ID: nht76-2.11

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe Corporation's August 31, 1976, question whether 5 described intersections in a bus body qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The windshield fence that you describe in section A of your letter connects the window glazing seal to the bus body and is considered to be a portion of the window by the NHTSA. Windows are excluded from the definition of "body panel joint" found in S4 of the standard. Therefore, the fence would be excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The "trim molding" described in section B of your letter constitutes a body panel that encloses occupant space. The fact that the trim is decorative does not place it within the exclusion of "spaces designed for ventilation or other functional purpose." Since the "trim molding" is a body panel and is connected to a body component, it creates a joint subject to the requirements of the standard. The fact that the molding, like every other part of the bus, has a function does not exclude it from the ambit of the joint requirement under the exception for "ventilation or other functional purpose."

In section C of your letter, your acknowledge that the joint where the skirt panel connects to the outside upper body panel falls within the ambit of the standard. You request an exception from the standard's requirements for this joint based upon a perceived lack of safety hazards resulting from failure of this joint in a crash situation.

To implement the Congressional mandate for school bus safety, the NHTSA drafted Standard No. 221 to cover all joints that are potentially dangerous in a crash situation. The agency adopted this broad coverage of joints to avoid the more piece-meal approach of analyzing each joint for possible safety problems, because it is impracticable to test every joint in every possible accident configuration. Therefore, since the joint you describe falls within the parameters of the standard, it must meet the requirements specified.

The joint described in section D of your letter where the vent eves connect to the outside roof panel is a joint within the definition of the standard. The outside roof panel is a "body panel" as defined in S4. The junction where a "body panel" connects to a "body component," the vent eves, constitutes a joint regulated by the standard.

With regard to section E of your letter, the NHTSA agrees that the joint where the outside and inside lower panels connect is within the scope of the standard. Whether or not the joint itself is covered by trim molding is not relevant to its status. It is still a joint within the definition of the standard and subject to all of the requirements therein.

I trust these interpretations fully answer your questions.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

August 31, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221 - School Bus Body Joint Efficiency

Sheller-Globe Corporation respectfully requests interpretation on whether or not certain junctions within the framed structure of the Superior School Bus Body are "joints" by definition, and whether or not these junctions are subject to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Attached you will find an isometric drawing provided for purposes of your locating the area where these junctions in question are located within the framed structure of the Superior School Bus Body.

Also attached you will find section and part drawings identifiable by section to the isometric drawing provided.

A. Upper Pillar to Windshield Fence - Section 3-3:

The windshield fence is not a body structural member, its only function is to retain the windshield corner glass seal. As can be seen on the isometric drawing provided (Section 3-3), this part is not located within the bus occupant space. It is forward of the drivers seating position in the cab area. This part is fastened to the Number 1 Pillar by are welding.

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this part is for functional purposes as referred to in Paragraph S4. Definitions - "Body Panel Joints' and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

B. Pillar Facing to Side Body Pillar - Section 5.5, 5.5A and Drawing 62975-B:

This part is not a body structural member, it is as is defined: a "facing", a "trim molding". Its' function is purely decorative as can be seen on Section Drawings 5-5, and 5-5A. This part by virtue of its' construction (rolled or hemmed edges) would provide no sharp, harmful and/or cutting edges in the event of a crash condition. This part is retained to the side body pillar by four (4) rivets, two at the roof rail and two at the sill (see Drawing 62975-B).

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this part is for a functional (decorative) purpose as referred to in Paragraph S4. Definitions - "Body Panel Joints" and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

C. Outside Lower Body - Section 9-9: The Superior "Bus Body" sets on the chassis rails (chassis frame) at the lower surface of the underbody main crossmembers (the "O" body line - reference Section Drawing 9-9).

As Paragraph S4. Definitions ("Bus Body") defines the parameters of a bus body, all joints located within these parameters would be required to-comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

In an interpretation issued by the NHTSA, the fastening of body side rub rails to the outer bus body were excluded from the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. Section Drawing 9-9 (encircled area) depicts where the Skirt Panel is fastened to the Outside Upper Body Panel at the junction where the Body Rub Rail is fastened to the Skirt Panel.

Sheller-Globe Corporation realizes that this junction falls within the defined parameters of a "Bus Body", and accordingly shoull comply with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. However, Sheller-Globe Corporation requests that this specific junction of the Superior School Bus be exempt from the requirements of the above referenced safety standard for reasons as follows:

A) This junction is located in an area within the structural frame-work of the Superior School Bus Body where probably the highest amount of structural integrity exists, at the bus body floor line perpendicular to the underbody main crossmembers.

B) The steel floor, the Skirt Panel and the underbody main crossmembers are fastened to one another by the 3/8" bolts and nuts, 4 at each body section as can be seen on Section Drawing 9-9.

C) Additionally, the steel floor is joined to the Skirt Panel (upper) in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

D) The Skirt Panel (upper) is joined to the Upper Inside Panel, at the Seat Rail in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

E) All interior and exterior longitudinal panel joints are joined, panel to panel, in compliance to the above referenced safety standard.

F) The steel floor is joined to the underbody main crossmembers in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

Most States require, in their State Specifications, that Rub Rails be installed at the floor-line of School Buses. Denial of this exemption would require that Sheller-Globe Corporation re-engineer this junction configuration, re-engineer and re-tool for the Rub-Rails and Outside Body Panels.

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that if this junction failed in a crash condition, no loss of body structural integrity would result. Further, feature of this junction in a crash condition would not likely produce edges harmful to the occupants] of the School Bus.

D. Body Rail (Vent Eves) to Outside Roof Panel - Section 12-12A: Section 12-12A depicts where the outside roof panels insert into the roof rail at the vent eves. As further can be seen on Section 15-15, and the isometric drawing provided, the outside roof panels are all fastened as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, i.e., 60% Joint Efficiency. The outside roof panels are joined to one another and to the roof bow facings as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Inside roof panels are also joined to one another and to the roof bow facing as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Presently, where the outside roof panels (as shown on Section 12-12A) inserts into the roof rail (the vent eves), Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this outside roof panel edge would not, in the event of a crash condition, provide a harmful and/or cutting edge, the junction in reference does not form a part of the body structure, and further inasmuch as all junctions surrounding the junction in reference are joined as required by the above referenced safety standard, the junction in reference would not be required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

If the referenced junction is required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard, Sheller-Globe Corporation would be required to redesign and retool this area of the bus body structure and its' surrounding structure. The progress of "plug-welding" has been evaluated in joining in this area, however, the results of this process has not been satisfactory in complying with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. Additionally, "plug-welding" in this area creates an eye-sore and is conducive to rust.

