ID: 2624y

Mr. Jeff Cornell
Engineering
The Bargman Company
129 Industrial Avenue
Coldwater, MI 49036

Dear Mr. Cornell:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. l08 which were published on May l5 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in terms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confusion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. l08 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedence over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May l5 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square inches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch. With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On May l5, Standard No. l08 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement."(S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp . . . and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple compartment lamp."

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: aiam3692

Dear Mr. Lauro: This responds to your recent letter asking if you can legally sel certain tires you have imported from the Netherlands. These truck tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall but do not have a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure labeled on the sidewall.; Under Federal law, these tires cannot be sold or otherwise introduce into interstate commerce because they do not comply with all requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.119). Paragraph S6.5(d) of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) requires that a maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure be labeled on both sidewalls of each tire subject to the standard. The tires described in your letter plainly do not meet this requirement. Hence, the DOT symbol on those tires is misleading, since that symbol is supposed to be a manufacturer's certification that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 119.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1397) specifies that no person shall sell or introduce into interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment (which includes tires) unless the item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) sets forth a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, and each of these nonconforming tires would be treated as a separate violation of section 108 if they were offered for sale or introduced into interstate commerce.; At this point, you have two legal courses of action open to you. Yo may have the tire manufacturer file a petition requesting an exemption from the noncompliance of these tires, arguing that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to the safety of the tires. The procedures to be followed in filing a petition for an inconsequential noncompliance are set forth in the enclosed copy of 49 CFR Part 556, *Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance*. I cannot state at this time that the absence of maximum load information would be viewed as inconsequential, but we would certainly give full consideration to any petition the manufacturer might submit. If the petition were granted, you could sell these tires.; The other course of action available to you is to ship these tires bac to the manufacturer in the Netherlands and explain that they do not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 119. I appreciate your efforts to ensure that you are complying with all applicable Federal regulations with respect to the sale of tires you import.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.17

DATE: 05/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

SINCERELY,

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION

April 27, 1979

Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Attached is the information I talked to you on April 27, 1979. Please make any correction or changes so this letter will fall within the D. O. T. guideline.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation

DOT QUALITY GRADES ALL PASSENGER CAR TIRES MUST CONFORM TO FEDERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THESE GRADES TREADWEAR

The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course. For example, a tire graded 150 would wear one and a half (1-1/2) times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices and differences in road characteristics and climate.

TRACTION

The traction grades, from highest to lowest are A, B, and C, and they represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this tire is based on braking (straightahead) traction tests and does not include cornering (turning) traction.

TEMPERATURE

The temperature grades are A (the highest), B, and C representing the tire's resistance to the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat when tested under controlled conditions on a specified indoor laboratory test wheel. Sustained high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire failure. The grade C corresponds to a level of performance which all passenger car tires must meet under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Grades B and A represent higher levels of performance on the laboratory test wheel than the minimum required by law. Warning: The temperature grade for this tire is established for a tire that is properly inflated and not overloaded. Excessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading, either separately or in combination, can cause heat buildup and possible tire failure. Tire Size Load Tread Tubeless/ Trd Designation Range Pattern Tube Type Side Wall Wear Traction Temp. 155S13/6.15 $ 13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B B 4PR 155-13/6.15-13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 4PR 165S13/6.45S13 B Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B B 4PR 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B C H78-15 B Y820 Tubeless Black 80 B C

