ID: nht81-3.34

DATE: 11/10/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 6, 1981, asking for our concurrence that front clearance lamps "located at the frame level (about 50 inches above the ground) on platform trailers with permanent front bulkheads conforms with FMVSS 108."

Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 "to indicate the overall width" of a vehicle, and to be "as near the top thereof as practicable." As you noted, NHTSA has commented before that the indication of overall width is the primary function of clearance lamps, with a secondary purpose of indicating overall height. However, because trailers are not required to have identification lamps on their front, the secondary purpose of clearance lamps on trailers is important, especially if the top of the trailer is substantially higher than that of the truck tractor towing it.

You have stated that the top of the typical front bulkhead is 8 to 9 feet above the ground, and the identification lamps of truck tractors are typically 10 feet above the ground. We will assume also that the tractor's clearance lamps are also typically 10 feet above the ground. You have also stated that the mounting height of truck tractor rear view mirrors and bulkhead-mounted clearance lamps are essentially the same, and that as a result "drivers remove the bulb from the clearance lamps or place tape over the lamps."

The determination of practicability is one that is made by the manufacturer of the trailer. NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top of the bulkhead is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror. But if the configuration of a trailer with a permanent front bulkhead is such that the clearance lamps may be located at the top of the bulkhead frame without interfering with the vision of the truck tractor's operator, that location would appear to be "practicable" within the meaning of Standard No. 108 and the situation your letter addresses.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

October 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Interpretation of the Location of Front Clearance Lamps on Platform Trailers with Permanent Bulkheads

Dear Mr. Berndt: TTMA requests your concurrence that the location of front clearance lamps located at the frame level (about 50 inches above the ground) on platform trailers with permanent front bulkheads conforms with FMVSS 108.

Platform trailers are sold in three configurations: (1) without front bulkheads, (2) with removable front bulkheads, and (3) with permanent front bulkheads. Often platform trailers without front bulkheads will be built for stock and placed on a dealers lot. A customer may then purchase the new trailer and request that a bulkhead be added to the trailer. A customer may also bring to the dealer a used platform trailer and request that a permanent bulkhead be welded to the trailer.

The structural framing of the front bulkhead would require that the front clearance lamps, if mounted on the front bulkhead, be located about 8 inches inboard of the front corner of main frame location used for clearance lamps on platform trailers without front bulkheads.

Table II of FMVSS 108 states that the purpose of the front clearance light is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. NHTSA by interpretation (letter of 2/5/74 to Evan Hammond, Trailmobile) has stated that the primary purpose of these lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and the secondary purpose is to indicate the overall height. Front bulkheads typically range in height from 48 to 60 inches (4 to 5 ft.), placing the top of the bulkhead about 100 to 112 inches (8 to 9 ft.) above the ground. The identification lamps on the truck tractor are typically 118 inches (10 ft.) above the ground.

The side view mirror of a truck tractor is typically mounted about 85 inches (7 ft.) above the ground. Due to the frame around the front bulkhead of the platform trailer, the front clearance lamp would be located about 12 inches (1 ft.) below the top of the bulkhead or 88 inches (7 ft.) above the ground. This location results in the lamp shining into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror.

An examination of platforms with permanent bulkheads reveals that drivers remove the bulbs from the clearance lamps or place tape over the lamps. TTMA contends that a location which results in the lamp shining into the driver's eyes is not a practical location and may indeed result in a safety hazard.

Some bulkheads are made with the provision for fastening a tarpaulin. NHTSA, in an interpretation regarding tarps on bulk commodity trailers (letter of 5/2/69 to K. L. Mathews, Reliance Trailer & Truck Company), stated that the clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practical to clear the bottom edge of the tarp. It is assumed that this interpretation would also apply to the location of clearance lamps on platform trailer front bulkheads. The need for attaching tarpaulins results in the clearance lamps being located as much as 30 inches below the top of the bulkhead or about 70 inches (6 ft.) above the ground.

