ID: 1983-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jim Martin Tire

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff asking about this agency's regulations applicable to regrooved tires. Specifically, you asked if a foreign casing must have a DOT symbol on the sidewall in order to be regrooved, what requirements apply to regrooved tires intended for a dealer's own use, and whether there are any restrictions on the use of regrooved tires in particular wheel locations.

49 CFR Part 569 (copy enclosed) specifies the requirements which must be met by all regrooved tires, except those intended solely for export and so tagged or labeled. The mechanics of importing casings for regrooving are explained in a previous letter of interpretation issued by the agency (copy enclosed). Once the casing is inside the customs territory of the United States, Part 569 specifies that the casing must be labeled "regroovable" on both sidewalls. This marking cannot be added to the sidewall by a regroover before regrooving, but must have been placed there by the original manufacturer or a prior retreader. It seems unlikely that foreign manufacturers or retreaders would so label their tires. This means that few, if any, imported foreign casings may legally be regrooved. As explained in the enclosed letter, there is no requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of casings in order for the casings to be regrooved.

The requirements of Part 569 apply to all tires regrooved in the United States, and apply equally to tires regrooved for sale to another party and to tires regrooved for the regroover's own use (Part 569.7). Each violation of those requirements could subject the offender to a $ 1,000 civil penalty. Each illegally regrooved tire would be treated as a separate violation.

With respect to your question about restrictions on the application and wheel position of a regrooved tire, this agency has no regulations. The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to carriers used in interstate commerce. That regulation prohibits the use of regrooved tires above a certain load-carrying capacity on the front wheels of trucks and truck tractors. If you further information concerning this subject, please contact Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Should you have any further questions regarding regrooved tires, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: 1983-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. B. Bright Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20590

August 8, 1983

Mr. C. B. Bright, Jr. C. B. Bright Motor Co. Route 1 Ashland, MS 38603

Dear Mr. Bright:

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office. You have asked whether you are violating any Federal standards or regulations by adding "right side steering, accelerator, brakes & turn signal controls to rural mail carriers delivery vehicles (cars, pickup, jeeps, etc.)." You have told us that you do not modify in any way the left hand side controls with which the vehicle was originally equipped.

Assuming that your modifications do not affect the performance of any of the systems with which the vehicle was equipped by its original manufacturer, your conversion operations would not be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, with respect to any new vehicle that you modify which has not yet reached its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, you are required to affix a label identifying you as the alterer and certifying that the vehicle as altered meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is required by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

C. B. BRIGHT MOTOR CO. Ashland, Miss. 38603

July 19, 1983

MR. TAYLOR VINSON OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION NUMBER 400 7th. ST. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MR. TAYLOR:

IN REGARDS TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON OUR ADDING RIGHT SIDE STEERING, ACCELERATOR, BRAKE & TURN SIGNAL CONTROLS TO RURAL MAIL CARRIERS DELIVERY VEHICLES ( CARS, PICKUPS, JEEPS & ETC.).

WE DO NOT CHARGE UP, MODIFY OR TAKE OUT ANY OF THE FACTORY INSTALLED CONTROLLS THAT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. CONTROLS MEANING STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL.

WE HAVE ADDED THESE DUAL CONTROLS TO MAIL CARRIER DELIVERY VEHICLES SINCE 1958 AND THE USE AND SAFETY HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE VIOLATE ANY STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS WHEN WE ADD THE DUAL CONTROLS ( STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL CONTROL FOR RIGHT SIDE USE OF VEHICLE.).

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIER'S ASSOCIATION.

I SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR THE KINDNESS AND CONSIDERATION YOU GAVE ME BY PHONE.

SINCERELY,

C. B. BRIGHT

NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

February 8, 1983 Mr. C. B. Bright Committeeman, Mississippi Rural Letter Carriers' Assn. Ashland, Mississippi 38603

Dear C. B.

This is in response to our telephone conversation concerning the dual controls which you manufacture and install on vehicles for rural carriers.

I advised you I would write you a letter relative to my own use of the dual controls. For the last several years I served on Route #1, Palestine, Arkansas. I used a vehicle equipped with the dual control system. That was during a period that ended in September, 1977. At that time, I assumed the duties of a Na-tional Officer and I have not carried a rural route since that time.

My own personal experience with the dual controls proved to be completely satisfactory, both from an operational and a safety standpoint. The steering was completely functional and the accelerator and brakes were also without fault.

******Letter not complete due to poor copy.

ID: 1983-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Merchant's Inc. -- Buck Burwell, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Buck Burwell: Vice President Merchant's, Inc. 9073 Euclid Ave. Manassas VA 22110

Dear Mr. Burwell:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.