ID: aiam1814

Dear Mr. Tighe: This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1975, (sic concerning the use of Form AADA-65 for purposes of disclosing odometer mileage when a vehicle is sold.; The NHTSA disagrees with your apparent contention that the portion o the preamble you cited, authorizing use of disclosure forms other than the one prescribed in Part 580, covers the use of Form AADA-65. That language limits the use of odometer forms which do not simulate the form contained in the regulation to situations where a State requires execution of an odometer statement which 'contains equivalent information' to the Federal one. It is our understanding that the AADA form was adopted by the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association upon recommendation of the National Automobile Dealers Association. We are unaware of any Arizona State law that mandates use of the AADA form as a basis for compliance.; While the NHTSA appreciates the efforts of the NADA to develop a usefu and effective odometer disclosure document, we cannot approve a format that is not substantially the same as the Federal form without following standard rulemaking procedures of notice and comment. We welcome your suggestions as to how you feel the odometer form can be improved, and suggest that you submit them in the form of petitions for rulemaking under the procedures specified in 49 CFR 553.31.; As pointed out in your letter, the NHTSA has determined that th AADa-65 form does not fulfill the requirements of Part 580. We appreciate your cooperation in notifying your membership of this decision. A changeover to use of the Federal odometer form by April 1, 1975, is considered reasonable by the agency. We thank you for your comments and look forward to receiving your ideas on the matters mentioned in your letter.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3174

Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing ou discrepancies in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and as published in 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in 'Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' erroneously incorporates the paragraph of the Federal Register amendment notice finding that good cause had been shown for an immediate effective date. The error does not appear, however, in the official version of Standard No. 108 which appears in the Code of Federal Regulations.; The footnote reference to 'S4.4.2' and the reference to 'S3.1' in th interpretation do appear, however, in the Code of Federal Regulations. Originally, there was a paragraph S4.4.2 prescribing the testing sequence of combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers, referenced by footnotes in Tables I and III. As you may recall, there was a Standard No. 108a scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1973, which omitted S4.4.2 with its footnote reference, and added detailed performance and testing requirements for flashers under a new paragraph, S4.6. When Standard No. 108a was revoked, S4.4.2 was never reinstated as a requirement, though the footnote references to it still appear in Tables I and III as you have noticed.; With respect to the reference to 'S3.1' appearing in Note 2 to Standar No. 108 in the Code of Federal Regulations, this is the S3 which appeared in the December 16, 1967, version of Standard No. 108 cited by the Note. When Standard No. 108 was amended effective January 1, 1972, S3.1 became S4.1. Thus, the continued reference to S3.1, though confusing, is correct in its context.; Your final comment is that the amendments to Tables I and III affecting headlamps, as published on July 27, 1978, have not been picked up by the agency's publication 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.' You are correct. We hope that recent steps taken by this agency will end the problems that have been experienced with this publication. However, I must emphasize that the only legal version of Standard No. 108 is that appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, currently revised as of October 1, 1978, plus amendments and corrections published in the *Federal Register* since that date.; We appreciate your calling these mistakes to our attention. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4125

Dear Mr. Carlson: This responds to your January 23, 1986 letter inquiring about Federa motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your projected sale of aftermarket windshield wiper systems for trucks.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, applicable to new motor vehicles. As you note, this standard applies to trucks, as well as other types of vehicles. In your letter, you ask which performance requirements apply to wiping systems for trucks.; Under S4. *Requirements*, new trucks are required to have power-driven windshield wiping system that meets the requirements of S4.1.1. The frequency requirements in S4.1.1 apply to trucks, but the wiped area requirements of S4.1.2 apply only to passenger cars. Trucks must also have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965, except that the 'effective wipe pattern' is considered to be 'the pattern designed by the manufacturer for the windshield wiping system on the exterior surface of the windshield glazing.' Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer establishes the wipe pattern of the system.; If a new truck equipped with your wiper system did not comply wit Standard No. 104 due to some aspect of that system, the sale of that truck to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4124

Dear Mr. Carlson: This responds to your January 23, 1986 letter inquiring about Federa motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your projected sale of aftermarket windshield wiper systems for trucks.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, applicable to new motor vehicles. As you note, this standard applies to trucks, as well as other types of vehicles. In your letter, you ask which performance requirements apply to wiping systems for trucks.; Under S4. *Requirements*, new trucks are required to have power-driven windshield wiping system that meets the requirements of S4.1.1. The frequency requirements in S4.1.1 apply to trucks, but the wiped area requirements of S4.1.2 apply only to passenger cars. Trucks must also have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965, except that the 'effective wipe pattern' is considered to be 'the pattern designed by the manufacturer for the windshield wiping system on the exterior surface of the windshield glazing.' Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer establishes the wipe pattern of the system.; If a new truck equipped with your wiper system did not comply wit Standard No. 104 due to some aspect of that system, the sale of that truck to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3961