NHTSA has issued an interpretation of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 108 (letter of 3/22/74 to TTMA) stating that front clearance lamps may be mounted on the lower front rail of platform trailers with removable front bulkheads. Since a removable front bulkhead looks similar to a permanent bulkhead and serves the same function, it is TTMA's contention that they be treated similarly with regard to location of front clearance lamps. This interpretation follows the reasoning used by NHTSA (letter of 3/10/81 to TTMA) that the function of a permanent dolly and its towbar are identical in function with that of a converter dolly and its towbar and there is no reason to distinguish one from the other for purpose of computation of overall length and the requirement for an intermediate side marker lamp.

TTMA concludes that the front clearance lamps on platform trailers with and without front bulkheads should be located at the corner of the frame rail to satisfy the requirement that the lamp indicate the trailer's overall width, that this is as high as is practical since a higher location would create a safety hazard for the driver, and that a permanent bulkhead serves the same function as a demountable bulkhead which is exempted from a clearance lamp height requirement.

Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 18163.ztv

Mr. Robert B. Seeber
Vice-President/General Manager
Monarch Specialized Motor Coach Corporation
1510 Progress Drive
Albion, IN 46701

Dear Mr. Seeber:

We are responding to your letter of June 12, 1998, in which you "request that Monarch Specialized Motor Coach Corporation . . . be exempted from the regulation allowing the Chevrolet P12 chassis to be utilized only for motor homes." You would like to introduce a line of vehicles in the near future that has been designed as trolleys.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, requires vehicles equipped with hydraulic brake systems and with a GVWR above 19,500 lbs., except motor homes, to be equipped on and after March 1, 1999, with a four-sensor antilock brake system (ABS). Vehicles with a GVWR between 10,000 lbs. and 19,500 lbs may continue to be equipped with a three-sensor ABS system with a single wheel speed sensor in the driveline to monitor wheel lockup at the drive axle. The three-sensor ABS system is also permissible until March 1, 2001, on motor homes with a GVWR of 22,500 lbs. or less. The Chevrolet chassis is rated with a GVWR of 22,500 lbs. Because your vehicle is not a "motor home" as defined by Standard No. 105, the delayed effective date does not apply to your trolley and you will be required to conform it to the four-sensor ABS requirement.

We regard your vehicles as being manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), with General Motors (GM) (the manufacturer of the chassis) as the "initial stage manufacturer" and Monarch as the "final stage manufacturer." We assume that GM equips the chassis with the braking system. Your letter implies that GM may intend the P12 chassis primarily, if not exclusively, for use with motor homes and will supply it with a three-sensor ABS until March 1, 2001. You have also told us that Chevrolet personnel have indicated that GM may not provide a chassis in a configuration that can be used by non-motor home manufacturers (four-sensor ABS) until 2000 or possibly 2001.

If GM does not intend to furnish the P12 chassis with four-sensor ABS, you will continue to be able to manufacture trolleys from these incomplete GM vehicles after March 1, 1999, so long as GM certified the incomplete vehicle as manufactured before that date (as the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle, GM is required to furnish a document to Monarch stating, among other things, the month and year during which GM performed its last manufacturing operations on the incomplete vehicle (Sec. 568.4(a)(2)).

This means that your vehicles need not incorporate a four-sensor ABS in their braking system until GM furnishes your company with a chassis manufactured in March 1999. If GM does not intend to manufacture the P12 chassis with four-sensor ABS before March 1,2001, and Monarch still intends to use it, Monarch may apply for a temporary exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with Standard No. 105. I enclose a copy of the appropriate regulation (Part 555) for your information.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-355-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:105
d.8/3/98

ID: nht76-1.1

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 29, 1976 N40-30

Mr. R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan 48231

Dear Mr. Weil:

This is in reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, to Mr. Brooks of this agency on photometric test requirements of multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations. You have asked for our concurrence on two interpretations of Standard No. 108, as discussed below.

