ID: nht94-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas L. Wright -- Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/15/94 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO ROBERT HELLMUTH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchas e, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other f eature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no proble m as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to Stat e law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

ID: nht93-7.27

DATE: October 19, 1993

FROM: Jason Backs -- Engineering Department, Travis Body and Trailer, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/18/93 from John Womack to Jason Backs (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Recently, I spoke with Patrick Boyd (Room 5307) concerning the conspicuity law and how it will affect the business at which I work. Mr. Boyd suggested that I direct my question to you. Allow me to fill you in on the details. I am an engineer at Travis Body & Trailer in Houston, TX. We manufacture aluminum and steel end dump trailers. We will be required to meet the trailer conspicuity law which becomes effective December 1. The law is very detailed about most aspects of its implementation. However, I would like to be sure that my suggested installation is indeed conforming to the law. The rubrail is the obvious placement for the reflective tape on a dump trailer. However, since our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface, it is not convenient to apply the reflective tape to the rubrail. As the final alternative, we could order three new extrusion dies. This would be quite expensive. Presently, I propose that we apply fifteen separate 18" lengths of the tape (11" red, 7" white, made by 3M) to the side sheet directly above the rubrail and in between each side stake. Using these lengths yields 58% coverage of a 39' trailer. This installation places the tape in full view from a point normal to the side of the trailer. At approximately 30 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. At 45 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, 1 1/2" (8.33%) of each 18" section of tape is obstructed by the side stake. At 60 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, 4" (22.22%) of each 18" section of tape is obstructed by the side stake. At 60 degrees from the normal to the side of the trailer, the tailgate reflective tape is in view. This placement of the tape in a slightly recessed position on the trailer which causes obstruction at large angles from normal to the trailer side is why I question that it conforms to the law. We can comply to the application of the reflective tape on the full width of the tailgate (rear of the tailer) with no question. I would like from you in writing that this specific installation of the reflective tape is in fact in compliance to the law in every respect. This would be helpful to have on file in the future should any of our trailer's conformity to the conspicuity law ever arise. Should any of the drawings depicting the placement of the stickers be unclear, feel free to call me. If you deem that this installation is not in compliance to the full extent of the conspicuity law, please contact me to further discuss our options.

ID: nht93-7.28

DATE: October 19, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Tank Conference Engineering Committee; TTMA Engineering Committee; Retroreflective and Reflector Devices Associates

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Often a new tank trailer will be sold to a customer who will contract with another party to have a lining installed in the tank. High heat is used to apply this lining. After the lining is installed, the tank trailer is painted. After the tank is painted, conspicuity treatment is applied. The high heat used in the installation of the lining precludes the application of paint and retroreflective sheeting to the tank before the lining is installed.

In addition, non-tank trailers may be sold without conspicuity treatment when the owner wishes to contract the application of special paint and logo schemes.

49 CFR 568.3 defines an incomplete vehicle as one "that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle."

Is a trailer manufactured after December 1, 1993 and sold without the conspicuity treatment required in FMVSS 108 an incomplete vehicle? If you consider such a trailer to be a completed vehicle, does NHTSA require that the manufacturer furnish the owner with (1) retroreflective sheeting or reflex reflectors complying with FMVSS 108, (2) instructions as to where on the trailer the conspicuity treatment should be installed, and/or (3) instructions on preparing the surface for the application of the conspicuity treatment? Should conspicuity treatment installed by the owner be deemed to be not in compliance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108, is the owner solely responsible for the violation and for bringing the trailer into compliance?

If NHTSA determines that the installation of conspicuity treatment is a readily attachable component and therefore a complete vehicle, can the manufacturer certify that "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above" if the trailer is not furnished with the conspicuity treatment required by FMVSS 108?

ID: nht93-7.29

DATE: October 20, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Glover -- Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from Richard Glover to Deirdre Fujita (OCC-8744)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard.

You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on "date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents." You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible "mis-keying" of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded "quiet zone" to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You, are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded.

It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space, for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following:

No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a.

The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not.

Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form.

We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words "please print" after the instructions to the consumer "just fill in your name and address." "Please print" is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided

that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, "please print" is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht93-7.3

DATE: October 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stephen P. Wood

TO: Docket Section (Redbook, Standard No. 208)

TITLE: Interpretation of Standard No. 208

TEXT:

At the request of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), this provides, for the public docket, an interpretation of the requirements of S7.1.1 and S7.1.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. OVSC asked us to address whether these sections require safety belts at the driver's position of vans to fit around a 95th percentile male dummy when the driver's seat is in the full forward position. As discussed below, the answer to that question is yes.

The general structure of S7.1.1 through S7.1.1.2 is that S7.1.1 sets forth requirements for seat belt assemblies that apply except as those requirements are modified in S7.1.1.1 and S7.1.1.2. S7.1.1.1 modifies S7.1.1 with respect to the range of people that must be fit, but not with respect to the range of seating positions in which that fit must be provided. S7.1.1 provides:

S7.1.1 Except as specified in S7.1.1.1 and S7.1.1.2, the lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.2 shall adjust by means of any emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th percentile adult female to those of a 95th percentile adult male, with the seat in ANY POSITION, the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position, and any adjustable anchorages adjusted to the manufacturer's nominal design position for a 50th percentile adult male occupant. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Thus, except as modified in S7.1.1.1 and S7.1.1.2, the lap belt and upper torso restraint of any seat belt assembly must meet all the requirements of S7.1.1. More specifically, the lap belt must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year old child to those of a 95th percentile adult male, and the upper torso restraint must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male, with the seat in any position.