You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label the appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.

This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by a party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:

(l) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met the requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement;

(2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to be labelled on the tires;

(3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall; and

(4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by the importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.

In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item listed above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.

As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would be willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.

It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain how you propose to make the information on the side-walls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.

After you have received this additional information, this agency has no objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

June 29, 1983

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

We have received in our latest shipment, 142 Truck Tires without D.O.T. markings, from Tong Shinn Chemical Company, in Korea.

These tires were mixed in with other tires of the same size that were properly D.O.T. marked. Since discovering the problem we have learned that the manufacturing company has gone out of bus-iness. As a result, we are left with approximately $15,000.00 worth of truck tires that we are at this point, unable to sell. Under normal circumstances we would return the tires to the supplier at their expense.

We know these tires meet D.O.T. standards and have attached notarized correspondence to that effect. We are asking that D.O.T. authorize us to sell these tires after stamping them with any marking that you may require. We can also record the purchasers, should any problems arise with the tires.

This would be a considerable loss to our company if we were unable to resolve the problem.

Thanking you very much for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Buck Burwell Vice President

BB/cg

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 1983-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Athey Products Corporation -- Roderic A. Esmonde

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Athey Products Corporation Capital Equipment Division P.O. Box 669 Raleigh, NC 27602

Dear Mr. Esmonde:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You enclosed a sample of a rigid plastic you would like to use on the side windows of street sweepers, and asked whether the standard would be applicable to that type of material.

Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials to be used on motor vehicles. Only those materials that are specified in the standard may be used on a vehicle, and only in the vehicle location specified for each glazing type. Thus, the sample you enclosed may be used only if it qualifies as one of the glazing types (Items) specified in the standard. A specific piece of glazing material qualifies as a particular glazing Item under the standard if it meets all of the performance tests specified in the standard for that Item. For example, your sample would be considered an Item 12 rigid plastic, which could be used in the vehicle locations specified for that glazing type, only if it passes all of the tests specified in the standard for Item 12 plastics.

Whether or not your sample does qualify as a permitted glazing Item under the standard will have to be determined by your company. The agency does not provide advance approval for any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine compliance with the Motor vehicle safety standards and to certify that compliance.

I would also note that the glazing manufacturer is required to certify, by markings etched on the material, any piece of glazing which is to be used in a motor vehicle (see S6. of Standard No. 205). These required markings would include a specification of the glazing type, e.g., "Item 12." The glazing sample you enclosed should be from a piece of certified material if that material is to be used on your motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JulY 12, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division

Dear Mr. Oates:

Please find attached a copy of our letter of June 15, which we fear must have gone astray.

We would appreciate your cooperation in giving us an early response so we may proceed further with our plans.

Roderic A. Esmonde P.E. Director of Engineering

June 15, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Oates:

This will confirm our recent conversation regarding glazing materials for the front and side windows of street sweepers.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 defines the requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Section S5.1.2.1. Item 12 Rigid Plastics, and Section S5.1.2.2. Item 13 Flexible Plastics, define where these materials can be used.

We have been seriously considering using some form of Rigid Plastic for the side windows of the street sweepers we build. We enclose a sample piece of this material.

Would you be so kind as to advise us if the subject regulation also applies to this specific type as well.

Your kind cooperation and guidance is gratefully appreciated since we are, as such, neophytes in this area.

Yours very truly, ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION

Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Director of Engineering

RAE/pfw

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 1983-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Willard B. Synder -- Security National Bank (Kansas)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/8/83 letter from Frank Berndt to William S. Stalder

TEXT:

Mr. Willard B. Snyder Honorary Counsul Federal Republic of Germany Security National Bank 7th Street and Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1983, asking me to review and reconsider my letter of February 8, 1983, in which I concluded that a transporter van, to which features are added enabling it to be used occasionally on railroad tracks, in a "motor vehicle" and must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to do so. You raise the possibility "that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and no on any public roads or highways." We should like confirmation by the Railroad of that fact, if true, or a statement as to the quantum of use on the public roads likely for this vehicle. We should like an indication of how the company intends to dispose of the vans when it has finished with them. It is our assumption that the conversion features can be removed and the vehicle operated solely on the public roads; please correct or confirm this assumption. When we have this information we shall reconsider the matter.