In your "example 1", on vehicles designed with a two lamp system, parking and (or taillamp) and turn signal functions are combined in each lamp of the two lamp system. You have asked whether the second lamp in this system would be treated as supplemental and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

The answer is no. As you are aware the photometric requirements of multiple lamps or multiple compartment lamps, where a tail or parking lamp is combined with the turn signal lamp, are partially determined by Note 4 to SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps. Note 4 establishes permissible ratios of intensity between functions i.e. that the intensity of the tail or parking lamps shall not be so great as to diminish the effectiveness of the turn signal function. Where two lamps are used and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 22 inches (as appears to be the case here) the combination of the lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. (Paragraph 3.1 of J585d; J588e). Further, the ratio of the turn signal to the tail or parking lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted (Note 4). With reference to those vehicles designed with a two-lamp system (your example 1), your first answer is the correct one; the lamps would be photometered together to meet the two compartment requirements for the two lamp functions performed, as specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 108.

With respect to your example 2, a multiple compartment lamp with one compartment performing turn signal and parking or tail lamp functions, and the other portion the function of parking or tail lamp only, photometric requirements for the tail lamp function are determined on the basis of the output of the two compartments. The single compartment parking lamp may, however, be treated as a "supplemental" lamp, except that the candlepower ratios (with turn signal lamp) must be met with both parking lamp compartments illuminated.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Request for an Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 from Chrysler Corporation

N41-2lRBr 22 OCT 1976

FROM: Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs

To: Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attached is a letter dated September 16, 1976, from the Chrysler Corporation, requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, on the subject of: "Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations."

The letter is being referred to you as a matter coming within your cognizance. It is requested that the reply be staffed through this office, prior to being transmitted to Chrysler.

This office does not concur with Chrysler's proposals concerning supplemental lamps, but considers that compliance must be determined by testing with each lamp function lighted in the same cavities, just as it actually operates in vehicles being used on the highway. To allow manufacturers to certify lighting functions to conditions other than those seen by drivers of nearby vehicles, would clearly be inconsistent with the basic intent of FMVSS No. 108. Thus, using the sketch attached to the Chrysler letter, the requirements of Note 4 below Table I of SAE J588e dated September 1970, referenced in Table III of FMVSS No. 108, would be determined by measuring the photometric properties of the parking lamp function at the optical center of the two cavities, with both parking lamp bulbs lighted, as they operate in the highway environment. Next, the photometric properties of the turn signal function would be determined with only tie turn signal bulb in cavity number 1, lighted. Based on these measurements, the ratios specified in Note 4 would be obtained.

Francis Armstrong

Attachment

September 16, 1976

Mr. Roman Brooks National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Subject: Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations

Reference: 1. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and J. B. Carrier on August 13, 1976. 2. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and R. E. Weil on August 16, 1976.

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversations regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 Multiple Lamp and Multiple Cavity Lighting Requirements applicable to the 1979 models.

Based on our discussions, we would like your concurrence with the interpretation of the standard as illustrated by the following examples.

Example 1

On vehicles designed with a two lamp system in which park and turn-signal or tail and turn-signal functions are combined, the requirements may be met in one of the following ways:

1. The lamps would be photometered together to meet the two cavity requirements for the park or tail and the two cavity requirements for the turn signal. The ratio of the turn signal to park or tail would be determined using the two cavity readings of both the turn signal and park or tail. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name on each lamp to designate that two lamps have been designed to meet the requirements, or

2. One lamp would be photometered to one cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to the park or tail would be determined for that lamp. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the lamp which has been designed to meet the requirements. The other lamp would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Example 2

On vehicles designed with a two cavity lamp in which only one cavity is a combination turn-signal and park or tail, the requirements may be met as follows:

The combined cavity would be photometered to single cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to park or tail would be determined using only the park or tail readings for that cavity. In such cases, the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the cavity which has been designed to meet the requirements.

The other cavity would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Similarly for lamps with more than two cavities, the manufacturer should designate which cavities have been designed to meet the legal requirements.

We would appreciate a written confirmation of this understanding at the earliest possible date.

Yours truly,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development CIMS: 416-32-27

REW/ww

cc: R. O. Sornson

ID: nht80-2.19

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corp

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr J. W. Lawrence Manager, Reliability & Government Standards White Motor Corporation 35129 Curtis Boulevard Eastlake, Ohio 44094

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter of January 15, 1980, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You described a control to be included in heavy duty truck tractors which would operate the cab marker lights and some of the trailer lamps and asked whether Safety Standard 101 would permit labeling of the control with the words "marker lamps."

