ID: nht71-3.25

DATE: 07/07/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Chase Manhattan Capital Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1971 concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574). We are concerned with the points you raise in your letter regarding the confidentiality of tire dealers customer's lists and the extra burden the regulation causes dealers who handle more than one brand of tires.

However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we do not feel we have authority to require the tire manufacturer to choose someone as his designee. Section 113(f) of the Act makes the tire manufacturer responsible for maintaining the records of first purchasers.

As you probably know, any use of the customer's list by the tire manufacturer is expressly prohibited by the regulation. Any violation of this prohibition will be enforced.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a notice published in the Federal Register May 28, 1971 which is relevant to the points you raise.

ID: aiam3840

Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1984, asking two question with respect to the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; With reference to paragraph S6.8, you mention the relative humidit figure of 90 *+* 10 percent, and your interpretation that the six-hour cycle of the test should be run at 90 percent and that the 10 percent tolerance 'is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating this humidity.' We concur that this is a reasonable interpretation of this requirement.; You have also asked when the headlamp must be inspected after th humidity test, as paragraph S4.1.1.36(d)(7) is silent on this point. It is your interpretation that this inspection must occur directly following the test, and before the photometrics of the lamp are measured, even though, in your view, it would be more convenient to check it after the photometric test. Your interpretation is correct, this inspection must occur within the 9 to 11 minutes specified for beginning the photometric test after completion of the humidity test.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1138

Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in response to your letter of May 14, 1973, for clarificatio of our comment on the mileage statement appearing in your form MVF.; The language 'at the time of' and 'upon' are equally satisfactory fo use in your proposed statement, as you have pointed out. The difficulty raised in our last letter concerns the tense of the statement, and this problem could be corrected simply by replacing the word 'was' with the word 'is' so that the statement reads; >>>'The mileage appearing on the odometer of the motor vehicl described above at time of transfer to: * * is as follows:'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht91-5.35

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jt Covelli -- President, Jt Covelli Marketing & Media

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter undated from Jt Covelli to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6369)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent undated letter to 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, 1985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-1986 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, 1985, 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 1/2 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.

ID: aiam4748

"Dear Mr. Schurger: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. You described a proposed design for heavy trucks in which a 'switch package' would be located in the center of the steering wheel, along the center spokes. The switch package would include controls for the horn, turn signals, cruise control, headlights (master lighting switch), marker lamps, hazard warning signal and high beam. You noted that Standard No. l0l requires the identification of certain controls to be 'perceptually upright,' and asked whether identifying symbols which rotate along with the steering wheel would be considered to meet this requirement. As discussed below, it is our opinion that such identification would not be considered to be perceptually upright to the driver. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S5.2.l of Standard No. l0l requires certain vehicle controls to be identified by specified symbols or words and for the identification to be placed on or adjacent to the control. That section also requires that '(t)he identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.l.l and S5.2.l.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright.' The identification of several of the controls that you propose to locate on the steering would be subject to the 'perceptually upright' requirement. Under your proposed design, the identification of controls would rotate along with the steering wheel. The identification would not be perceptually upright to the driver except when the steering wheel is in a centered position. Since rotation of the steering wheel is a necessary and routine part of driving, the identification would often not be perceptually upright to the driver. It is therefore our opinion that identification of controls that rotate with the steering wheel would not be considered perceptually upright to the driver. We note that there is no provision in Standard No. l0l that limits the 'perceptually upright' requirement to conditions where the steering wheel is centered. This interpretation is consistent with past agency practice. In a July l984 notice establishing a requirement to identify the horn control with a specified symbol, NHTSA addressed commenter concerns about how Standard No. l0l's requirement that identification be perceptually upright might apply to horn controls located on the steering wheel. 49 FR 30l9l, 30l94, July 27, l984. The commenters noted that it is impossible for such horn symbols to be perceptually upright at all times. In response to the comments, the agency included a provision that the horn symbol need be perceptually upright only when the vehicle, aligned to the manufacturer's specification, has its wheels positioned for the vehicle to travel straight forward, i.e., when the steering wheel is centered. It would not have been necessary for the agency to establish this special provision for horn symbols if identification of controls located on the steering wheel was considered to be perceptually upright in the absence of such provision. (We note that NHTSA later decided to drop the perceptually upright requirement for the horn symbol. However, that decision does not affect the above analysis.) Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht87-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; EriKa Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas L. Long

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Thomas L. Long Vice-President R & D Think, Inc. P.O. Box 414 Smyrna, TN; 37167

Dear Mr. Long:

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed "on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light." You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that light outlet (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear

window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 103 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches, and while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchase: with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements.

Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached, nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice on State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

ID: aiam1608

Dear Mr. Baker: This responds to your August 28, 1974, question whether a 'logging pol trailer', which consists of a beam to which an axle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accomodate (sic) different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*:; >>>'Heavy hauler trailer' means a trailer with one or more of th following characteristics:; (1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension o the vehicle frame, or; (2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carryin surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent 'front-end structure' as that term is used in S 393.106 of this title.<<<; The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and a such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or 'reach', together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.; This arrangement differs from the standard highway van which has one-piece frame with an adjustable tandem axle. The purpose of this sliding arrangement is unrelated to an extension of the frame itself to accomodate (sic) the transportation of heavy or oversize loads.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1607

Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your August 21, 1974, question whether a 'logging pol trailer', which consists of a beam to which an axle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accomodate (sic) different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*:; >>>'Heavy hauler trailer' means a trailer with one or more of th following characteristics:; (1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension o the vehicle frame, or; (2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carryin surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent 'front-end structure' as that term is used in S 393.106 of this title.<<<; This also acknowledges receipt of your September 5 and September 17 1974, letters on the same subject.; The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and a such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or 'reach', together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.; This arrangement differs from the standard highway van which has one-piece frame with an adjustable tandem axle. The purpose of this sliding arrangement is unrelated to an extension of the frame itself to accomodate (sic) the transportation of heavy or oversize loads.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Z. Taylor Vinson; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum - Interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Standard No. 218 - "Rigid Projection"

From: Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

To: Interpretations File

Paragraph S5.5 Projections of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 states in pertinent part: "A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell." The term "rigid projections" does not appear to have been interpreted up to now.

The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has brought to our attention a type of helmet which has a lever inside the helmet, below the shield, by which the visor shield is released to open. It has also procured another type of helmet which comes equipped with a headset. Inside the helmet are two speakers, made of hard rubber, which fasten into the shell. Each speaker is roughly an inch in height. Its shape is odd, basically eliptical, and about 1 1/2 inches at its longest point. OVSC has asked whether the lever and the speakers are "rigid projections" prohibited by the standard.

Assuming that the lever is made of either plastic or hard rubber, it would appear to be "rigid" in the sense of "unyielding," as are the speakers. The speakers do not lie flush with the shell or liner but just out an inch from their mounting points, and would appear to "project" in the normally understood sense of the word. The lever presumably also does not lie flush in the inner chin area of the helmet. Rigid projections are allowed on the exterior of a helmet provided that "they shall not protrude more than .19 inch" and "are limited to those required for operation of essential accessories." But neither the lever nor speakers could meet both criteria were they externally mounted, leading a fortiori to the conclusion that, internally mounted, they are prohibited.

OVSC says that motorcycle helmet headsets are illegal in at least 5 states.

ID: aiam3366

Dear Mr. Ogata: Thank you for your July 24, 1980, letter concerning your efforts t improve defogging performance. We share your concern about providing optimum driving visibility and are pleased with your efforts to improve this safety feature.; Your letter requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard 103, asking whether it is permissible to designate an intermediate blower fan speed (instead of the maximum speed) as the speed to be used when defrosting, if some caution or direction about the necessity for using that intermediate speed for defrosting purposes is provided in the Owner's Manual. The purpose of taking that step would be to cause the intermediate speed instead of the maximum blower speed to be used in testing the performance of the defrosting system under the standard. If this was permissible, you could increase the speed of the fan at the maximum position, thereby improving performance of the defogging function, while still being able to meet the performance requirements of the defrosting function at the intermediate speed (but not at the new maximum speed).; Paragraph S4.3 of the standard states that ' t he passenger ca windshield defrosting and defogging system shall be tested in accordance with the portions of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 1967, applicable to that system,' with certain exceptions not applicable to your question.; Section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902 specifies as one of th testing conditions that the defroster system air be 'On full, Blower on high.' Similarly, section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902a specifies that the defroster system air be 'On full. Blower on high speed.' We therefore conclude that it would not be permissible under the standard as currently drafted to install a defrosting system which fails to meet the standard when the blower is set to its highest speed even if the system meets the standard at a lower blower speed and that lower blower speed is labeled as the maximum defrosting position. This conclusion would not be changed by the inclusion of directions in the Owner's Manual or words or symbols on the control panel.; If you are unable to resolve the problem in another way, i.e. improving the performance of the heating element, you may wish to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an amendment to FMVSS 103. It is our inclination, however, that a defrosting system which operated optimally at a lower blower speed would cause considerable consumer confusion. Drivers would normally expect to obtain both optimum defrosting performance and optimum defogging performance at the highest blower speed. Even if the system was clearly labeled to indicate that the blower speed should be set to medium for defrosting and high for defogging, many consumers do not know the difference between defrosting and defogging. We would also have to consider the amendment's effect on Standard 101, since there is only one symbol for the defrosting and defogging system. If you should decide to petition for an amendment to Standard 103, we would like to see these issues addressed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel