ID: nht93-5.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: Joel Trim -- Manager - Mechanical Service Dept., Neal and Massy Motors

TO: The Secretary -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Joel Trim (A41; Part 567)

TEXT:

Within recent times various owners of motorcars who have had their vehicle bodies modified (extended) in the main for Limousine Service have solicited my assistance in inspecting the modifications before inspection for licensing by our Road Transport Authorities. However, our country does not have any laws or regulations pertaining to the inspection and certification of these vehicles, nor for vehicles falling under the categories: Kit Cars or Homemade Vehicles.

As a result of this the owner of such vehicles are unable to obtain a license from the Transport Department to operate them legally on the roads. There are however a number of private modified (extended) vehicles on our roads.

I have discussed this matter with several persons some of whom are directly related to the Transport Department and it is in the general view that if proof is shown where these vehicles are modified, assembled, built and inspected according to certain National or International Standards, the Licensing Department of the Ministry of Transport may be willing to license these vehicles.

Could you be so kind to assist in obtaining copies of any existing regulations/standards which govern the certification and operation of such vehicles on highways.

Thanks very much for your assistance. I look forward in anticipation to your favorable response.

ID: nht73-1.37

DATE: 11/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking whether Standard No. 108 permits four identification lamps.

It does not. The purpose of the three-lamp system is that vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width be clearly identified as large vehicles, and only the three-lamp system specified by the standard is permissible. Standard No. 108, however, allows some latitude in mounting. The system need not be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle if the manufacturer determines that is impracticable. Since you appear to have made such a determination, the front identification lamp system should be placed "as close as practicable to the vertical centerline" with height and spacing requirements in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Larry Schnieder

Dear Sir:

In regards to trucks of 80 or more inches, are the three (3) lamps for front identification a minimum requirement?

The front loader equipment requires a bumper guard across the center of the windshield over the cab which would obscure the center lamp. Would four (4) identification lamps be permissible, i.e., 2 on each side of the center?

I would appreciate any advice or reference to a standard.

Thanking you in advance.

Very truly yours,

Crane Carrier Company --

Darrell Gambill,

Standards Engineer

ID: 77-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

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

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1977, letter asking whether your certification labels comply with Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As stated to you in an earlier letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The agency has determined that the two labels that you submitted do not follow the format established in the regulations and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements. If "R" denotes radial ply and "F" denotes load range, the tire designation should be 10.00 R 20 (F).

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

July 20, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

SUBJECT: NOA-30 (RST)

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of July 19, concerning Mr. Levin's letter of July 13, 1977.

We are enclosing two new samples certification labels which have been modified from the original as submitted May 25, 1977. It is our understanding that the changes in the wording for the tire and rim size, and the deletion of the wording "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" will give apparent compliance with the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120.

Jerry McNeil Director of Engineering

ENCLS.

ID: nht75-1.14

DATE: 08/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Business

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether S5.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, requires that the brake fluid level warning system specified by S5.3.1 be instantaneous when the brake fluid level reaches the condition described in S5.3.1(b).

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes that a minimal interval between the occurrence of the specified condition and the appearance of the required signal is a physical fact. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of a similar requirement of Standard No. 105-75 for your information. In the case of the brake fluid level indicator, a time interval that is insignificant with respect to the time required to respond to the signal would be permissible.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ATTACH.

June 18, 1975

Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Specification S5.3 of Regulation FMVSS 105-75 includes a requirement of brake system indicator lamps but does not, as I read it, mention the time permitted for such devices to signal after the brake fluid has reached the "danger" level.

Must it be instaneous? If not, what time intervals at various temperatures do you consider adequate?

As a United States citizen I respectfully request your advice on this point at your early convenience.

Very truly yours,

W. J. JOYCE -- CONSULTANT, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

ID: nht95-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We a re not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht95-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht70-1.50

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Florence L. Dawson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of March 2, 1970, to Mr. Douglas Toms concerning the failure of the electrical system in your 1968 Volkswagen has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards include no specific requirement for electrical systems. However, there are minimum performance requirements for certain vehicle components--such as a brake system warning light and various lighting components--which necessarily rely upon a properly functioning electrical system for compliance with the applicable Standards.

