ID: aiam2868

Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your August 25, 1978, letter asking what the ter 'normal nighttime illumination' means in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; The term 'normal nighttime illumination' is found in paragraph S5.5. of the standard. This section requires that all interior exit instructions be legible when the only source of light is the normal nighttime illumination of the vehicle. The term, as used in this paragraph, means that exit instructions must be visible with the normal interior vehicle lighting that is in use when the bus is moving. Interior vehicle lighting may include, for example, reading lamps and overhead lights.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3865

Dear Mr. Pomer: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, as it relates to one of the Premier helmet models. You enclosed a photograph of the helmet which shows that the helmet has a visor in the front. You state that the visor is an integral part of the polycarbonate helmet shell and ask if this helmet complies with the standard.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (as amended) (the Act). Certification that an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a motorcycle helmet, complies with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the obligation of the manufacturer under section 114 of the Act. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not state in advance whether a helmet complies with the standard. The agency's determination of compliance occurs only in the context of an enforcement action.; This office has reviewed the photograph of the Premier helmet regardin the visor and notes that paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'The brow opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch above all points in the basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3).' The intent of this provision is to give the helmet user an unobstructed view. Therefore, if the lowest point, or the tip, of the visor is at least one inch above the basic plane, as shown in Figure 2 of the standard, the helmet should meet the requirements of this provision.; A copy of 49 CFR Part 556, *Exemption for Inconsequential Defect o Noncompliance, is enclosed for your information, if you decide to petition the NHTSA regarding the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3864

Dear Mr. Pomer: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, as it relates to one of the Premier helmet models. You enclosed a photograph of the helmet which shows that the helmet has a visor in the front. You state that the visor is an integral part of the polycarbonate helmet shell and ask if this helmet complies with the standard.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (as amended) (the Act). Certification that an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a motorcycle helmet, complies with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the obligation of the manufacturer under section 114 of the Act. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not state in advance whether a helmet complies with the standard. The agency's determination of compliance occurs only in the context of an enforcement action.; This office has reviewed the photograph of the Premier helmet regardin the visor and notes that paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'The brow opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch above all points in the basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3).' The intent of this provision is to give the helmet user an unobstructed view. Therefore, if the lowest point, or the tip, of the visor is at least one inch above the basic plane, as shown in Figure 2 of the standard, the helmet should meet the requirements of this provision.; A copy of 49 CFR Part 556, *Exemption for Inconsequential Defect o Noncompliance, is enclosed for your information, if you decide to petition the NHTSA regarding the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4257

Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1986, with reference t the distance between a front turn signal lamp and a lower beam headlamp.; In brief, SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference in Standard No 108 requires a minimum separation distance of 4 inches between the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. You have pointed out that a replaceable bulb headlamp does not have a retaining ring, and you have presented two possible substitutes as a measuring point. The first (your Item A) is the outer edge of the headlamp, and the second (your Item B) is the end of the effective area of the reflector. You believe that Item B is the more appropriate.; We concur with your interpretation. Of the two options, the distance t the edge of the effective area of the reflector is the one most similar to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. The basis for this interpretation is the assumption that the headlamp lens between the outer edge of the headlamp and the edge of the effective area of the reflector is not used for production of the lamp's beam, has no significant luminance, and therefore will not mask the turn signal.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3017

Dear Mr. Buck: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whethe Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of- sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3016

Dear Mr. Buck: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whethe Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of- sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 77-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Miller Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to several recent interpretations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

A manufacturer's responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of its GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of its vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.

SINCERELY,

SPECIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION MILLER TRAILERS, INC.

May 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have recently read with interest and concern several legal interpretations from NHTSA regarding GVW and GAW Ratings assigned by vehicle manufacturers and that relationship to the actual operation by the end user in which these ratings may or could be exceeded.

I'm sure you are well aware that general purpose freight trailers as well as specialized commodity trailers are designed to a maximum payload rating. The payload carried, however, can consist of a wide range of product densities. Insulation, for example, would be light and bulky where cartons of canned paint would be very heavy. In both these examples, the same trailer could be used. Using the total cubic capacity of a normal van trailer with a high density load, could very well overload both GVWR and GAWR. I believe that any trailer rated with a normal GVWR which is exceeded would also exceed the legal highway weight limits. Trailer manufacturers certainly have no control over an operator who decides to operate illegally.

Another popular specification used in trailers is a sliding running gear which is used by operators to distribute their loads between the axle(s) and the upper coupler assembly. By sliding the running gear forward, load is transferred from the upper coupler to the axle(s) with the opposite taking place by sliding the running gear rearward. If the operator elects to ignore using this feature to control the amount of axle load, it is certainly probable that the GAWR would be exceeded in specific cases. The trailer manufacturers have no control over this situation.