In closing, I must say that your letter reflects the confusion that appears to exist in the public mind regarding jurisdiction of Federal agencies over motor vehicles. In my earlier letter I quoted the definition of "motor vehicle" in 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while you have replied that "the deciding one" appears to be that of 42 U.S.C. 7251(3)(C). Both definitions are appropriate, the one in Title 15 for purpose of determining applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by the Department of Transportation, and the one in Title 42 for determining applicability of the vehicle emission standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. While I can offer no interpretation of whether the van conversion is subject to emission standards I note with interest that EPA's definition of "heavy duty vehicle" is similar in many respects to our definition of "motor vehicle."

Frank Berndt

July 12, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. William Stalder of Carland (a subsidiary of the Kansas City Southern Railroad) forwarded me a copy of your letter to him dated February 8, 1983 wherein you denied an exemption for a Zwei Weg conversion of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle. I would appreciate it if you would review and reconsider this earlier decision. I have enclosed a part of Title 42, section 7521, Paragraph (3)(c) from U.S.C.A., for your easy reference. This is the section which appears to be the deciding one.

I realize that, administratively, you have the possibility to stop here and reaffirm your previous stance, however, I hope you will continue on and give this appeal a fair review since this purchase will be fairly substantial and could easily have a direct effect on the business and its employees here in the Kansas City area.

Title 42, Sect. 7521, Paragraph (3) (c) defines a heavy duty vehicle as "one manufactured primarily for use (emphasis is mine) on the public streets, roads and highways". While the Mercedes-Benz van was manufactured at one point in its development as a street and highway vehicle, its manufacture actually continued on with Zwei Wdg and the end item of production bears only a superficial resemblance to the interim product. Not only have track and alignment systems been permanently added, but new hydraulic and suspension systems as well. The interior controls have also been appropriately modified. The tires and drive system provide the traction on the rails, so there was no need to change this. However, as the end manufactured product, this vehicle is primarily and functionally a track vehicle, not a road vehicle, even though it has a road capability. Also, its cost precludes any economic use as a road vehicle.

I think that it is only fair to assume that the drafters of this statute were not thinking of Zwei Weg products when they wrote about off-highway use. This provision was intended primarily to cover cross-country and all-terrain type vehicles whose operations depend on and use heavily the public streets and roads to get to their cross country all-terrain locations. This type of cross-country, all-terrain vehicle is designed primarily for highway use and its other characteristic is an added feature. With Zwei Weg, the primary manufactured function is rail, not road.

Also, the land (roads) where this vehicle would be utilized, when not in actual rail use, should be considered. I suspect that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and not on any public roads or highways. If this would be a critical consideration, you might want to consider a conditional waiver - conditional on the non use of public streets and highways by Kansas City Southern Railroad Company.

I am sure we have both personally suffered when we stopped behind a "Big Bus" or "Diesel Truck" at a stoplight and the contribution of the multiple passenger cars to the overall atmosphere is equally as important. However, this vehicle will not be on the public streets (where we could get caught behind it) and the numbers will not be so great as to materially or significantly contribute to the atmospheric pollution.

Based on these factors, I hope that you will be able to grant an exemption for this vehicle, under its particular circumstances.

Sincerely, Willard B. Snyder

ID: 1983-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in response to your letter of July 8 1983 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps establishes a minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.

The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of the reflector, rather than the extreme edge; nevertheless, the "reflector edge" you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 8, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington; D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda requests interpretation regarding the amendment to FMVSS No.108 which allows the use of semi-sealed headlamps (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3, 48 F.R. 24690).

Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e states that, "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." However, it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp. We, therefore, believe that it is appropriate to use the edge of the reflector, instead of the inside diameter of the retaining ring, to measure the dimension described in Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e (See attached sketch).

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Very truly yours, H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Att.

FIGURE 1: SEMI-SEALED HEADLAMP (PLAN VIEW SECTION) GRAPH INSERTED HERE REFLECTOR EDGE

ID: 1983-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp. -- Arnold Van Ruitenbeck, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. van Ruitenbeek:

This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpre-tation concerning Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked whether your company could label two maximum load ratings on the sidewall of certain motorcycle tires it manufactures. One maximum load rating would be applicable at the tire's top-rated speed, while the other would be applicable at a speed of 60 miles per hour. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119.

Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires, shown as follows:

Max load lbs at psi cold.

The maximum load rating on the tire's sidewall, as the name implies, is intended to alert the consumer to the tire's maximum capabilities. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify more than one maximum load, based on various vehicle speeds, would dilute the value of the maximum load information to the consumer, by introducing the possibility of confusion and uncertainty about the actual maximum load the tire could carry while in use on a particular trip. To avoid this, the agency has stated on each occasion when questions have arisen in this area that only one maximum load rating may appear on the sidewall of tires.