Sheller-Globe Corporation requests interpretation and guidance of the NHTSA pertinent to whether the referenced junction is or is not required to comply with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

E. Outside Lower Panel to Inside Lower Panel - Sections 11-11 and 11-11-A:

Sheller-Globe Corporation realizes that where the outside and inside lower panels are joined according to normal interpretation, this joint would be required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

However, Sheller-Globe Corporation requests guidance on whether this joint, inasmuch as it is covered/protected by the trim moulding that is joined to the lower inside panel as required by the requirements of the above referenced safety standard, so that in a crash condition no harmful and/or cutting edges could be produced, need comply to the requirements of this safety standard.

If this joint that is formed by the outside and inside lower panels is required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Sheller-Globe Corporation would be required to re-design and re-tool this area and its' surrounding structure, possibly to include a re-design and re-tooling of all passenger windows.

Sheller-Globe Corporation solicits the NHTSA's expedient response to this matter, inasmuch as product engineering and tooling engineering for the 1977 model year Superior School Bus is pending an expedient response.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

(Graphics omitted)

APP APP. SYM. REVISIONS DATE CK. DR.: B DATE: 7-27-76 CK. APP. APP. BUS-FRONT END YEAR: 76 (Illegible Words)

(Illegible Words)

3000 MODEL 1000

SECTION 5-5A

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 86-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Geral L. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Geral L. Cox FLIRRZ 8931 Upper DeArmoun Road Anchorage, Alaska 9951

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter seeking this agency's opinion of a reflective device you plan to sell to be installed on semitrailers and other motor vehicles. As explained in your letter, these reflective devices would be installed on the center plug hub of wheels on semitrailers and trailers. You asked me to send you a letter stating either that your devices comply with applicable Federal standards or that you don't need DOT approval to sell these devices. You are correct that you do not need approval from this agency to market your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq., hereinafter "the Act") does not permit this agency to assure a manufacturer that its products comply with all applicable requirements or to "approve" a manufacturer's products. Instead, section 114 of the Act (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer itself to certify that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory requirement, the National highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" products or offer assurances of compliance by the product.

With respect to your reflective devices, there is no provision in our standards expressly prohibiting such reflectors. The installation of those reflectors would be subject only to the requirement set forth in section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 2571.108). That section provides that no additional reflectors that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 shall be installed on motor vehicles. This prohibition applies to parties installing your product on vehicles, and not to you as the manufacturer of the product. This is because the installer is the only party that can ensure that the reflectors are installed so that they do not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Generally speaking, this requirement of Standard No. 108 applies only to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories added to a vehicle after that purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories may be added to vehicles.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..." NHTSA considers it an element of design on vehicles that they have lighting and other equipment that are required by Standard No. 108 and whose effectiveness is not impaired by additional lights or reflectors. If the installation of your reflectors would impair that effectiveness, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing such reflectors would be rendering inoperative that design element of the vehicle, and thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle on which this element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation. You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to a vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle. Hence, if your aftermarket reflectors are sold to and installed by vehicle owners, those persons would not be subject to the prohibition of section 108 referenced above.

It appears from the materials enclosed with your letter that these reflectors would be installed so that they project outwards several inches beyond the wheel of the vehicles on which they are installed. have enclosed a copy of standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, for your information. This standard does not apply to trucks, trailers, or large buses, which are the vehicle types on which you indicated your reflectors would be installed. However, Standard No. 211 prohibits passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles from incorporating winged projections on their wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition is intended to prevent the potential hazard to pedestrians and cyclists from projections extending beyond the wheel of these vehicles. I hope that this potential hazard will not be present on vehicles on which your reflectors are installed.

You should also be aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act on manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as your reflectors. If either you, as a manufacturer, or this agency determines that your product does not comply with an applicable safety standard or that the products contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would be required to remedy that noncompliance or defect. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if an item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either:

1. repair the product so that the noncompliance or defect is removed: or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, you as the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jan. 30, 1986

To the Chief Counsel

Mr. Kennerly Digges National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington,D.C.

Mr. Diggs,

Back in December we had a phone conversation about D.O.T. approval on new safety devices to be introduced to the trucking industry. It is my understanding that I don't need to have any D.O.T. approval as long as I fall within all of the guidelines listed in the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Regulations handbook.

I have enclosed a few sketches and a brief explanation as to what my invention and safety device are designed to do. According to my understanding of the rule book, I feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines. I have read section #393.26(e) lines 1-5 concerning non-required reflectors, which is the only section I could find that would relate to my device, I feel that I fall well within these guidelines.

What I would like to have from the NHTSA is a documented letter stating that they feel that I fall well within the Federal guidelines and/or that I don't need any D.O.T. approval to go ahead on manufacturing and sales of my device. We hope to hear from you soon as we hope to start manufacturing these devices as soon as the first week of March, our future is riding on a letter from you and the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Division, we hope to get a letter from them in the very near future.

I want to thank you for your co-operation and any and all that you could do to help us on to what we hope to be a very prosperous future.

Again thank you,

Sincerely

Geral L. Cox

"FLIKRZ"

A TRUCK/TRAILER WHEEL MOVEMENT INDICATOR

"FLIKRZ" are a safety device for all Semi-Trucks that operate this nations highways. "FLIKRZ" are the idea, design and invention of Gerry Cox, a long time professional Truck-driver in Alaska.

After many years of hands-on operation and observation of heavy-duty Semi-Trucks in Alaska's harsh environment, Gerry noticed a very hazardous, expensive and to common occurrence, locking, skidding trailer tires.

The most common cause of unnoticed wheel skids occurs during the winter months when a trailer is parked after normal, trouble free operation and ice forms between the brake shoe and brake drum setting the brakes in the lock position. A driver will release his brake switch and drive away with what he believes to be free wheeling trailer, when in reality he may be skidding one or more of the trailer wheels behind him without realizing he is in the process of destroying hundreds of dollars worth of tires.

Another common cause of unnoticed tire skidding occurs with over application of the trailer brakes on slippery downhill grades. During slippery conditions, one or more wheels can lock-up without indication causing unnecessary tire wear or even throw the trailer dangerously out of control.