Flatbed trailers may be used for any number of commodities. A very popular use is the hauling of steel products such as plate, sheet, bar, rod, pipe, coil, etc. In the case of coil, this product is not only very dense in weight but takes little space resulting in a concentrated load rather than evenly distributed. Here again, the placement and quantity of the coil(s) loaded at the steel mill may result in overloading the stated GVWR and/or GAWR of the vehicle. The trailer manufacturer has no control over this condition.

Miller Trailers, Inc. manufacturers bulk fruit trailers for the citrus industry in Florida. If a severe freeze occurs such as happened in January 1977, the fruit must be picked and processed within several days. The Governor degrees a state of emergency and lifts all highway weight limits. This results in exceeding the GVW and GAW Ratings of the vehicles being used. The trailer manufacturer has no control over this condition.

Each of the circumstances stated above are not intended usage as far as the design and ratings of the manufacturer. They are, however, all forseeable conditions, reasonable or not, because manufacturers have seen this usage occur in the past and it will undoubtedly occur in the future. Manufacturers have no way of knowing if or when any of these conditions will occur and couldn't prevent them if they did know. It doesn't seem reasonable that a manufacturer could be charged with a safety related defect under these circumstances.

Mr. Berndt, I sincerely believe that most, if not all, trailer manufacturers make every effort to manufacture vehicles that are safe to operate on the public highways. We just can't afford not too. Possible I have misinterpreted the meaning of the legal interpretations from NHTSA on this subject.

I would appreciate hearing from you on this serious matter.

L. M. Anderson, Vice President Engineering

CC: D. VIERIMAA -- TTMA

ID: aiam4904

"Dear Mr. Covelli: This responds to your recent undated letter t Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether Federal law allows the use of decals on center highmounted stop lamps. You report that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the brake light. THe subject is a complicated one under Federal law, but I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. There is no restriction under Federal law on the application of a decal to the center stop lamp, if the decal is placed there by the vehicle owner. Center stop lamps were not required on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-l986 model cars that may have been retrofitted with them. With respect to application of the decal on the center lamp of a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985, Federal law prohibits the application a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop, either before or after its sale to the first owner, if the application of the decal creates a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Conversely, such application is permitted if the lamp remains in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements with the decal installed. For example, the Federal standard calls for a minimum 'effective projected luminous area' of 4 l/2 square inches. Application of a decal to a lamp meeting the minimum area requirement would reduce the effective projected luminous area below 4 1/2 square inches, creating a noncompliance. On the other hand, if that area were large enough, and more than 4 1/2 square inches of it remained after the application of a decal, application of the decal would not create a noncompliance with the luminous area specification. The standard also calls for measurement of photometric performance at certain specified test points on the lamp. Obviously, the lamp must continue to provide the minimum photometric performance specified by the standard for those test points with the decal applied. Thus, whether application of a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop creates a noncompliance is dependent upon the size of the lamp and the size, lettering, and transparency of the decal. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5275

"Dear Ms. Barbee: This responds to your letter to me of October 14 1993, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 22, 1993. You stated in your letter that you are the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc., and in that capacity you have found that many Head Start agencies are using conventional vans to transport Head Start students to and from their programs. You stated that when you asked the directors of the agencies why they did not use vehicles that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for school buses, their usual answer was 'because we have not been told otherwise.' You then asked whether this practice is illegal and if so, what your organization can do to rectify the situation. As Mr. Myers explained in your telephone conversation, this agency has repeatedly stated that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools. Therefore, new buses sold to Head Start centers for use in transporting Head Start participants to and from school must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. However, Federal law does not require Head Start facilities to use complying school buses or any other particular vehicles. The individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. As promised by Mr. Myers, please find enclosed interpretation letters previously issued by us on this issue, as follows: to Hon. Paul David Wellstone, U.S. Senate, dated Jan. 26, 1993, to Mr. Chuck Anderson, dated Aug. 21, 1992, and to Mr. Charles Pekow, dated Sept. 27, 1985. I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ";

ID: aiam0091

Dear Mr. Heath: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps.; Paragraph S3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 permits th combination of two or more lamps providing the requirements for each are met. Table I in SAE Standard J592b gives the photometric requirements for both the clearance and side marker lamps, and Section J of the Standard permits their combination providing the combination complies with both clearance and side marker minimum candlepower requirements. Section J also defines the H-V axis of the combination as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when checking clearance lamp test points, and normal to this vehicle axis when checking side marker test points.; Your table of minimum candlepower requirements for the Type combination lamp meets J592b and therefore Standard No. 108 providing you define the H-V axis as that of the side marker lamp. The requirements for the Type 1 combination as specified in your table will not meet J592b or Standard No. 108 unless you change H-10, -20, -30, -45, -60, - 80 and -90, both L and R to H-15, -25, -35, -45, -55, -65, -75 and -90, both L and R, and define the H-V axis as a line through the center of the lamp at a 45 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.; Your mounting instructions are considerably more restrictive than thos implied in J592b and Standard No. 108. Actually, no additional mounting instructions are necessary, because any mounting which meets the minimum candlepower requirements of Table I in J592 and your table with the suggested revisions would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;