ID: nht79-1.42

DATE: 10/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether a "barely discernible" light on the headlamp control, which is activated when the ignition is turned to the "on" position, complies with the requirements of the standard. Under S5.3.3, "any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable . . . ." Since the light in question is not activated when the headlamps are activated, it need not meet the intensity requirements of S5.3.3.

SINCERELY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JULY 27, 1979

Kathy Demeter Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Dear Kathy,

It is imperative that we obtain a response to the attached request for interpretation. We would appreciate its expeditious handling.

Charles F. Finn

ENC.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JUNE 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Gentlemen:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays as it applies to the headlamp control.

Presently, as a courtesy to the driver, Volkswagen provides a barely discernible light on the headlamp control. This light is activated when the ignition is turned to the "On" position. This facilitates finding the switch in the dark.

It is our interpretation that this light complies with the standard as specified in Sections S5.3.1 and S5.3.3 and therefore is not required to be variable.

John Carson and Nelson Erickson of the NHTSA, in phone conversations with a member of my staff, indicated that they thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct and believed that there already was an interpretation rendered by the Chief Counsel's office on this matter. Volkswagen would be desirous of obtaining this document.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht90-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANNO WESTERMANN--HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-6-87 TO DR. BURGETT FROM HANNS-OUTFRIED WETERMANN; ALSO ATTACHED TO GRAPHS (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure 1b have to b e interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have--opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-co mpartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September 1988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, 1990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, 1990, the ef fect of which is to restrict Figure lb to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure lb shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December 1, 1990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width." SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a t urn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width."

In the May 1990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". such a lamp 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." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5. 1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395

applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: 2622y

Herr Hanno Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
W. Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. l08 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. l08 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". Such a lamp 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." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

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

ID: 8073-1

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter asking whether there has been any consideration given to excluding "non-route-type" school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used.

As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus.

To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether "non-route-type" school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking.

We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard.

We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for "non-route-type" service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. I also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:131 d:3/3/93

ID: 86-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bob Carlson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bob Carlson 8305 29th Avenue, N.W. Seattle, WA 98117

This responds to your January 23, 1986 letter inquiring about Federal 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 agency 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 a 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 with 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 Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St S W Washington, DC 20590 Mail Code NOA-30

RE: Wiper System Requirements

Gentlemen:

My name is Bob Carlson. I am a salesman for Sea-Tac Ford Truck Sales, Inc; a heavy duty truck store in Seattle, Washington. I am currently developing a new "after market" wiper system for the "L" Series Louisville Ford truck line (literature enclosed).

While I have read FMVSS 104, SAEJ 903A and SAEJ 198, there appears, at least to me anyway, some overlap and confusion as to what test standards will apply to my wiper system developed for use on heavy duty Louisville trucks. therefore request your guidance as to specifically what parts all these federal safety standards will apply. Specifically I will need to know what, if any, a,b,c, zone-wiped area coverages should a person use to check the windshield wiper system. Paragraph S2 in FMVSS 104 states that the standard applies to trucks. However, in Paragraph S 4.1.2, the recommended test procedures and areas specified relate to passenger cars (see tables 1-C FMVSS 104). Now the question becomes. given the fact that you have specified angles in tables 1-4, what then does a person use, if any, for trucks? Do I use the angles specified in the table from J 198 or what?

If the answer is very simple due to the fact that I have misread something or whatever, I would appreciate a phone call either at home or at work using the following numbers:

work: (206) 763 9100; 1-800-426-8305 hours: 8:00 A.m. to 6:00 p.m. PST home: (206) 783 7590 hours: 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. or 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. PST

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Bob Carlson 8305 29th Ave N W Seattle, WA 98117

ID: aiam2233

Dear Mr. Connell: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning th sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a 'boiler' assembly.; SS 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification* provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity... <<<; Further, S 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchas in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altere by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 17022.wkm

Mr. Craig L. Nearman
Quality Control Manager
Load King
Post Office Box 427
Rose & Elm Streets
Elk Point, SD 57025

Dear Mr. Nearman:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your fax to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the dolly and booster on a heavy-haul trailer would be required to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (copy attached). The answer is no.

You enclosed a picture and drawings of the equipment you were referring to depicting a large trailer carrying a large earth mover. The trailer was equipped with a dolly on the front end and a booster on the back end, both presumably to help support the load on the trailer. You stated that the trailer has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 164,920 pounds, the dolly a GVWR of 67,320 pounds and the booster a GVWR of 46,760 pounds. You stated that the trailer is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 because it exceeds 120,000 pounds. You were unsure, however, about the status of the dolly and the booster.

Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Among other things, however, it does not apply to "any load divider dolly" (see S3(g) of Standard No. 121). "Load divider dolly" is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer composed of a trailer chassis and one or more axles, with no solid bed, body, or container attached, and which is designed exclusively to support a portion of the load on a trailer or truck excluded from all the requirements of this standard.

It is clear from the picture and the drawings that you sent that both the front end dolly and the rear end "booster" meet the definition of "load divider dolly" and are therefore excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121. Both are composed of a trailer chassis with no bed, body, or container attached; both have multiple axles; and both were designed exclusively to support the load on a trailer, assuming that the trailer itself is excluded from the requirements of the standard (see discussion on page 2). The wording of the definition does not restrict such support to only the front end. The support can be provided to any portion of the load, whether front or back.

A trailer is excluded from the standard if it has:

[A] GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of heavy hauler trailer set forth in S4 (emphasis added).

"Heavy hauler trailer" is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer which has one or more of the following characteristics, but which is not a container chassis trailer:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) It s body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front end structure" as that term is used in 393.106 of [Title 49, CFR]. (NOTE: A copy of 49 CFR 393.106 is enclosed)

Since your trailer exceeds the 120,000 pound GVWR, it would be excluded from the provisions of Standard No. 121 if it also meets either of the characteristics of a heavy hauler trailer set forth above.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref: #121
d.4\29\98

ID: aiam4066

Dear Mr. McCreary: This responds to your recent letter concerning the manufacturin operations you intend to perform on Ford Econoline vans. In a December 16 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that the vans are incomplete vehicles which you will be receiving from a Ford dealership prior to the vehicles' first sale. A company other than your own will 'stretch' the vehicles 48 to 60 inches, but your company will be completing the manufacture of the vehicle by adding seats (for 20 passengers), windows, carpeting, and so forth. You asked what your responsibilities would be under NHTSA's regulations and safety standards.; Under our regulations, a motor vehicle designed for carrying more tha 10 persons is a 'bus' (Part 571.3). Since the vans, as completed, will meet that definition, the applicable safety standards for the vehicle you will be producing are those applying to buses. If you are performing manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 568.3, so that it becomes a completed vehicle, then Part 568, *Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*, sets forth the requirements you must meet. Under 568.6, Van Patton Vans, as the 'final-stage manufacturer,' would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for buses in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. Also, your company must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in Part 567.5, *Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*.; I have enclosed copies of 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, for you convenience. I have also enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's regulations and motor vehicle safety standards. Please contact my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4061

Dear Mr. McCreary: This responds to your recent letter concerning the manufacturin operations you intend to perform on Ford Econoline vans. In a December 16 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that the vans are incomplete vehicles which you will be receiving from a Ford dealership prior to the vehicles' first sale. A company other than your own will 'stretch' the vehicles 48 to 60 inches, but your company will be completing the manufacture of the vehicle by adding seats (for 20 passengers), windows, carpeting, and so forth. You asked what your responsibilities would be under NHTSA's regulations and safety standards.; Under our regulations, a motor vehicle designed for carrying more tha 10 persons is a 'bus' (Part 571.3). Since the vans, as completed, will meet that definition, the applicable safety standards for the vehicle you will be producing are those applying to buses. If you are performing manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 568.3, so that it becomes a completed vehicle, then Part 568, *Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*, sets forth the requirements you must meet. Under 568.6, Van Patton Vans, as the 'final-stage manufacturer,' would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for buses in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. Also, your company must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in Part 567.5, *Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*.; I have enclosed copies of 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, for you convenience. I have also enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's regulations and motor vehicle safety standards. Please contact my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/10/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VREDUSA -- Anthony Lavro, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 279 Somerset, New Jersey 08873

Dear Mr. Lauro:

This responds to your recent letter asking if you can legally sell 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 introduced 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 571.119). 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 (15 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, if they were offered for sale or introduced into interstate commerce.

At this point, you have two legal courses of action open to you. You 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 back 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, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of Chief Council NHTSA - Room 5219 400 - 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Recently I spoke with a Mr. Steve Kratsky, of your office concerning an opinion I desire. Mr. Kratsky advised that I write a letter to your office so that I could receive a written opinion.

I am an importer of a line of tires manufactured in Holland. On my last container I received some light truck radial tires which did not have the maximum inflation or maximum load capacity imprinted on the sidewall. The tires do have a D.O.T. number.

My question is: Can I still sell these tires to a wholesale, retail or user customer?

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Anthony Lauro President