Please understand that the agency does not doubt that these tires can carry higher loads at lower speeds. Further, it does not have any objection to your publicizing those loads in your advertising literature, which you enclosed with your letter. However, the purpose of the labeling requirements on the sidewall of tires is not to give the consumer information for all possible operating conditions for the tire. Indeed, there is not enough space on the sidewall of the tire to do this. The purpose of the labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. In the case of the maximum load information, this necessitates providing only one maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tires.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 21, 1983

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION 200 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting an advisory opinion on motorcycle tire sidewall markings as required by FMVSS 119.

Continental motorcycle tires are made in Germany where there are no speed limits on the Autobahn.

Motocycle tire load ratings are governed by the speed rating of the tire: the higer the speed rating, the lower the load and, visa versa, the lower the speed the higher the load.

Our SuperTwin tire (see attached brochure) have a V-rating for 150 MPH and the load rating molded into the tire is for this speed. At 60 MPH the load rating is aproximately 52% higher - as is shown in the last column of the enclosed brochure.

In our program are two sizes that are mainly used on touring bikes, usually ridden with one extra passenger and extra luggage.

We are now asking for your permission to engrave, in addition to all required DOT markings, the higer 60 MPH load capacity on the sidewall of the tire, underneath where the DOT load rating for 150 MPH now appears.

The proposed sentence is: For size 30/90 V 16 TK44 : At 60 MPH the load capacity is 880 lbs at 40 PSI. For size 130/90 V 17 TK44 : At 60 Mph the load capacity is 900 lbs at 40 PSI.

This information is very helpful for the rider and contributes to the safe operation of the motorcycle. We look forward to hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President

ID: 1983-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Champion Home Builders Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1983

Office of Chief Council National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Attention: Mr. Kratzke

Reference: FMVSS 217

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Champion Home Builders Co. is a manufacturer of medium duty buses. Our 22 passenger bus, including driver, with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs. is equipped with a driver's door on the front road side, a passenger entrance door on the front off-road side, an emergency exit window on each side at the rear of the bus, and a roof exit in the rear half of the bus. Each of the emergency exit windows and the passenger door have more than 536 square inches of unobstructed opening available. The driver's door provides a sufficient unobstructed opening to pass a 13 by 20 inch ellipsoid through and has a sufficient area that, when added to the 536 square inches provided by the rear side window, provides for the 40% of the total unobstructed opening requirement on the road side. All exits including the roof exit meet all the requirements for exits as specified in FMVSS 217.

We have been advised of an opinion by a state regulatory agency that unobstructed openings provided by exit doors on buses over 10,000 lbs. GVWR may not be used in computing the total area requirements of S5.2 of the standard. More specifically, it is their opinion that the side exits required by S5.2.1 must be provided by windows. We are in disagreement with that opinion.

We are requesting an opinion from NHTSA concerning whether the exit facilities on our buses as outlined above meet the requirements of the standard. If more information is needed, please contact me.

Thank you in advance for your early consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

John G. Sims Federal Compliance Engineer JGS/dko

cc: Mr. S. Messina, Supervisor Motor Carrier Inspection 1035 Parkway Avenue Trenton, NJ 08625

Mr. Jerry Loftus Mr. Wayne Williams

John G. Sims Federal Compliance Engineer Champion Home Builders Co. Dryden, MI 48428

Dear Mr. Sims:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, concerning the emergency exit requirements of Safety Standard No. 217, Bus window retention and release, that apply to a 22 passenger bus with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. You indicated that your company counts the area provided by side doors in determining the total emergency exit openings for these buses. However, a state regulatory agency has advised you that side doors may not be used in computing the total emergency exit area required by S5.2 of Standard No. 217. Your letter stated that the state regulatory agency believes that the emergency exit opening for side exits must be provided by windows. The state regulatory agency is incorrectly interpreting the requirements of Standard No. 217 if they hold the position you have stated.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 217 specifies requirements for the provision of emergency exits for buses, and S5.2.1 sets forth more specific requirements for buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. As long as side doors meet all requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with that standard. The agency has stated this position in several past interpretations, and has never indicated that only window emergency exits could be considered as side exits for purposes of compliance with section S5.2.1.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address, or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Autodrome de Linas-Montlhery/Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motorcycle et du Cycle (H. Le Guen)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Le Guen Laboratory Director Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motocycle et du Cycle Autodrome de Linas-Montlhery Linas, 91310 Montlhery France

Dear Mr. Le Guen:

This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking several questions with respect to the amendment of Standard No. 108, June 2, 1983, which permits semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamps.

