ID: 9556

Mr. Adam A. Freund
Manager, Testing Services
Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.
Post Office Box 592
1845 Harsh Avenue, S.E.
Massillon, OH 44648

Dear Mr. Freund:

This responds to your letter addressed to the 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 ref:119 d:4/12/94

ID: nht94-6.37

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Massillon, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from Adam A. Freund to Walter Myers (OCC 9556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to the 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.

ID: 1983-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.V.R. Enterprises -- Robert A. Wirffel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Wirffel J.V.R. Enterprises 8511 No. Canterbury Avenue Sun Valley, California 91352

Dear Mr. Wirffel:

This in reply to your letter of February 6, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of my staff regarding the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of your "Safe-T-Signal" directional indicator. The signal, and 8-inch amber arrow, is located under the right side of a semi-trailer, approximately at mid point, and is intended to warn vehicles in the adjacent right traffic lane that the semi-trailer makes wide right turns. The system supplements the trailer's existing turn signal, as we understand it.

There is nothing in Standard No. 109 that prohibits use of your system as it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment, such as turn signals, required by Standard No. 108 as original equipment. However, you must insure that it is permitted in States in which the device is likely to be used.

We note the statement in your letter that the amber arrow is "D.O.T. approved" and in your descriptive sheet as well, plus the statement that is "conforms to applicable federal motor vehicle standards (C.H.P approved) ." This is legally incorrect, as the U.S. Department of Transportation does not "approve" lighting equipment , nor does Standard No. 108 specify requirements with which a supplementary turn signal system must conform. If you wish to assure prospective purchasers that Federal requirements as "Permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard NO., 108."

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 2643o

Mr. Billy S. Peterson
President
Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.
Product Liability-Testing-Certification
at TRC of Ohio
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. Your client has designed a vehicle in which the backup lamps and rear reflex reflectors would be mounted on the deck lid, and you have asked whether there are any current or contemplated prohibitions that would preclude this design.

The lamps in question will be mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle as required by paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard No. l08, and the deck lid will be closed and the lamps and reflectors in full view under normal operating conditions. The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. l08 are predicated on the normal driving or closed deck lid position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with deck lids open or otherwise having the lamps and reflectors obscured by a particular load on the vehicle is under the jurisdiction of the individual States, we do not anticipate rulemaking on this subject. Thus this design is not prohibited by Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:1/28/88

ID: aiam2478

Dear Mr. Papelian: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1976, asking whethe Federal regulations permit manufacturers to equip police vehicles with 'push bumpers' and with bullet-proof shields located between the front and rear seating compartments.; Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, establishes requirements fo the impact resistance and the configuration of front and rear vehicle surfaces of passenger cars. This standard does not prohibit 'push bumpers' and manufacturers are free to equip passenger cars with any bumper design they choose as long as the requirements of Standard No. 215 are met.; Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, specifies requirements fo glazing for use in motor vehicles, including the permissible locations for the various types of glazing. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance requirements. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to equip vehicles with the bullet-proof shields mentioned in your letter if such shields are constructed with glazing that conforms to the requirements in Standard No. 205.; You also asked whether the police department or a business coul install the equipment in question. If the equipment is installed after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Federal safety standards would no longer be applicable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b)(1). However, S 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or element of design that has been installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard.; Therefore, whether or not a business could install the equipmen depends on the nature of the business. If the business is a 'motor vehicle repair business', it can only install the 'push bumpers' and shields if such installation does not knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) defines 'motor vehicle repair business' as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.; I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 215. I hav underscored the pertinent sections of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS Z26 standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2477

Dear Mr. Papelian: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1976, asking whethe Federal regulations permit manufacturers to equip police vehicles with 'push bumpers' and with bullet-proof shields located between the front and rear seating compartments.; Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, establishes requirements fo the impact resistance and the configuration of front and rear vehicle surfaces of passenger cars. This standard does not prohibit 'push bumpers' and manufacturers are free to equip passenger cars with any bumper design they choose as long as the requirements of Standard No. 215 are met.; Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, specifies requirements fo glazing for use in motor vehicles, including the permissible locations for the various types of glazing. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance requirements. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to equip vehicles with the bullet-proof shields mentioned in your letter if such shields are constructed with glazing that conforms to the requirements in Standard No. 205.; You also asked whether the police department or a business coul install the equipment in question. If the equipment is installed after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Federal safety standards would no longer be applicable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b)(1). However, S 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or element of design that has been installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard.; Therefore, whether or not a business could install the equipmen depends on the nature of the business. If the business is a 'motor vehicle repair business', it can only install the 'push bumpers' and shields if such installation does not knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) defines 'motor vehicle repair business' as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.; I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 215. I hav underscored the pertinent sections of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS Z26 standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-4.18

DATE: 03/20/78

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

TO: Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles

COPYEE: R. TILTON; ARMSTRONG; HITCHCOCK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 16, 1978, letter asking several questions about the applicability of the school bus regulations to school buses manufactured after April 1, 1977, transporting 10 or more students to or from school or related events.