"FLIKRZ" are a simple, install in seconds wheel reflector that allows a driver at all times, at any speed, day or night to know exactly if and when his trailer wheels are moving or not.

"FLIKRZ" are made to fit most 15-24 inch trailer wheel assemblies equipped with the common 1-1/8 inch removable center plug hub. They install in seconds and come in a variety of colors (RED, WHITE, BLUE, ORANGE, YELLOW AND GREEN) FOR EASY IDENTIFICATION OF EACH AXLE ASSEMBLY.

"FLIKRZ" are not only an effective, maintenance reducing device, they are also a public safety aid. If and when a Truck loses all tail and marker lights to the trailer, traffic approaching from the front, rear or sides will see the "FLIKRZ" in motion and be aware of a moving Semi-Truck or one that may be parked on the side of the road for that matter. During the winter months, snow blowing up and covering the tail-lights is a far to common and dangerous problem. If by chance a Semi-Truck and trailer are parked on the edge of the road with no lights and safety flares or safety markers aren't available for the moment, then "FLIKRZ" will allow a driver the time he needs to place the necessary safety devices for warning on coming traffic.

In addition to being a wheel movement indicator, public safety aid or skid detector, "FLIKRZ" also aid a driver in backing his trailer into dark places during night time operations. With the aid of back-up light, the reflector will let him know exactly where his trailer tires are at all time.

I feel so strongly about the safety, maintenance reduction and striking appearance that this simple, inexpensive device has to offer to any independent trucker or an entire fleet for that matter, that I forsee the day that near all Semi-Trailers on this nation's highway will be willingly and satisfactorily equipped with FLIKRZ"....

NOTE

DRIVE WHEEL ADAPTERS AVAILABLE FOR SEMI-TRACTORS, DELIVERY TRUCKS, SCHOOL, MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC BUS LINES, ETC....

ID: Alliance 114

ID: 7577

Mr. J. W. Lawrence
Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to the Administrator on the subject "Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements."

In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned "for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . ." However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of "on the rear" as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself.

Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments.

The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp. * * * To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters.

NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters."

You state that the term "simultaneously visible" does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA).

First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members.

Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear.

As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across- the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is "from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left "for" the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: "signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right." For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one. The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, "signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle", which is specified as "of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right" (J586), "of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J1398), and "from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J585e).

TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility.

Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle.

NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the existing level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic.

This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph.

Finally, you comment that Table II "does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers". We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Ford Motor Company Freightliner Corp.

ref:108 d:10/5/92

ID: 77-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grants your November 29 petition for rulemaking and denies your December 20 petition.

The NHTSA, in a letter of interpretation to the Jeep Corporation, stated that "unloaded vehicle weight" does not include the weight of accessories ordinarily removed when they are not in use. Your November 29 petition for rulemaking suggests that we formally incorporate this interpretation into the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" for purposes of clarity. The agency agrees that this change should be made. Accordingly, we intend to commence rulemaking in response to your petition.

Your December 20, 1976, petition amended your November 29, 1976, petition by suggesting that the agency permit barrier testing of specified vehicles at the lesser of the unloaded vehicle weight or 5,500 pounds. We have determined that this proposal would establish arbitrary weights for vehicles undergoing compliance testing which could result in vehicles being subjected to crash tests in a condition which is not representative of their actual on-road condition. Your suggested change in the definition could thus result in a reduction in the effectiveness of some motor vehicle safety standards. In Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the Congress mandated that the agency not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard. Your proposal, if implemented, could violate that Congressional mandate since vehicles could be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight. Therefore, the recommendations advanced in your December 20 petition are denied to the extent that they differ from those originally proposed in your November 29 petition.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

December 20, 1976

Mr. John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

A number of petitions have been submitted to the NHTSA requesting a delay in the effective date of the amended requirements of MVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting as they apply to light duty multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

Chrysler Corporation supports those requests and urges the Administrator to grant this delay.

We believe, however, that the requested delay in the effective date of Standard 212 is only a part of a much broader issue that must be addressed by the NHTSA with respect to special purpose vehicles. These vehicles usually are completed by independent body builders who may install any one of a number of different types of bodies to meet the needs of the final purchaser, and generally are classified as vehicles manufactured in two or more stages for purposes of the safety regulations. In many cases very specialized bodies are added to produce such vehicles as wreckers, hydraulic aerial ladder trucks, mechanical road service trucks, etc. Most of these bodies, by their very nature, have essentially no load carrying capability. On the other hand, because of their heavy weight, the addition of these bodies will cause the unloaded vehicle weight to be very close to its gross vehicle weight rating. This situation is exemplified by the following comparison of weights for our D300 pickup truck and a D300 chassis-cab with a utility body and hydraulic aerial ladder.

Gross Unloaded Vehicle Chassis Body Vehicle Weight Truck Weight Weight Weight Rating D300 Pickup 4309 lbs. 458 lbs. 4767 lbs. 10,000 D300 Chassis-Cab with Utility Body 4309 lbs. 3481 lbs. 7800 lbs. 10,000 and Hydraulic Aerial Ladder

Standard 212, as well as Standards 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion and 301 - Fuel System Integrity, currently requires the barrier impact testing of completed light duty trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles at essentially their unloaded vehicle weight. Recognizing that the forces generated in a barrier impact test are directly proportional to vehicle weight, it is obvious that the requirements are much more severe for vehicles equipped with heavier specialized bodies than for the standard production base vehicles, even though both types may be operated on the highway at the same overall vehicle weight.

Previous industry responses to notices of proposed rulemaking on MVSS 301, Docket 70-20, discussed in detail the reasons why it would be more reasonable and practical to conduct barrier impact tests on light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses at their unloaded vehicle weight. It was pointed out that while conducting these tests at the GVWR may simulate a very small number of severe accidents, the overall ramifications of such a requirement, when viewed in terms of total highway injury reduction, do not support such a severe test. Even though these vehicles are at times loaded to their maximum capacity, the type of accident circumstances encountered and the frequent unloaded or partially loaded usage of light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses hardly justifies a fully loaded fixed barrier collision test. Moreover, the structural changes required to increase the overall stiffness so that a fully loaded vehicle might comply would tend to make it a "battering ram". We estimate that the overall stiffness of a 10,000 lb. GVWR truck may have to be increased 2.25 times. This may have the effect of subjecting vehicle occupants to higher deceleration loadings, and in fact may increase the risk of injury to occupants in other vehicles involved in vehicle to vehicle collisions. In view of these facts and the possible

adverse effects on highway safety, the NHTSA determined that testing these vehicles at theirunloaded vehicle weight would produce a more reasonable and practical test condition. Because of the way the cited standards are written, however, this rationale is not applied to special purpose vehicles which still must be tested at a weight very close to their GVWR.

Unless this problem is corrected in the various standards cited, the effect in many cases will be to impose a real hardship on the many small body manufacturers who must certify that the vehicles they complete meet all of the applicable safety requirements. The alternative is for the users of these special purpose vehicles to purchase vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. which are not required to meet these safety provisions, are much more expensive - $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 more, and are less fuel efficient. No useful purpose would be served by forcing users to purchase larger, more expensive vehicles which are not covered by these standards. We believe the NHTSA should recognize the problem created by the standards as written with respect to special purpose light duty vehicles, and should amend the regulation to allow their testing at a more reasonable test weight approximately equal to their pickup truck, van, or other vehicle counterpart.

One way to accomplish the above would be to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" by establishing a maximum unloaded vehicle weight for purposes of conducting barrier impact tests on special purpose vehicles which are derived from trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. This approach would allow vehicles equipped with specialized bodies to be tested at the same weight used for testing the high volume pickup trucks and vans from which these vehicles are derived. Most special purpose vehicles will have a base vehicle counterpart and will fall under this category. For those few which may not, we recommend that an upper limit of 5,500 lbs. be established. In our opinion this is a reasonable alternative limit since practically all light duty production completed trucks and vans have an "unloaded vehicle weight" of less than 5,500 lbs. On this basis Chrysler Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" to that show below. We also have included the change in the definition which we requested in our petition for amendment dated November 29, 1976, copy attached.

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,500 lbs., whichever is less.

In our opinion the adoption of this definition is in the public interest and would not depreciate motor vehicle safety.

S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

November 29, 1976

John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Chrysler Corporation recently became aware of the NHTSA's July 16, 1976 response to Jeep Corporation's petition requesting that MVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity be amended to allow the removal of all types of work-performing accessories prior to conducting the required impact tests. The response denied Jeep's petitions, but at the same time provided an interpretation permitting the removal of certain work-performing accessories. This interpretation is of significant concern to us.

For several years we have been marketing a light duty, four-wheel drive truck equipped with a factory-installed snow plow. The continued production of this vehicle after September 1, 1976 necessitates that it comply with the applicable requirements of MVSS 301. Our certification test program for this model vehicle was based on several previous NHTSA interpretations on the testing of vehicles equipped with optional work performing accessories. On February 9, 1976 the NHTSA responded to an earlier Jeep Corporation petition regarding work-performing equipment by stating, "As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed" (underlined for emphasis). Similar responses provided to General Motors on March 1, 1976 and to Chrysler Corporation on August 27, 1976 also clearly indicated that vehicles must be capable of meeting the requirements of MVSS 301 when equipped with whatever optional equipment is installed on the vehicle at the time of sale. Accordingly, our compliance tests were conducted on this model vehicle with the snow plow blade installed.

Now, however, the NHTSA has provided a new and substantially different interpretation of these same requirements by stating to Jeep Corporation:

"The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the 'weight of a vehicle'. Consequently, accessories in this latter group [snow plow, spreaders, and tow bars] would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75."

Under this new interpretation vehicles equipped with snow plows would be tested with the blade removed rather than with it installed as required by the NHTSA's previous interpretation. This is a substantive change in the requirements which could materially affect compliance with MVSS 301.

Rather than making this substantive change by interpretation, we believe the new provisions should be incorporated in the basic regulations. Specifically, we request that the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" be amended so that the interpretation is clearly recognized as part of MVSS 301 as well as any other standards that involve testing at unloaded vehicle weight. To accomplish this we recommend that consideration be given to adopting the following new definition for "unloaded vehicle weight": "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.

S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

ID: nht79-2.39

DATE: 06/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack of this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a "back rack carrier", and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.

Your questions and our answers are:

"1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?"

An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a "manufacturer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the "Back Rack", Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.

"3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment."

Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and after its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsibility to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any "additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable "SAE Standard on Recommended Practice". Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) of not "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply; a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.

The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some compliance problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.

Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 square inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requires.

The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimum effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.

As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those of SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be "readily visible" to use your phrase.

These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, and are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.

"7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?"

Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d, Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, Parking Lamps (Position Lamps) December 1970, directional lights (turn signals) SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minimum and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamps units SAE J 1132, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles (copies also attached).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1979

John Womack, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation

Re: The Back Rack T.M. Carrier by Ennova, Inc.

Dear John:

I have taken the liberty of forwarding this letter and the enclosure herewith to you so that you may channel same to the proper individual for inspection. Your involvement in this matter will produce better results than if I sent the material to the Department generally.

Our client, Ennova, Inc., seeks to market and arrange for the distribution of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier to dealers for installation on privately owned motor vehicles. Prior to the production of the carrier, I would like to determine if the Department of Transportation can detect potential regulatory obstacles or other problems with the product. In addition, I would be pleased to entertain any suggestions which the Department may have.

I have enclosed six (6) photographs (two with detailed measurements) plus a letter explaining the Carrier written by the designer. Those materials are for the sole use of the Department of Transportation in its consultations with the above-referenced lawfirm. The information and specifications contained within the enclosures will be divulged to the public only upon the Department's receipt of a carefully constructed, detailed and specific request for same. This request must meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act before the Department is obligated to release the requested information.

My questions in reference to the Back Rack T.M. Carrier are as follows: 1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?

3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? If so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act? In particular, does the Carrier violate in any manner the provisions of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

6. What is the minimum amount of ascertainable candle power required to be visible from each vehicular light subsequent to sunset? Must back-up lights be readily visible?

7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.

Please arrange for your Department to have someone consider the Carrier and these questions carefully. I would appreciate it if the Department would contact me personally or in writing with a concrete response to this inquiry within one (1) month.

If there are any procedures which I can follow to obtain a letter of approval indicating that the Carrier does not structurally violate any federal standard, please apprise me of same.

In addition, please forward me the name of the DOT representation assigned to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter.

John H. Latshaw, Jr.

ENCLS.

cc: RICHARD R. CHUTTER -- PRES., ENNOVA, INC.

PRODUCTION MODEL WILL BE 50 DEGREES

(Graphics omitted)

COPYRIGHT (C) Ennova. Inc. 1978

BACK RACK TM Carrier by Ennova

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karen Hastie Williams -- Crowell & Moring

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Karen Hastie Williams Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2505

This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1987, on behalf of your client, LTV Aerospace, and its predecessor, AM General. You have asked that we reconsider our letter of January 12, 1987, in which we informed AM General that we would consider certai n military vehicles "motor vehicles" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event they are discovered to have safety related defects. You have also asked for the opportunity to meet with us at our earliest convenience.

Because AM General had stated that the vehicles in question are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary roads, our letter concluded that tactical military vehicles such as the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series, an d the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series trucks are "motor vehicles". You believe that this interpretation was based upon "inadequate and misleading information", for the following reasons, paraphrased as follows:

1. The trucks are designed to military specifications and built for the military alone.

2. The government rejects a warranty concept and substitutes its own inspection and quality control standards.

3. Under the inspection clause, AM General must deliver trucks that meet contractual performance requirements and correct problem areas identified by the government.

4. AM General must comply with a performance safety standard (MIL-STD-1180B) comparable to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

5. No safety purpose is served by "superimposing" a notification and remedy requirement where there is only a single purchaser, where no warranty relationship exists, and where remedies for defective products are identified by the government and remedy i mplemented by the company under the terms of the contract.

6. The vehicles are defined in part as "seldom capable of maintaining normal highway speeds" and "usually operated in convoy on public highways".

In consideration of the foregoing you have asked for an interpretation that concludes that military tactical vehicles are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, that they are not subject to the notice and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act"), and that they are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We have reconsidered our interpretation in light of the arguments you have presented. For both legal and policy reasons we affirm that the trucks in question are "motor vehicles" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 139113), that vehicles produced to military specifi cations are exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)), but that they are subject to statutory notification and remedy provisions in the event that they incorporate a safety related defect.

Specifically, the sole legal criterion that the Act establishes to determine its jurisdiction is whether a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. From the information presented to us by AM General we concluded that the trucks in q uestion spend 60% of their operational life on primary and secondary roads, and that therefore they have been manufactured primarily for use on such public roads. You have not contested that assertion. It is immaterial to the Act's definition of "motor v ehicle" that a truck is produced under military specifications, without an express warranty, and for only a single purchaser.

Although Congress expressed no intent that military vehicles be excluded from the coverage of the Act, the agency determined for reasons of policy that vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications should be exempted from conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Act. Comments received at the end of 1966 in response to the proposals for the initial standards raised the possibility that compliance in some instances could affect the capabilit y of equipment to fulfill its military mission, and therefore when the standards were adopted military vehicles were exempted under 49 CFR 571.7(c), but the agency relinquished no other jurisdiction over them. Indeed, the Department of Defense in apparen t recognition that its vehicles are "motor vehicles" has attempted to ensure that they conform with the Federal safety standards to the extent practicable, as evidenced by MIL-STD-1180B which you enclosed.

Finally, we cannot agree with your contention that no additional benefit would flow to the government by requiring notification and remedy for safety related defects in these vehicles. We understand that AM General is required to deliver vehicles free of defects and which meet contractual specifications, but we are uncertain whether, under the inspection clause, the government has a right to demand remedy once it has accepted delivery of the vehicle in the event that safety related defects manifest them selves in service. Such a right exists independently under the notification and remedy provisions of the Act (i.e. the Department of Defense may petition this agency for a determination that a safety related defect exists). Further, the manufacturer itse lf has a good faith obligation imposed by the Act to determine the existence of a safety related defect when the facts so indicate, and to effectuate notification and remedy. Such an obligation appears absent from the contractual responsibilities of a ma nufacturer in the materials you have quoted to us and the arguments you have made.

Because your letter contains information sufficient for us to affirm our earlier letter, we have concluded that a meeting will not be required to clarify any of the points you have made.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 1, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 0590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of AM General and its successor, LTV Aerospace, this letter seeks further clarification of your January 12, 1987, communication to Donald Weiher, of AM General's Product Assurance Division. The January letter discussed the applicability of the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-563, S113, 80 Stat. 718 (amended 1974)(codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. SS1411-1420 (1976)) with respect to safety-related defects discovered in tactical, military vehicles.

AM General currently manufactures only military tactical vehicles for use by one customer, the Federal Government.1/ As we understand your decision, you base your conclusion as to the applicability of the Safety Act to military tactical vehicles on two g rounds.

1/ In June, 1987, AM General was terminated as a member of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association ("MVMA") because ceased to meet the membership criteria. AM General failed to report the sale of any qualifying vehicles in its current fiscal year. T he MVMA Bylaws identify members as "corporations actually engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles in the United States" and define motor vehicles as "passenger cars, commercial cars, trucks, buses and similar self-propelled vehicles suitabl e for use on public highways, but not . . . combat or tactical vehicles sold for military purposes."

First, the generalization in Mr. Weiher's September 8, 1986 petition that states without documentation: ". . . all tactical vehicles are designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads . . ." Second, the Federal Highway Adminis trator's interpretation of the Safety Act definition of a motor vehicle in 34 Fed. Reg. 15416 (1969) that states: "that in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads or highwa ys the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant factor in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Act."

We respectfully submit that the January interpretation of the regulation was based on inadequate and misleading information. We ask further that you reconsider that interpretation in light of the additional data and information presented herein:

1. The M998 Series, a 1 1/4-ton truck, and other tactical military trucks such as the 2 1/2-ton M44 Series and the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series are designed to military specifications and built for the military customer alone.

2. The Government rejects the warranty concept in its contractual arrangement and instead substitutes its own inspection and quality control standards (MIL-STD-1180). Attachment A.

3. Under the inspection clause, AM General must deliver trucks that meet the contractual performance requirements and correct problem areas identified by the Government.

4. Under the Government contract, AM General must comply with a performance safety standard (MIL-STD-1180) comparable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

5. No federal regulatory or safety purpose is served by superimposing a notification and remedy requirement under Section 113 of the Safety Act (amended 1974) (current version at 15 U.S.C. 551411-1420), on these tactical military vehicles that must satis fy the federal specification.

. The Government is the only customer for these military tactical vehicles.

. No warranty relationship exists between the Government and seller.

. Remedy for performance failures or defective products are identified by the Government and implemented by the company under the terms of the contract.