We have concluded, for the reasons stated below, that Safety Standard 101 would not permit the control to be labeled in the fashion you suggest. However, it would permit labeling of the control with the symbol for clearance lamps designated therein accompanied by the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviation "C1 Lps" and by the words "marker lamps."

With respect to vehicles including trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings exceeding 10,000 pounds manufactured before September 1, 1980, S4 of Safety Standard 101 permits manufacturers to comply with its requirements or with those of Safety Standard 101-80. S4.2.1 of Safety Standard 101 requires that a control which operates clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps be identified with the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviations "C1 Lps" as shown in Table I Column 2 of the standard. In addition, S4.2.1 provides that such a control may also be identified by one of the symbols for clearance lamps shown in Columns 3 and 4 of Table I. (See Table I, Footnote 3. S5.2.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 requires that such a control be labeled with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3 of Table I of the standard. However, this symbol may be accompanied by the word or abbreviation shown in Column 2 (i.e., Clearance Lamps or C1 Lps) and additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. (See Table I, Footnote 3.) The requirements of Safety Standard No. 101-80 will become mandatory and will supercede those of Safety Standard 101 for all vehicles to which it applies which are manufactured on or after September 1, 1980.

According to your product description, the control which you propose to label with the words "marker lamps" would operate some of the trailer lamps and the cab marker lamps which also serve as clearance lamps. Thus, the control would be considered to operate clearance lamps and marker lamps and would be subject to the provisions of Safety Standard 101, Table I, Footnote 3. Accordingly, on vehicles manufactured before to September 1, 1980, the control you propose either must be identified in one of the following methods:

1. with the words "CLEARANCE LAMPS" or the abbreviations "CL LPS", or

2. with the words or abbreviations shown in method number 1 above accompanied by the symbol shown in Column 3 of Table I or by the symbol shown in Column 4, Table I, of Safety Standard No. 101, or

3. with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3, Table I, of Safety Standard 101-80, or

4. with the symbol noted in method number 3 above accompanied by the words "clearance lamps" or the abbreviations "Cl Lps" as shown in Column 2 of Table I of Safety Standard 101-80, or

5. with the symbol and the words or abbreviations noted in method number 4 above accompanied by any additional clarifying words or symbols the manufacturer may choose.

If the control you have proposed is included in vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1980, it must be identified as indicated in method number 3 above and may be identified as indicated in method number 4 or 5 above. Use of method number 5 above would permit use of the words "marker lamps" in addition to the required symbol and the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviation "C1 Lps."

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1980

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S. W.

Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-101 Control Location Identifcation and Illumination

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

White Motor Corporation requests an interpretation of FMVSS 101 Table I relative to the identification of the controls for clearance lamps, marker lamps, identification lamps and combinations thereof. This request is limited to the application of these controls to heavy duty truck tractors such as those manufactured by White.

Product Description

"Cab Over Engine" (COE) vehicles have five lamps spaced across the top of the cab. The outboard lamps are the clearance lamps when viewed from the front of the vehicle and the side marker lamps when viewed from the side of the vehicle.

"Cab Behind Engine" (CBE) vehicles have five lamps spaced across the top of the cab. The outboard lamps usually are the clearance lamps when viewed from the front of the vehicle and may be considered intermediate side marker lamps (optional, not required by MVSS-108) when viewed from the side of the vehicle. There are also side marker lamps installed near the front of the hood or fenders.

Background

Tractor manufacturers, in addition to providing the required lights on the power units, also provide the circuitry for the trailer lights. Many operators use additional trailer lamps for conspicuity and in recent years double bulb lamps for reliability have become popular. Also, many operators use an interrupter switch allowing the driver to flash some of the trailer lights for signaling purposes. These switches are not covered by FMVSS-101 and are often labeled "trailer lights" or "trailer marker lights", the latter being the more popular nomenclature. In order to increase the reliability of the lighting switches and provide for interchangability between trailers owned by various companies some tractors are being manufactured with split lighting circuits and separate switches which are identified and illuminated as required by FMVSS-101. One switch operates the tractor head lamps and tail lamps as well as the trailer taillamps. This switch may also be wired to some of the trailer clearance, identification and marker lamps. Second and third switches may activate combinations of tractor/trailer clearance, identification or marker lamps.

