent program delay. For this reason, we request your input and interpretation of the NHTSA's intentions in this area.

Thank you for your early consideration. Respectfully, Kenneth E. Deane Application Engineer KED/s cc: Messrs. E. Eaton P. Johnson J. Smith R. Stafford J. Wiser

ID: 86-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mrs. Ralfsbeek asks whether we have proposed to make safety belts mandatory on school buses. As explained below, our regulations already require safety belts on smaller school buses. i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR's) of 10,000 pounds or less. While we have not proposed to require safety belts on large school buses over 10,000 pounds, we issued a proposal in October 1985 to ensure that if safety belts are voluntarily installed on a large new school bus, they meet appropriate performance requirements.

I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements for safety belts on school buses. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. We do not require safety belts in large school buses because those buses have been required since 1977 to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although this agency has determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. State and local governments are nevertheless free to order safety belts on their new school buses if they wish to do so. Most school bus manufacturers are capable of installing them in those vehicles.

As mentioned earlier, we have proposed to set performance standards for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. If the proposal is adopted, we would require manufacturers to ensure that the voluntarily-installed safety belts meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed for your information.

In addition, we are providing you with a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985), which might be of interest to your constituents.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

I've been contacted by Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska regarding requirements for seat belts on school buses. Mrs. Kalfsbeek would like to know if there are any proposals to make seat belts mandatory on these buses.

I'd appreciate your responding to Mrs. Kalfsbeek's inquiry and filling me in on existing federal regulations on seat belt use on school buses.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes,

Cordially, TED STEVENS

ID: 86-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Delta Radio Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Delta Radio Co. P.O. Box 531 Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Gentlemen:

The enclosed publicity on the "Attention Getter" motorcycle accessory lighting device has come to our attention. It is represented as "Approved by the NHTSA". We do not know whether that is your characterization or that of the publication in which it appeared. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" or endorse products. Upon request, it will provide an interpretation of whether a lighting device is regulated, permitted, or not permitted by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. If a device is deemed permitted by the standard, in no sense should that be construed as "approved by NHTSA".

As a matter of fact, we have never been asked for an opinion of the "Attention Getter" but its installation could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Federal standard (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108), and prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard. A stop lamp is required to be steady-burning in use, and not flash as does your device, and its intensity must not exceed the maximum limits imposed by SAE Standard J586c, which is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. The fact that "Attention Getter"s intensity goes from "normal intensity to extra bright" raises the possibility that the maxima may be exceeded.

If you have any questions regarding your further responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject: Advertisement for "Attention Getter" Date: Mar 14 1986 Motorcycle Taillight Flasher From: George L. Reagie Associate Administrator, TSP

To: Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel, NHTSA

The attached advertisement was sent to us by Mr. Niel Tolhurst, Assistant Manager of Motorcycle Safety and Recreation for American Honda Motor Company. Mr. Tolhurst questioned the reference to "Approved by the NHTSA" in relationship to the "Attention Getter" motorcycle tail light flasher.

Since NHTSA does not approve or endorse products, I wanted to bring the advertisement to your attention so that appropriate action might be taken with the manufacturer of the product to correct the erroneous information.

Attachment

October 31, 1985

Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a sketch of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal lamp positioning for some models of motorcycles. Reference is made to part 571.108, Title 49 of the CFR.

Table IV of the above cited reference specifies a minimum 9 inch horizontal separation distance. As indicated by dimension "A" this distance is 12 inches. This table also specifies that minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches. Dimension "B" indicated as 5.00 inches satisfies this requirement.

Your timely confirmation that our interpretation of this standard is correct will allow us to initiate tooling orders for 1987 model vehicles.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning the attached sketch and provide any additional information required. I may be reached at

Please receive this information as "Confidential business information" as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(6)(4). The release of details from the correspondence may provide vehicle styling information that could benefit our competitors.

Sincerely,

rn Enc.

ID: 86-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Clark, Esq -- Tabbert and Capehart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Clark, Esq. Tabbert & Capehart One Indiana Square Suite 1500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

This responds to your letter dated October 21, l985, inquiring about the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.

The relevant federal statute in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.

As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles will be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7 Certification. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

In addition, please note that your client should take care in making the conversions not to harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Jeffrey R. Miller, Esqu. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

On Tuesday, October 15, l985, I telephoned your office and spoke with Mr. Steve Oeshch regarding a client of this firm who wishes to convert fully assembled automobiles into limousines. After speaking with Mr. Oeshch, he suggested that I write to your office and request a formal interpretation in regard to this matter, in view of the facts as discussed.

The client is a new car dealer in Anderson, Indiana. He desires to purchase full assembled new automobiles from the manufacturer and subsequently convert them into limousines. The limousines will in turn be sold wholesale to dealers.

I wish to know which Federal Department of Transportation statutes must be complied with and how to classify the client, i.e. dealer, manufacturer or remanufacturer.

Could you kindly at your earliest convenience render an opinion regarding this matter. Any assistance you might give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Clark

ID: 86-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W.L. Hammer, P.E. -- Equipment Engineer, Wisconsin Electric Power Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W.L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 620 S. 76th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1986, asking for an interpretation of the stop lamp and turn signal requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986. No. They apply to original equipment stop lamps on vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973 and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.6), and to original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles other than motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.7). However, they also apply to stop lamps and turn signal lamps manufactured after September 1, 1978, which are intended as replacement equipment for the original equipment manufactured between the inclusive dates. This is not exactly clear from a reading of the two paragraphs and we are considering a clarifying amendment to the standard. In summary, these paragraphs do not apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986, but they could apply to certain lighting equipment being manufactured today.

You also comment that S4.1.1.6 is silent as to the minimum luminous lens area required for stop lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which you recall as once being 12 square inches, and you ask if a final sentence has been omitted pertaining to wide vehicles. There has been no omission: SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966, the standard referenced in S4.1.1.6, never specified a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for wide vehicles. The requirement for wide vehicles today is found in paragraph 3.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970. This establishes a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches for single compartment lamps. However, paragraph 3.1 allows manufacturers of wide vehicles to mount a maximum of two lamps and/or compartments per side closer together than 22 inches providing that each compartment and/or lamp meets single compartment photometric requirements and has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 29, 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: 49CFR571.108 PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.6 STOPLIGHTS PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.7 TURN SIGNALS

I have been reading 571.108 as published in the 1984 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations. At first glance, Paragraphs 4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7 appear to only pertain to certain vehicles manufactured between 1972 and 1978 and not to those made before or after those dates. On a second glance, these paragraphs refer to a design option to meet SAEJ586b or 588d, or to meet SAEJ575d. Do these paragraphs apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986;

Also, in the case of Paragraph 4.1.1.6, a 3.5 square inch rule pertains to vehicles less than 80 inches in width, but there is no comment made for those vehicles over 80 inches in width. (I seem to remember it once was 12 square inches). Has a last sentence pertaining to vehicles over 80 inches been omitted:

A written reply is not required. A phone call would be satisfactory.

Sincerely,

W. L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer (414) 259-4152