I have enclosed for your information a booklet describing briefly the Federal Standards which are presently in force. A copy of the complete Standards publication and all supplements may be purchased at an annual price of $ 8.00 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20102.

This Bureau does not become involved in individual contractual relationships, such as exists between you and(Illegible Word) Motors or Volkwagon of America, Incorporated. Accordingly, we cannot assist you in obtaining further repairs for your vehicle. We are, however, interested in your experience from the point of view that what you have encountered might occur in other 1965 Volkwagon vehicles. Presently, we have no knowledge of other related failure, but we have made note of your complaint and we will remain alert for any similar reports.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does not create a right of action by which a vehicle owner way sue a vehicle manufacturer if a safety-related defect is discovered in a vehicle. I suggest you contact an attorney as to possible recourse under Pennsylvania law.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review your experience.

ID: nht70-1.7

DATE: 03/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Industrija Gouijevih

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of January 8, 1970, the Department of Transportation hereby assign number 212 to Sava, Industrija Gouijevih,(Illegible Words) Jugoslavija as its approved code mark. The approved code mark is for use in identifying the tire manufacturer in accordance with S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1421(1)).

You are correct that all passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968 must have permanently molded into or onto them the approved "DOT" recital. However, the application of the recital is not to import purposes only. The application of the(Illegible Words) by a tire manufacturer is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all of the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Standard 109 specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements for bend unseating resistance, strength, endurance and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labeling requirements. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

The National Highway Safety Bureau does not certify tires prior to the manufacturer's application of the "DOT" symbol. However, we do maintain a compliance test program by which certification of manufacturers are verified. Violations of this certification are subject to a fine of $ 1,000.00 per tire.

Your attention is directed to the requirements for designation of an agent in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Subsection (110(a)). This requirement is implemented by our General Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process: Agents. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements for your information.

ID: nht72-2.26

DATE: 01/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 22, 1971 to Lawrence R. Schueider you ask for a clarification of the relationship between 49 CFR Part 566 "Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR @ 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically you ask whether identifying information is required for miniature bulbs.

Standard No. 108 establishes performance requirements for items of motor vehicle lighting equipment, and incorporates by reference certain SAE standards that specify requirements lamps must meet in laboratory tests when assembled. The SAE standard that applies to bulbs: J573d, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, is not incorporated by reference, and Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the output of bulbs furnished with a lamp assembly. When a lamp is tested for conformity, the production bulb is removed and a calibrated bulb substituted, in accordance with Paragraph 0 of SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components; the test bulb is to be "representative of Standard bulbs in regular production" and must be "selected for accuracy in accordance with specifications listed in . . . SAE J573." In summary, Standard No. 108 does not specify performance requirements for lamp bulbs, and production bulbs are not used in lamp testing. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not apply to bulbs and bulb manufactures are not required to certify conformance to Federal standards, or to submit information pursuant to the Manufacturer Identification regulations.

ID: 17799-2.pja

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
1350 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter requesting a meeting on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek on my staff, you stated that your intention was to get an interpretation of the underride standards, and that a meeting was not necessary. Specifically, you would like an explanation of the definition of the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the underride guard for purposes of determining whether a trailer meets the definition of an excluded special purpose vehicle. The issues you raise are addressed below.

A brief review of the rule and the salient points of your letter is appropriate to set the background for our reply. As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). You state that trailer manufacturers and end users, such as fleet managers, have interpreted our regulations as requiring underride guards on trailers and semitrailers equipped with equipment such as liftgates that is incompatible with the underride guards. End-users have reported to NTEA members a concern that underride guards could create work-related safety hazards in the form of "pinch points" between the guard and the equipment.

Concerns about certain incompatible equipment led NHTSA to exclude "special purpose vehicles" from the requirements of the standard. The main problem you cite with the exclusion of special purpose vehicles is confusion regarding the definition of these vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ You observe that "the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard," (the "guard zone") determines the area within which the work-performing equipment would have to be located to be considered a special purpose vehicle. The remainder of your letter attempts to derive the boundaries of the guard zone. You conclude that the guard zone may be as high as the bottom of the vehicle body, as low as the ground, as wide laterally as the vehicle, and as deep, longitudinally (your letter refers to this dimension as width), as 12 inches forward from the rear extremity, plus the longitudinal width of the guard itself. You further conclude that if any work-performing equipment is mounted in the guard zone, the vehicle is excluded regardless of when and how the equipment is used.