You first ask whether these buses must be painted yellow and have school bus lighting and markings. The answer to your question is yes. Any vehicle that transports 10 or more students to or from school or related events is a school bus and must have the painting, marking, and lighting of a school bus.

Your second question is whether smaller school buses (vans) are permitted to have van-type seats or must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. A vehicle that transports 10 or more students must comply with all of the Federal school bus regulations, including the seating standard.

ID: nht74-1.38

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1973, concerning the placement of rear identification lamps on the header of Fruehauf trailers.

I enclose a copy of a recent exchange of correspondence between Fruehauf and this agency on this question which I believe is in point. It is our view that if a lamp is available which may be installed in a narrow header area, the upper location is "practicable" even though the lamps may not be the one specified by the vehicle's purchaser.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 20, 1973

Larry Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Placement of Rear Identification Lights

Dear Mr. Schneider:

We have a customer at the present time who finds it impractical to mount the three rear red identification light at the high level.

Due to the special high door construction on the dry van, the upper door header does not lend itself to the installation of the standard lights that are now used on his equipment.

These trailers are being manufactured by Fruehauf Corporation, and the present quantity is 400 trailers.

In consideration of the large number of containers that are now on the highways with no upper lights and the hardship involved in endeavoring to place improvised lights at this level, we are requesting an opinion from your office as a guide for our future action.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Yours very truly,

TRUCK-LITE COMPANY; H. A. Sage, Director -- Research Development

Enclosure

CC: R. V. Tarr; J. J. Vicario

ID: nht92-7.21

DATE: April 30, 1992

FROM: Timothy C. Murphy -- Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights), Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Timothy C. Murphy (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In adopting the definition of "effective projected luminous lens area," NHTSA declined to adopt the SAE language dealing with lens parts, "even if they do not contribute significantly to the total light output." The agency went on to state, "(t)o be fully effective the lamp must project light in an appropriate manner. (Federal Register, p. 50182-4 Vol. 55, No. 234/Dec. 5, 1990).

On behalf of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI)* I would like to obtain an interpretation whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation of 75 square centimeters or 11.625 square inches.

Figure 1 attached graphically shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps. Therefore I would conclude that this light, although low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp.

I request a ruling from NHTSA on how the agency would interpret the use of lens rims or legs to fulfill the 75 square centimeters requirements.

* TSEI is a non-profit trade association, representing North American manufacturers of vehicle safety equipment, including headlighting and signal lighting products, rearview mirrors, reflex reflectors, emergency lighting and other safety equipment for emergency, service and related vehicles and emergency warning triangles.

Attachment Figure 1 omitted.

ID: kroger.ztv

Mr. Richard C. Kroger
Corporate Counsel
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474

Dear Mr. Kroger:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 2003, addressed to David "Comen" (Coleman), which we received on May 5. You seek clarification as to whether you are subject to the TREAD Acts early warning reporting (EWR) requirements set out in Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your company manufactures trucks exclusively for the United States Army. You asserted that feedback reports you receive from the Army on your trucks are usually "purposely vague and prevent any meaningful review or truck evaluation." In the event that negative information might be received regarding a trucks performance, you pointed out that furnishing us with this information could result in an enemy gaining knowledge that it could put to tactical use. You argued that "it would seem that the intent of the Act (protecting the consumer public at large) is inapplicable to our situation."

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) recently observed that under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the military need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NTEA asked whether such vehicles should be counted as part of a manufacturers production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc. We replied on May 14, 2003, that:

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to [the defect program or] other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

By "some trucks," we mean trucks that are the counterparts of trucks that a manufacturer produces for non-military use. Thus, reports would not be required under the EWR rules for military personnel carriers. On the other hand, reports would be required for pickup trucks, vans, and sedans that have civilian counterparts.

You have informed us that your company does not produce trucks for civilian applications. In other words, there are no civilian counterparts. Based on this information, we do not consider your company subject to the EWR requirements.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/21/03