. No additional benefit would flow to the Government.

. Expense of notification to the individual Government users would be significant and a waste of resources since any problems will be corrected under the contract.

While a theoretical generalization about operating capability may serve as an adequate generic description of tactical vehicles, the AM General military tactical vehicles are bought exclusively by the Government primarily for off-road, cross-country use. This fact is supported by the description of the vehicle contained in the contractual document, System Specification 3.1. (See Attachment B). The performance standards required by the contract also attest to the actual type of roads on which this milita ry tactical vehicle is used. Specifically, Section 3.1.2 of MIL-STD-1180B (the current version of MIL-STD-1180) states:

"High mobility tactical wheeled vehicles are expressly designed and built to Government specifications for the purpose of handling cargo while negotiating very rough terrain.... They are capable of operating in deep mud or snow, are often articulated, an d are seldom capable of maintaining normal highway speeds. They are usually operated in convoy on public highways. (emphasis added)

The reality of these circumstances overrides any theoretical operating capability characterization. Accordingly, the actual usage experience of these vehicles confirms that they are not designed, manufactured or intended for use primarily on public roads .

Based on the information and data presented herein, LTV Aerospace respectfully requests that you reconsider your January 12, 1987 guidance and reinstate the decisions of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act non-applicability of February 19, 1986 and March 5, 1986 from the Office of Defects Investigation. Namely, with respect to the appropriate treatment of tactical military vehicles, we request that upon further consideration you issue a concurrence with the earlier decisions by the Office of D efects Investigation. We believe that the determination should conclude that:

o Military tactical vehicles are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use.

o These vehicles are not subject to the notice and recall provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 551411-1420 and are exempt from compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. 5571.7(c) (1986).

Should you need any additional information, please contact me at the above number.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience and await your affirmative action in support of this request.

Sincerely,

Karen Hastie Williams Counsel for AM General/LTV Aerospace

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson, Office of the Chief Counsel

ID: nht68-1.10

DATE: 04/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Hadden, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1968, in reference to an inquiry from Mitts and Merrill, Incorporated, concerning the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to their brush chipper.

The brush chippers as shown in the brochures you enclosed are less than 80 inches in width; therefore, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply at present. However, after January 1, 1968, Table No. III of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, will apply to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles.

We are enclosing a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as per your request and trust they assist you in this matter.

Sincerely,

mitts & merrill, inc.

March 14, 1968

Honorable James Harvey, M. C.

Sir:

REFERENCE: Your Letter of March 6 and Wire of March 11 1968

We have studied the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and also reviewed your wire.

With regard to the above Act, the Federal Safety Standards were not sent with it. The establishment of these standards is stated in the Act under Title I, Section 103, paragraph (h) concerning issuance of Federal Safety Standards and subsequent revised standards. Please have copies of these standards sent(Illegible Word) immediately or advise at once where we may obtain same. We must know if our Brush Chipper falls under this Act.

Concerning your wire, enclosed are two copies each of our specification sheets and outline drawings of our Brush Chipper. You will note that no models are over 80" wide which will not bring them under the trailer lighting standards. Our units do require license plates.

Thank you for your efforts in our behalf.

Very truly yours,

Norman E. Hess -- Chief Engineer

enclosures

MITTS & MERRILL CHIPPER SPECIFICATIONS

MODELS -- M7, M8, M9

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 160 (16 INCHES) TRAILER: Frame All tubular steel, welded construction. Draw Bar Pintle eye-standard. Ball and socket-optional. Axle Coil spring torsion type, 2" O.D., tubular construction - 61-1/2" track. Wheels Two (2) - Semi-drop center. Tires Two (2) - 15" 8-ply rated - commercial Fenders Two (2) Safety Chains Standard. Parking Wheel Screw action to raise and lower. Rear Stand Folding type.

Combination tail light and license plate holder furnished.

CHIPPING UNIT: Housing Steel Plate, welded construction. Feed Opening 10" x 16" Cutting Bar 7/8" x 2-7/8" x 16-1/2" - Special steel and heat-treated. Dia. of Cylinder 16" Length of Cylinder 16" Cylinder Material Flame cut steel plate. Dia. of Shaft 3" Bearings Two (2) 2-15/16" Dia., single row, piloted and flange mounted. R.P.M. of Cylinder 3000 Number of Knives Twelve (12) Knife Dimensions 4-1/4" x 2-3/8" x 1/2" Type of Knife Double-edged, special knife steel, heat- treated, and with positive lock arrangement.

Cylinder is dynamically and statically balanced. Flywheel and auxiliary blower not required.

POWER UNIT:

Ford Industrial Engines-Standard. Available in the following models:

Model "300", 6-cylinder. 149 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "330", 8-cylinder, 155 B.H.P. with heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

EQUIPMENT-STANDARD WITH ALL MODELS:

Swing-away Feed Chute. Telescoping discharge chute with deflector bonnet, adjustable for height, with 360 degrees rotation for complete control for discharging right, left, or into a truck. Hinged Cover for easy access to cylinder. Matched set of high capacity "V"-Belts. Covered Battery Box. Tool box containing Knife Wrench, Sharpening Stone, Grease Gun and Operating Manual. Mechanical Governor. Paint - Color (customer option) either highway yellow Kem-Lustral F65YQ317, orange Kem-Lustral F65E1, or green Kem-Lustral F65G7.

WEIGHTS - (APPROXIMATED): M & M MODEL NO. POWER UNIT & DRIVE WEIGHT M-7 "300" with Clutch 3675 lbs.

M-8 "300" with Torque 3725 lbs.

M-9 "330" with Clutch 3825 lbs.

OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: Tachometer Directional Signals Brakes Solenoid Throttle Control Engine Hour Meter Flashing Warning Light Engine Side Panels Fuel Gauge

WARRANTY

Machine & Parts -- 1 year

Service -- Ninety Days

Purchased Parts -- Subject to Original Manufacturer's Warranty.

The Company reserves the right to change the list price of its products without notice. It shall have the right to discontinue the manufacture of any model or type of product, and change design or add improvements at any time without incurring any obligation to install the same on M & M products previously purchased.

For further information, contact your nearest M & M Chipper Dealer, or contact the factory direct.

MITTS & MERRILL will engineer units to suit your needs and requirements.