Your understanding is generally correct regarding the boundaries of the guard zone. S5.1.2 of Standard No. 224 requires that the bottom edge of the guard be "no more than" 255 mm from the ground. The preamble to the January 1996 final rule explicitly stated that NHTSA was not setting a minimum guard height: "guards may be mounted with less than the maximum allowable ground clearance" (61 FR 2018. See also 63 FR 3657-58, denying a petition for reconsideration to set a lower limit on guard height). Therefore, the bottom of the horizontal member could theoretically be as low as the ground, although as a practical matter, such a guard would strike the ground every time the trailer hit a bump. S5.1 of Standard No. 223 requires the horizontal member of the guard to have a vertical height of "at least" 100 mm, or 4 inches. The agency in the final rule also explicitly stated "that 100 mm (4 in) is only a minimum height" (61 FR 2012). Since there is no maximum height, the top of the horizontal member could extend upward to the trailer bed. S5.1.1 of Standard No. 224 specifies a maximum lateral extension of the horizontal member as the side extremities of the vehicle. So the side extremities, as they are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224, constitute the outermost boundaries of the guard zone.

As you suggested in your letter, we interpret the rearward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, and the forward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of that plane. You are correct in saying that the horizontal member of the guard must have some longitudinal thickness in order to meet the strength requirements of the standard, and that this thickness might in some installed guard designs project forward of the plane 305 mm forward of the rear extremity if the rear face of the guard is positioned tangent to that plane. You conclude that the forwardmost edge of the guard zone is equal to the 12 inches forward of the rear extremity, plus some undefined guard thickness. However, NHTSA intended to have the forward boundary of the guard zone at the plane 305 mm forward from the rear extremity, "as defined by" the configuration requirements, rather than at some undefined point in front of that. Although the regulation could be clearer, that is the most reasonable interpretation. The guard zone, as explained in this letter, should result in most tuckunder liftgate designs being excluded. The flexibility to locate a guard up to a foot forward of the rear extremity can also be used to avoid creating the pinch zones that some trailer operators are concerned about.

Your understanding is incorrect regarding when the work-performing equipment has to be in the guard zone and how the equipment is used. When you quoted the definition of special purpose vehicle, you omitted the qualifying words "while in transit," and concluded that work-performing equipment in the guard zone makes a vehicle excluded "regardless of when and how that equipment is used." NHTSA has made it clear in a number of its past interpretations that the work-performing equipment has to reside in or pass through the guard zone (though not necessarily perform its function) while the vehicle is in transit. See, e.g., May 22, 1998 interpretation to Ms. Jeanne Isbill of Tarasport Trailers. Moreover, not all equipment is considered work-performing equipment. These same interpretations make clear that NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Liftgates of all kinds are considered work-performing equipment.

The agency wants to be flexible about guard positioning, consistent with safety. NHTSA specified limited parameters of the configuration of the guard, because every additional requirement ultimately restricts the design capabilities of manufacturers. This flexibility was provided in order to help manufacturers that are actually installing guards. We have seen manufacturers use this flexibility to engineer innovative guard designs to adjust for their special requirements. Some manufacturers have even gone beyond what is required. For example, some manufacturers of trailers that are excluded due to tuckunder liftgates have begun to voluntarily integrate structural members into their liftgates which they test and certify as underride guards.

NHTSA has received a petition for rulemaking from Thieman Tailgates, Inc., to amend the standard to address issues similar to those raised in your letter. The petition asks the agency to change the definition of special purpose vehicle to clarify the boundaries of the guard zone. It also asks NHTSA to exclude vehicles with rear mounted liftgates that reside in or pass through the guard zone, without regard to whether the vehicle is in transit. The issues you raised in your letter, as well as any subsequent comments you make on such a rulemaking, would be considered in any rulemaking that we might undertake in response to the petition.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.9/9/98
ref:223#224

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).