First, you mention certain sealing specifications, contrasting them with references to designed openings, and ask for our comments on this. Although the design that Ford intends to use is not a vented system, the amendment does not specify or prohibit either vented or unvented systems. A vented system using the standardized replaceable light source and the O-ring seal is permissable if the headlamp passes all the recently adopted environmental tests.

With reference to your further questions, there are no tolerances on the dust test. You have also asked whether, assuming that a European type headlamp using the new light source "passes all tests mentioned in the amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval?" If the lens-reflector unit is bonded, and if with the light source inserted the lamp meets U.S. photometric requirements and all environmental tests specified in the amend-ment, then the manufacturer of the lamp may apply the D.O.T. symbol to it. This is the certification that the lamp meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under this self-certification process, the manufacturer, rather than D.O.T., approves the lamp for sale.

Finally, you have asked who will manufacture the new bulb and where you might be able to obtain test samples. Ford's initial supplier will be Sylvania/GTE, and you may write GTE Products Corp., West Main Street, Hillsboro, NH 03249, Attn: Mr. Richardson.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LINAS, July 27, 1983

Mr. TAYLOR VINSON NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Our ref. HLG/RR/JP/83.1159.33 Signed by: Mr. RENDU

Dear Mr. VINSON,

After reading over pages 24690 to 24716 of the 02 June 1983 Federal Register an interesting discrepancy come up. On the first page (24690), second column lines 10 and 61, and the third column line 62 of the same page, indicate the new plastic headlamp is to be semi-sealed, the opening (for the bulb) non-sealed, the bulb being the sealing piece with its "O" ring seal. Later in the text, page 7 (24696), third column, line 46, (corrosion) mentioned are "drainholes, breathing devices, and other designed openings that are to be in their normal positions" during testing.

If you could please comment on this point and possibly clarify this new standard this would be most helpful to us. In addition, if you could please comment on : Are there any tolerances in the "dust test" ? If a glass lens, metal reflector, European type headlamp, (using the new standard bulb) passes all tests mentioned in the Amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval? And who is going to manufacture, and where would we able to obtain a sample of the new "standard" bulb?

Thank you very much for your assistance and we hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

H. LE GUEN LABORATORY DIRECTOR

ID: 1983-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Co. Inc. -- John E. Bennett, Director, Research & Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering Truck-Lite Co., Inc. 310 East Elmwood Avenue Falconer, New York 14733

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This in response to your letter of April 12, 1983, asking for interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This paragraph states in pertinent part that "means may be provided to flask...side marker lamps for signalling purposes." You have first asked whether the rear side marker can be made to flash. You have also asked whether this language may be interpreted as allowing both front and rear side marker lamps to be flashed. The answer to both questions is yes. In the absence of restrictive language, paragraph S4.6 may be interpreted as allowing flashing of either front or rear side marker lamps, or both sets of lamps.

You have also asked whether, where the rear side marker and taillamp used the same optical source ("minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb"), it is acceptable to have an overriding signal lamp is actuated. The answer is yes. The standard's prohibition against optical combinations (paragraph S4.1.1) does not preclude this design.

We hope that this answers you questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 12, 1983

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel (Room 5219)

Subject: Request for interpretation of an element of FMVSS-108

Dear Sir:

In our endeavor to continue the advancements of vehicle lighting devices, which is a continuing assignment within our company, and offer specialized products to our customers with inherent benefits to the consumers, we have under consideration a new product which requires an interpretation of Section S4.6 Item (b), FMVSS-108, before we finalize our programs.

This section (S4.6) of FMVSS-108 requires.. "when activated:

a. Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash; and b. All other lamps shall be steady burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes."

Our questions are in reference to the rear side marker lamp and item (b) above. They are stated as follows:

a. Can the rear side marker be made to flash? Is Section S4.6, Item (b) to be interpreted as both front and rear side marker lamps may be flashed for signalling purposes? We know of only one current production (Jeep CJ) vehicle which the rear side marker lamp might be so viewed.

b. In a design where the rear side marker function and the rear tail lamp use the same optical source (minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb), is it acceptable to have an overriding-flashing signal visible through the rear side marker lens when the signal lamp is actuated?

We are attempting to market a new product within the near future and do not wish to proceed until the above is cleared. Therefore we would appreciate your response to your questions as soon as possible.

Kindly accept our thanks for your prompt attention to this request. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of additional assistance.

Sincerely,

TRUCK-LITE CO., INC.

John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering JEB:h cc: R. Kotsi