168 BC-12

MITTS & MERRILL CHIPPER SPECIFICATIONS

MODELS M2, M3, M4, M11, M12, M13

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 120 (12 INCHES)

TRAILER: Frame All tubular steel, welded construction. Draw Bar Pintle eye-standard. Ball and socket-optional. Axle Coil spring torsion type, 2" O.D., tubular construction - 61-1/2" track. Wheels Two (2) - Semi-drop center. Tires Two (2) - 15" 8-ply rated - commercial Fenders Two (2) Safety Chains Standard. Parking Wheel Screw action to raise and lower. Rear Stand Folding type.

Combination tail light and license plate holder furnished.

CHIPPING UNIT: Housing Steel plate, welded construction. Feed Opening 10" x 12" Cutting Bar 7/8" x 2-7/8" x 12-1/2" -- Special steel and heat-treated. Dia. of Cylinder 16" Length of Cylinder 12" Cylinder Material Flame cut steel plate. Dia. of Shaft 3" Bearings Two (2) 2-11/16" Dia., single row, piloted and flange mounted. R.P.M. of Cylinder 3000 Number of Knives Nine (9) Knife Dimensions 4-1/4" x 2-3/8" x 1/2" Type of Knife Double-edged, special knife steel, heat- treated, and with positive lock arrangement.

Cylinder is dynamically and statically balanced. Flywheel and auxiliary blower not required.

POWER UNIT:

Ford Industrial Engines-Standard. Available in the following models:

Model "172", 4-cylinder, 59 B.H.P. with torque converter. Engine is calibrated at 2500 RPM.

Model "240", 6-cylinder, 124 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "300", 6-cylinder, 149 B.H.P. with either torque converter, or heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

Model "330", 8-cylinder, 155 B.H.P. with heavy-duty springloaded type clutch. Engine is calibrated at 2800 RPM.

(Graphics omitted) Mitts & Merrill Brush Chipper

engineered for years of maintenance-free service

improved to do all jobs(Illegible Words)

[] telescoping discharge chute

The new telescoping discharge chute gives the operator maximum flexibility in getting jobs done easier and in less time. The chute is adjustable to various heights, and rotatable . . . a combination that means dump boxes can be filled quickly from corner to corner with minimum spill. An adjustable bonnet at the end of the chute also permits discharge to either side, or forward, providing complete freedom in cases such as road right-of-way maintenance where chips may be left on the ground.

[] swing-away feed chute

Knife removal and throat bar adjustments are made relatively easy by the swing-away feed chute. The cutting cylinder is completely exposed when the chute is moved to the side and the hinged cover is lifted. These two features are exclusive with Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers.

[] staggered knife pattern

The staggered knife pattern, found only on Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers, provides more cuts per revolution. This results in smoother, more efficient cutting action that reduces material by shaving action rather than the conventional chopping motion. The double-edged knives are securely held in place by a wedge-lock which can be easily disengaged for knife reversal.

[] More outstanding features

Safety-lock pin

The double-edged knives have a positive safety locking pin between the wedge block and the special tool steel knife. This safety feature prevents throw-out of knives not properly tightened.

Easy loading

The feed chute is low to the ground and designed to permit wide-angle loading of brush and free limbs. No pushing is required . . . the cylinder draws the material into the cutting chamber quickly and safely.

All-steel cylinder

The solid steel plate cylinder is supported by a heavy-duty flange mounted ball bearing assembly. The cylinder, rotating in an all-steel welded cutting chamber, has a built-in flywheel and blower arrangement, eliminating the need for any optional equipment for blowing material into the discharge chute.

Excellent roadability

The low profile, strong tubular frame and torsion spring axle assure better roadability over any type of terrain. The certified 100-pound weight at the trailer hitch reduces wear and tear on towing vehicle and adds to the over-all strength and rigidity of the equipment.

Over 70 years of experience . . .

Mitts & Merrill has over 70 years of experience in producing and improving wood reduction machinery. The equipment offered today by Mitts & Merrill is the highest quality, best performing . . . first choice of municipalities, public utilities, highway departments, tree surgeons and others who seek economy in equipment operation through many years of maintenance-free service. The Mitts & Merrill Brush Chipper is the standard by which all brush chippers are judged. You buy it with confidence.

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 120 (12 INCH) Total Approximate Pounds Shipping Model Engine Drive Chipping Capacity Weight M-2 Ford "172" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3350 M-3 Ford "240" Clutch Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3480 M-4 Ford "240" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3530 M-11 Ford "300" Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3500 M-12 Ford "300" Torque Converter Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3550 M-13 Ford "330" V8 Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3675

TRAILER UNITS -- SERIES 160 (16 INCH) Total Approximate Pounds Shipping Model Engine Drive Chipping Capacity Weight M-6 Ford "240" Torque Converter Up to 6" Dia. Logs 3700 M-7 Ford "300" Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3675 M-8 Ford "300" Torque Converter Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3725 M-9 Ford "330" V8 Clutch Up to 8" Dia. Logs 3825

All trailers are equipped with tires, fenders, taillight, license plate holder, rear support jack, covered tool box, covered battery box, choice of ball or pintle eye hitch on telescopic draw bar, and adjustable front landing wheel. Machines are painted with prime coating plus hi-gloss enamel with color choice optional.

WARRANTY

Parts -- One year; Service Adjustments -- 90 days: Purchased parts are subject to original manufacturers guarantees.

Mitts & Merrill reserves the right to discontinue the manufacturer of any model, to redesign and to add improvements to existing models without incurring any obligation to install same on products previously furnished.

. . . then note how many features are exclusive with Mitts & Merrill Brush Chippers Mitts & Merrill General Brush Chipper Specifications Specifications Trailer frame All tubular steel, welded construction Suspension * Coil spring, torsion type Feed chute * Swing-away type Cutting chamber cover Hinged type Cylinder * 16-inch diameter, dynamically balanced with staggered knife design Cylinder material Flame cut steel plate RPM of cylinder 2,800 to 3,000 Type of knife * Self-adjusting, double-edged, positive-lock type Diameter of shaft 3 inches Feed opening * 10-inch by 12-inch, or 10-inch by 16-inch Bearings 2-15/16 inch diameter, single row, piloted and flange mounted Flywheel * Unnecessary Power Ford 172, 240, 300 or 330 cubic-inch displacement Drive * Torque converter or clutch Blower Standard equipment

ID: nht92-3.25

DATE: October 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

COPYEE: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association; Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association; Ford Motor Company; Freightliner Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from J. W. Lawrence to Administrator, NHTSA (9203090012)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to the Administrator on the subject "Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements."