S7.1.1.1 makes a limited modification to S7.1.1's requirements for seat belt assemblies at the driver's seating position; S7.1.1.2 is not relevant to that seating position. Section S7.1.1.1 provides:

S7.1.1.1 A seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seating position shall adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male.

S7.1.1.1 is significant in what it addresses and what it does not address. It does address the lap belt for the driver's seating position and as to that belt, the range of occupant sizes which must be fit. For the driver's seating position, the general requirement that the lap belt of any seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old to those of a 95th percentile male is modified by S7.1.1.1 to apply to persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th percentile adult male. However, S7.1.1.1 does not address the range of seating positions in which seat belt fit must be provided and thus makes no change in S7.1.1 with respect to that range.

Therefore, S7.1.1 and S7.1.1.1 together require, for seat belt assemblies at the driver seating position, that the lap belt and upper torso restraint must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male, with the seat in any position.

The use of the term "any" merits special emphasis. With respect to the requirement that safety belts must fit the specified range of occupant sizes with the seat in "any position," the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Therefore, safety belts at the driver's position of vans must fit a 95th percentile male dummy with the seat in all possible positions, including the full forward position.

ID: nht93-7.30

DATE: October 20, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/26/93 from James Womack from James Z. Peepas (A41; Std. 108) and letter dated 7/9/93 from James Z. Peepas to Taylor Vinson (OCC-8871)

TEXT:

In a recent letter of interpretation on the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, which are effective December 1, 1993, we informed you that "()f you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck." The word "without" is incorrect, and should be replaced with the word "with", in accordance with the requirement of S5.7.1.4.2(a) that conspicuity treatment not be obscured by trailer cargo. We are sorry for any inconvenience that this error may have caused you.

Our letter also informed you that we were considering a petition for reconsideration of the mounting height requirements for the conspicuity treatment. On October 6, 1993, the agency published its response to this petition, modifying the mounting height requirement to a range between 15 and 60 inches (375 to 1525 mm). I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

ID: nht93-7.31

DATE: October 20, 1993

FROM: Jerome Cysewski -- Ideal Mfg., Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/24/94 from John Womack to Jerome Cysewski (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

I would like to have your interpretation of the following equipment regarding NHTSA statutes, regulation and standards:

The cement silo has tandem axles, weighs 13,600 pounds, the silo is mounted on its own trailer operated by electric brakes. This piece of equipment is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes.

The aggregate batch plant has a single axle, weighs 6400 pounds, the batch plant is mounted on its own trailer operated by electric brakes. This piece of equipment is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes.

Both pieces of equipment are mobile but are designed to be towed with vehicles for off-the-road set and positioning, this equipment is for a one man operation.

Please return my request to the above address. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ID: nht93-7.32

DATE: October 21, 1993

FROM: James "Bubba" Schaub -- Midas Muffler and Brake

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/94 from John Womack to James Schaub (A42; Std. 105; Part 570)

TEXT:

First allow me to introduce myself. My name is James "Bubba" Schaub. I manage a Midas Muffler and Brake Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, located at 180 Gause Blvd., and have for 9 years now. My concern is in the area of ethical and sound business practice. I'm taught by Midas to replace brake rotors and/or brake drums when they exceed the minimum thickness (on disc rotors) or maximum diameter (on drums), published by Original Equipment Manufacturers. My questions are as follows:

1. Please interpret F.M.V.S.S. 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS.

2. Is there any basis for fraud in following this policy? (Of disc rotor and/or drum replacement when out of manf. safety tolerances).

Please understand that my concern lies only with doing the right thing - the safe way, for our costumers. Let it be known that the local auto dealership service dept.'s are not following their own recommendations, for safety in this matter, which causes my costumers to believe that we (Midas) are fraudulently selling and installing parts on their vehicles when they're not needed. But, if I can present an established standard to our (Midas) costumers, I can prevent them from feeling they've been taken advantage of.

ID: nht93-7.33

DATE: October 21, 1993

FROM: Schaub, James (Bubba) -- Midas Muffler And Brake Shop

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 5/18/94 Letter From John Womack To James Schaub (A42; PART 570)

TEXT: First allow me to introduce myself. My name is James "Bubba" Schaub. I manage a Midas Muffler and Brake Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, located at 180 Gause Blvd., and have for 9 years now. My concern is in the area of ethical and sound business practice. I'm taught by Midas to replace Brake rotors and/or Brake Drums when they exceed the minimum thickness (on disc rotors) or maximum Diameter (on Drums), published by original Equipment manufacturers. My questions are as follows -

1. Please [ILLEGIBLE WORD] F.M.V.S.S. 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

2. Is there any basis for [ILLEGIBLE WORD] in following this policy? (of disc rotor and/or Drum replacement when out of manf. safety [ILLEGIBLE WORD]).

Please understand that my concern lier only with doing the right thing - the safe way, for our customer. Let it be known that the [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] are not following their own recommendations, for safety in this matter, which causes my customers to believe that we (midas) are fraudulently, selling and installing parts on thier vehicles when [ILLEGIBLE WORD] not needed. But, if I can present on established standard to our (midas) Customers, I can prevent them from feeling they've been taken advantage of.

(ARTICLE FROM UNDERCAR DIGEST IS OMITTED.)

ID: nht93-7.34

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John P. Gach -- Marketing Coordinator, North American Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/1/93 from John P. Gach to Richard Van Iderstein (OCC-9084)

TEXT:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu-Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu- Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and

other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.