Interpretation Request

MVSS-101 provides labeling nomenclature for "Clearance lamps" and "Identification lamps" but none for marker lamps. It also mentions that clearance lamps combined with identification and/or marker lamps should use the labeling nomenclature clearance lamps. Relative to the five cab mounted lights (see "Product Description" section above) White considers the term "marker lamps" appropriate for a control operating the cab marker lamps and some of the trailer lamps on the basis that it is consistant with the identification of the nonregulated interrupter control (see Background section) and readily recognizable and decipherable by the average truck driver. White requests an interpretation that such a control and labeling does fall within the ambit of FMVSS-101 and is in conformance.

Sincerely,

J. W. Lawrence Manager, Reliability & Government Standards

JWL/ek

ID: 1983-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Corporation -- William K. Sweeney, Assistant General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William K. Sweeney Assistant General Counsel Grumman Corporation 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding the application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection system under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.

You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.

Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service." As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the, intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 22, 1983 Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR Section 571.208

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Mr. Steven Wood of your department.

I represent Grumman Olson, a division of Grumman Allied Industries. Inc., and a manufacturer of aluminum truck bodies. As I indicated to Mr. Wood, Grumman Olson is now embarking on the manufacture and distribution of a new minivan completely built by it at its own facilities. This minivan is called the Kubvan (R), and is designed for delivery and utility service. A specification sheet on the Kubvan minivan is enclosed for your information.

Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive versions of the Kubvan, the latter for use by the United States Postal Service. A number of other potential customers, including Canada Post Corporation, have expressed interest in the right hand drive Kubvan, and that expression of interest necessitates my writing to you.

Specifically, a question has arisen concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR S 571.208. Paragraph S4.2.2 of the safety standard sets out the basic occupant crash protection required for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; namely, a lap and shoulder belt protection system. Certain classes of light trucks are excluded, such as "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service...". Vehicles of the latter type are permitted to carry a lap belt system only.

Grumman Olson is desirous of selling the right hand drive Kubvan to customers other than the United States Postal Service (USPS). As we interpret Paragraph S4.2.2, it basically equates light trucks with passenger cars, in terms of crash protection. USPS vehicles were specifically excluded (and permitted to be equipped with lap belts only) because of their unique operating environment (i.e., generally lower speeds, frequent stops, and the need for the driver to exit and enter the vehicle quickly, and/or reach out of the vehicle to service mail boxes).

Given this interpretation, Grumman Olson would be entitled to sell right hand drive Kubvans to any and all interested customers, provided that all such vehicles are equipped with a full lap and shoulder belt restraint system, except for those sold to the USPS. However, the wording of Paragraph S4.2.2 literally implies that if Grumman Olson were to sell right hand drive Kubvans to parties other than USPS, the vehicle might not technically qualify as one "designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service". This, in turn, might mean that Grumman Olson (a) would be required to equip all right hand drive Kubvans with lap and shoulder belt restraint systems (including those destined for the United States Postal Service, which would render the vehicle unsuitable for their use), and/or (b) would be required to retrofit any right hand drive Kubvans presently in USPS inventory with lap and shoulder belt systems (such vehicles not having a lap belt system only as permitted by the Paragraph). We feel this end result is inconsistent with the intent of Paragraph S4.2.2.

I have had telephone discussions with Mr. Wood and with Mr. Bob Gardner of NHTSA's engineering staff, relative to interpretation of the Paragraph in question. Both of these individuals felt that our analysis of the Paragraph was consistent with its intent and expressed no difficulty with (1) our selling right hand drive Kubvans (equipped with lap and shoulder belt system) to customers other than the USPS and (2) our continuing to sell right hand drive Kubvans to the USPS, with lap belt system only (and without the need to retrofit any vehicles presently in USPS inventory). I asked Mr. Wood about the possibility of a formal response from NHTSA approving our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2, and he suggested that I write to you to request such a response.