Dear Mr. Bright: This responds to your May 15, 1985 letter to Ms. Linda Marston, Healt and Human Services Regional Director for Region III. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; According to your letter, you were informed that federal law prohibit you from transporting more than 9 school children in vans. As a result of this, you believe that the seating in your 15-passenger vans must be restricted in some manner to carry only 9 pupils. You asked for assistance in relieving those restrictions on school transportation.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for schoo buses.; As explained below, there is no federal law prohibiting you fro transporting school children in a 15-passenger van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act in 1974 to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; The parties subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act ar the sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new bus to a school to sell a bus that complies with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law for selling noncomplying vehicles.; Our definition of a 'school bus,' as found in the definitions sectio of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR S571.3), is as follows:; >>>'School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; Our definition of a 'bus,' also found at 49 CFR 571.3, is 'a moto vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.'; Thus, the 15-passenger vans that you operate are 'school buses' unde the Federal definition. Federal law required the seller of new 15- passenger vans to ensure that those vans complied with the school bus safety standards when those vans were sold to the St. Peter's School. There is no Federal prohibition directed against you, however, that restricts you from transporting more than 9 students in a van. Since our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of school buses by school districts or individual schools, our regulations do not prohibit you from using 15-passenger vans as school vehicles.; From our correspondence with Pennsylvania and with various schoo districts, we are aware that Pennsylvania has adopted our definition of a 'bus' in Act 1984-146. In doing so, it has extended the reach of state school bus regulations to cover vans with a capacity of 10 passengers and a driver. This recent change in Pennsylvania law does not affect how our regulations applied to the sale of your 15-passenger vans. Your vehicles were always classified as 'school buses' under Federal law, and the persons selling the vans are potentially liable for selling noncomplying buses to St. Peter's School. I have enclosed for your information a letter dated February 12, 1985, from our office to your school concerning our regulations.; Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5335

Dear Mr. Freund: This responds to your letter addressed to th attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors. You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation. Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4-inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5-inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. The correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I. Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4830

"Dear Mr. Rowe: This responds to your letter asking whether you company would be considered a vehicle 'alterer,' within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 567 Certification, and Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I apologize for the delay in this response. Based on the statements in your letter that your company modifies only new vehicles before delivery to customers and that the modifications performed by your company do not affect the vehicles' gross axle or gross vehicle weight ratings, your company would be considered an 'alterer,' and would be subject to additional certification requirements, if the modifications involve something more than the addition, substitution, or removal of 'readily attachable' components. A more complete explanation of your responsibilities under NHTSA's laws and regulations follows. 567.7 imposes additional certification requirements on 'a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ...' You stated in your letter that your company can provide features such as a 3-piece seating system, removable headrest, custom walnut steering wheel, and tinted windows. Your company is an 'alterer' subject to the requirements of 567.7 to the extent that your modifications do not involve 'readily attachable' components. A determination of whether modifications involve 'readily attachable' components depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching these components. To ascertain whether the installation involves 'readily attachable' components, the agency in the past has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats, headrests, and steering wheels to involve 'readily attachable' components. To the extent your company is involved in such modifications, then, it would have to affix an additional certification label pursuant to 567.7. Further, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of notification and remedy for defects or noncompliances with the safety standards, and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. You should also note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets forth certain prohibitions and requirements that would apply to these vehicle modifications, even if the modifications involved only 'readily attachable' components. For example, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce or importation of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This provision of Federal law means that all of the vehicles modified by your company must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after the modifications have been made. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly 'render inoperative,' in whole or in part, 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. For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";