In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned "for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . ." However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of "on the rear" as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself.

Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments.

The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to

the right for the right lamp. *** To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters.

NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters."

You state that the term "simultaneously visible" does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA).

First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members.

Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear.

As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across-the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is "from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference

for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left "for" the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: "signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right."

For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one.

The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, "signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle", which is specified as "of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right" (J586), "of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J1398), and "from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J585e).

TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility.

Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying

angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle.

NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the exiting level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic.

This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph.

Finally, you comment that Table II "does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers". We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone.

ID: 1985-03.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert D. Bagg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials.

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicle equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201, sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard including Standard No. 201.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 et seg., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

ENCLS.

7/5/85

Dear Mr. Each,

In a mush as I didn't talk to you over phone, I'm sending this copy of Invention What I would like to know is, would this most the gov't requirement legally to use in vehicles. Before the manufacture and what. I would like advise.

RoBagg

OHEONTA, N.Y.

Dat# 3,002,784

OCC 0944

FIG.1.

FIG.2.

FIG.4.

FIG.3.

FIG.5.

(Graphics omitted)

INVENTOR.

Robert D. Bagg

By: L. S. Saulsbury.

ATTORNEY

Robert D. Bagg An Automobile Heat Saver Partition (One Sheet of Drawing)

This invention relates to an automobile heat saver partition.

It is the principal object of this invention to provide a collapsible partition for automobiles adapted to be located in the automobile and attached to the rear of the front seat so as to keep the heat of the automobile within the front seat space thereby eliminating the necessity of heating the rear seat space when vacant so that the driver will be supplied with adequate heat during cold weather with below zero temperatures.

It is another object of the invention to provide a partition for automobiles which has a transparent top piece so that the partition while located in the rear of the driver will not impair the visibility of the driver through the rear view mirror.

It is still another object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that is collapsible so that it can be stored easily in the trunk of the automobile when not in use or even left standing in a collapsed condition in rear of the front seat when not in use.

It is a further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that can be attached to the rear of the front seat and supported therefrom by a simple strap.

It is a still further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles which will be made up in the form of a kit of few tube parts which can be readily assembled and fitted to one another and attached to the front seat of the automobile, and that is easy to disassemble and put into storage, the same consuming little space when disassembled.

Other objects of the invention are to provide a collapsible heat saver partition for automobiles, having the above objects in mind, which is of simple construction, inexpensive to manufacture, has a minimum number of parts, light in weight, easy to assemble, durable, of pleasing appearance, effective and efficient in use.

For other objects and a better understanding of the invention, reference may be had to the following detailed description taken in connection with the accompanying drawing, in which

Figure 1 is a side elevational view of a heat saver partition installed in an automobile upon the rear of the front seat thereof and constructed according to one form of the invention.

Fig. 2 is a perspective view of the partition and the seat to which it is attached by a strap,

Fig. 3 is an enlarged vertical sectional view of the partition as viewed on line 3-3 of Fig. 2 with illustration made as to the manner in which the partition may be collapsed,

Fig. 4 is a vertical perspective view of a heat saving partition formed of a plurality of tube parts according to another form of the invention, and

Fig. 5 is an exploded view of the partition shown in Fig. 4 and illustrating the manner in which they are assembled to one another.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 1 to 3, 10 generally represents the collapsible partition constructed according to one form of the invention comprising a bottom section 11 and a top frame 12 with a transparent window 13 therein and hingedly connected to the upper end of the lower section by hinges 14 and 15 so that the upper frame section 12 can be collapsed downwardly over the rear face of the lower section 11 at times when the rear seat space is to be heated as illustrated in Fig. 3 at 12' or when the partition is to be stored in the trunk space. Strap parts 16 and 17 are extended about the front seat to hold the partition against the rear face of the front seat. The window frame section 12 is held in its elevated position by a turn knob 18 secured to the lower section 11 on a pivot pin 19 near to the upper edge thereof and adapted when turned to overlie the lower edge to extend upwardly over the lower edge of the frame section 12 whereby the upper section will be held in its extended and raised position. The lower edge of the section 11 is cut away at 20 to accommodate the shaft hump in the floor of the automobile. The partition may be made of cardboard, plywood, plastic or metal.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 4 and 5, the partition is made up of aluminum tube parts. Pipe leg supports 22 and 23 have fitted to their upper ends thereof a transverse member 24 by its sockets 25 and 26 to the upper ends of which there is fitted legs 27 and 28 of a U-shaped member having a top portion 29. An elongated transparent plastic sleeve 30 shaped to conform to the U-shaped member is slid downwardly over the top portion 29 to provide a window partition through which the drivercan see. Plastic sleeve 30 is closed at the top and shaped to conform to the rounded ends of the top portion 29 of the U-shaped member. Separable straps 31 and 32 are respectively secured to the leg extensions 22 and 23 and can be fastened together by a buckle 33 about the front of the automobile seat in the manner illustrated in Fig. 4. In both forms of the invention the upper section or part of the partition is contoured to conform to the upper interior of the automobile.

It should now be apparent that there has been provided a heat saver partition for automobiles that can be collapsed or disassembled when not being used and which can be easily assembled, upon the rear of the front seat by simply connecting together straps about the front seat.

The legs and the transverse member constitute a lower section and the U-shape member with the transparent sleeve 30 constitute the upper section.

While various changes may be made in the detailed construction, it shall be understood that such changes shall be within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.

WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:

1. A heat saver partition for automobiles comprising a lower section, strap means for detachably securing the lower section to the rear of and about the front seat of the automobile, a transparent second section releasably connected to the lower section and adapted to be elevated or lowered therefrom to provide a closure for the upper portion of the automobiles interior, said upper section conforming generally thereto.

2. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, said upper section being hingedly connected to the upper edge of the lower section and adapted to be collapsed downwardly thereover, and latch means for securing the upper section in its elevated position from the lower section.

3. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 2, and said lower section being cut away to accommodate the shaft hump on the floor of the automobile.

4. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, and said lower section formed of vertical pipes and a transverse member having sockets fitted to the upper ends of the pipes, and said upper section comprising a U-shaped member having legs adapted to be tight fitted into the sockets of the transverse member, and a transparent member conforming to the shape of the U-shaped member and slide fitted downwardly thereover.