I would, therefore, appreciate your discussing this matter with Mr. Wood, and, if you agree, arranging for a letter from your office to me, concurring in our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2 and approving sales of right hand Kubvans as set out in the previous paragraph.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM K. SWEENEY Assistant General Counsel

WKS:mz

ID: 10419

Mr. Roger W. Cole
Vice President, Sales
Twin Tire U.S.A., Inc.
335 Phoenixville Pike
Malvern, PA 19355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter of October 18, 1994, received by facsimile transmission, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You asked whether passenger car tires that have the DOT symbol and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings molded on the sidewalls may legally be sold in the United States. The short answer is yes, provided that the tires in fact comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. '30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as Safety Act), directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment prior to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) that no person may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification to that effect issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C. '30115. The latter section provides in pertinent part that "Certification of equipment may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment . . . ." Thus, any new tire sold by Twin Tire must comply with all applicable FMVSS's, and be certified as doing so.

FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, specifies the minimum standards applicable to new passenger car tires. This standard specifies labeling and performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. If the tires in question fail to comply with

Standard No. 109, the manufacturer (or importer of noncomplying tires) must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

With regard to the situation you present, 49 U.S.C. 30112(b) provides two exceptions to the prohibition of 30112(a) against selling noncomplying equipment, such as tires. The first exception is that the prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that an item of equipment does not comply with applicable FMVSS's. The second exception is for a person who holds a certificate issued by the equipment manufacturer stating that the equipment complies with applicable FMVSS's, provided that the person does not know about the noncompliance. However, if Twin Tire were to sell the tires in question and those tires failed to comply with applicable FMVSS's, it is unlikely that Twin Tire could successfully argue that it qualifies for these exceptions, as a defense to an enforcement action for selling the noncomplying equipment.

You state in your letter that the tire manufacturer "breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premise of US regulations." If the breach concerned the ability of the tires to conform to the requirements of the applicable FMVSS's, Twin Tire would be on notice that there is a reasonable possibility that the tires in question, while labeled with a DOT mark certifying compliance, do not in fact comply. In a situation where a seller has reason to believe the equipment it is selling might not comply with applicable FMVSS's, the seller must ascertain if the certification is bona fide before selling the item.

The following discussion relates to the "DOT" and other markings that you describe on the tires. Paragraph S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 109 provides that:

Each tire shall be labeled with the symbol DOT in the manner specified in Part 574 of this chapter, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (emphasis added).

Similarly, the UTQGS, also applicable only to passenger car tires, found at 49 CFR 575.104 (copy enclosed), provides at 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A):

Except for a tire of a new tire line . . . , each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall . . . .

Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

To summarize, the answer to your question is the tires in question can be sold only if they comply with all applicable FMVSSs (including Standard No. 109's labeling and performance requirements) and are so labeled in the prescribed locations with the DOT symbol, the UTQGS grades, and the TIN.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:109#575.105 d: 12/7/94

ID: nht90-4.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild -- Esq., Shutler & Low

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from R.C. Fairchild to P.J. Rice (OCC 4968)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109, 110, 119, and 120 on tires and rim selection (49 CFR 571.109, 571.110, 571.119, and 571.120), asking about the applicability of certain provisions in the Tire and Rim Associa tion (TRA) Year Book, which those Federal safety standards incorporate by reference. As explained below, we agree that the adjustment factors in the TRA Year Book for inflation pressures and load ratings at different speeds are not applicable in determi ning compliance with Federal safety standards.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety st andards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not appro ve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Section S4.3 of Standard 109 requires a new pneumatic tire for passenger cars to be labeled with certain information including one size designation, the maximum inflation pressure, and the maximum load rating. S6.5 of Standard 119 has similar marking req uirements for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars. In particular, section 4.2.1(c) of Standard 109 and section 6.5(d) of Standard 119 require tires to be labeled with a maximum load rating not less than the lowest of any specified values in the manufacturer's submission or in a listed publication such as the TRA Yearbook, for tires of that size designation, type and each appropriate inflation pressure. For passenger car tires, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in tables in section one of the TRA Yearbook entitled, "'P' Type Tires Used on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons" and "'T' Type Spare Tires for Temporary use on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons." For tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, these inflation p ressures and load ratings are specified in the tables in section 2 of the TRA Yearbook.

Question One You first asked whether the Federal safety standards incorporate an independent vehicle speed adjustment factor in determining the "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load." Your question was based on provisions in the TRA Year Book which apply s uch a vehicle load adjustment factor for certain tires rated for a maximum speed above 130 mph. As you

are aware, S4.2 of Standard 110 provides that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating marked on the tire, and the vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in St andard 109's high speed performance test.

You are correct that an adjustment factor based on the vehicle's maximum speed capacity is not required to be used in determining compliance with Standard 110 and 120. As you noted, Standard 110's requirement, as specified in S4.2.2, takes into account an adjustment for high speed use by requiring that the normal vehicle load on a tire must not exceed the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test in S5.5 (i.e. 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating). Based on this provision an d Standard No. 110's use of the terms "vehicle maximum load" and "maximum loaded vehicle weight," we interpret S4.2 as applying to normal vehicle uses and not special high speed applications. In fact, incorporating a load adjustment factor based on spee ds of 130 to 168 mph, as the TRA provision does, would be contrary to motor vehicle safety if it encouraged vehicle operation at speeds far exceeding safe operating speeds. Therefore, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pres sures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

Question Two You also asked about a vehicle speed adjustment factor for the inflation pressure with passenger cars. As you explained, the TRA Year Book requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle (i .e., actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA)." TRA sets forth two speed categories: speeds up to 210 km/h (130 mph) and speeds above 210 km/h (130 mph).

As with the vehicle load adjustment factor which concerns normal vehicle applications, you are correct that an adjustment factor for inflation pressure based on the vehicle's maximum speed is not required to be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal sa fety standards.

Question Three You then asked about the applicability to the Federal standards of TRA's recommended adjustments for tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle. As with the adj ustment factors for passenger car tires, these adjustment factors are not relevant for compliance with Standard 119 or 120. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone withou t applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions,

please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2672y

Roger C. Fairchild, Esq.
Shutler & Low
14500 Avion Parkway, Suite 300
Chantilly, VA 22021-1101

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109, 110, 119, and 120 on tires and rim selection (49 CFR 571.109, 571.110, 571.119, and 571.120), asking about the applicability of certain provisions in the Tire and Rim Association (TRA) Year Book, which those Federal safety standards incorporate by reference. As explained below, we agree that the adjustment factors in the TRA Year Book for inflation pressures and load ratings at different speeds are not applicable in determining compliance with Federal safety standards.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Section S4.3 of Standard 109 requires a new pneumatic tire for passenger cars to be labeled with certain information including one size designation, the maximum inflation pressure, and the maximum load rating. S6.5 of Standard 119 has similar marking requirements for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars. In particular, section 4.2.1(c) of Standard 109 and section 6.5(d) of Standard 119 require tires to be labeled with a maximum load rating not less than the lowest of any specified values in the manufacturer's submission or in a listed publication such as the TRA Yearbook, for tires of that size designation, type and each appropriate inflation pressure. For passenger car tires, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in tables in section one of the TRA Yearbook entitled, "'P' Type Tires Used on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons" and "'T' Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons." For tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in the tables in section 2 of the TRA Yearbook. Question One You first asked whether the Federal safety standards incorporate an independent vehicle speed adjustment factor in determining the "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load." Your question was based on provisions in the TRA Year Book which apply such a vehicle load adjustment factor for certain tires rated for a maximum speed above 130 mph. As you are aware, S4.2 of Standard 110 provides that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating marked on the tire, and the vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test.

You are correct that an adjustment factor based on the vehicle's maximum speed capacity is not required to be used in determining compliance with Standard 110 and 120. As you noted, Standard 110's requirement, as specified in S4.2.2, takes into account an adjustment for high speed use by requiring that the normal vehicle load on a tire must not exceed the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test in S5.5 (i.e. 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating). Based on this provision and Standard No. 110's use of the terms "vehicle maximum load" and "maximum loaded vehicle weight," we interpret S4.2 as applying to normal vehicle uses and not special high speed applications. In fact, incorporating a load adjustment factor based on speeds of 130 to 168 mph, as the TRA provision does, would be contrary to motor vehicle safety if it encouraged vehicle operation at speeds far exceeding safe operating speeds. Therefore, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

Question Two You also asked about a vehicle speed adjustment factor for the inflation pressure with passenger cars. As you explained, the TRA Year Book requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle (i.e., actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA). TRA sets forth two speed categories: speeds up to 210 km/h (130 mph) and speeds above 210 km/h (130 mph).

As with the vehicle load adjustment factor which concerns normal vehicle applications, you are correct that an adjustment factor for inflation pressure based on the vehicle's maximum speed is not required to be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

Question Three You then asked about the applicability to the Federal standards of TRA's recommended adjustments for tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle. As with the adjustment factors for passenger car tires, these adjustment factors are not relevant for compliance with Standard 119 or 120. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l09#ll0#ll9#l20 d:9/26/90

ID: New Holland Tire

ID: EAtonfinal

Mr. Daniel I. Hanrahan
Quarles & Brady LLP
411 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Dear Mr. Hanrahan:

This responds to your e-mail and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff in which you ask about the certification responsibilities associated with a vehicle fitted with new technology for test purposes. As we understand it, your client has been developing a hydraulic launch assist system (HLA) and has been working with vehicle manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate its benefits. Your client has retrofitted three Ford F350 trucks with the HLA. Your client owns one of the trucks. Ford owns the other two. You intend to display these vehicles at an exhibit in Alaska hosted by the Department of Defense. The trucks will operate only on test track/open lot settings. They will not be driven on the public roads. You also ask about a Peterbilt Refuse Hauler that your client has fitted with the HLA system. Peterbilt owns the vehicle, but will drive it on the public roads from Michigan to Texas.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that manufacturers certify their vehicles as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. § 30012 provides that:

A person may not manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.

A motor vehicle may be subject to this certification requirement prior to a first retail sale since a vehicle is considered to be introduced into interstate commerce if it is introduced into a means of interstate traffic – i.e., used on public roads.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations also specify, for vehicles that are built in multiple stages or which have been altered, the certification responsibilities of the various manufacturers that have built the vehicle. Alterers perform modifications on completed vehicles prior to an initial retail sale and carry certain certification responsibilities. Modifiers make changes to vehicles after their first retail sale. Section 30122 prohibits modifications that would impede the safe operation of a previously certified vehicle:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance and repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

We understand that your client has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate advanced new technology. Your client will equip Ford F350 trucks with the HLA system and demonstrate the vehicles on test tracks. Ford has retained ownership of these vehicles and has consigned them to the EPA for purposes of this test program. The vehicles will not be driven on the public roads. These apparently are ordinary production vehicles manufactured to comply and certified as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

Initially, it is not clear whether adding the HLA system to these trucks would affect their compliance with the FMVSS. Regardless, however, based on the facts as presented to us, there are no current plans to enter the vehicles into interstate commerce, and thus they are not required to comply with all applicable FMVSS. If the vehicles are subsequently sold to persons who would operate them on the public roads, they will need to comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of their first retail sale and be so certified. Because Ford has retained ownership over these vehicles and would, presumably, be the seller, your client would not be responsible for the certification.

We understand that the Peterbilt Refuse Hauler is to be driven on the public roads from Michigan to Texas, and therefore that it will enter interstate commerce. Accordingly, the vehicle must comply with all applicable FMVSS when fitted with the HLA system. Based on the facts as presented to us, it appears that your client would be considered an “alterer” under NHTSA’s regulations and should certify that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS as altered.

We commend your client for its efforts in working with the EPA to develop and demonstrate advanced vehicle technologies. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at 202 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:567

d.11/12/04