ID: nht87-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John K. Liu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John K. Liu President, John K. Liu Enterprises, Inc. Box 544 Valley Forge, PA 19481

Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter concerning planned modifications to a used Class 8 truck/tractor. I regret the delay in this response. The answers to your questions are provided below.

It should be noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufactu rer to ensure that it complies with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

1. If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49:

By way of background information, new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. One such standard is Safety St andard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles satisfy the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Also, if a vehicle is modified prior to first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

A person who modifies a used vehicle is not required to attach a certification label. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly renderi ng inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its G VWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 121. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of July 20, 1977, to the Truck Body and Equipment Association in which the agency discu sses in more detail how section 108(a)(2)(A) applies to the installation of additional axles in a used vehicle.

2. Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings:

Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification label to their vehicles. The label is required to specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ra ting for each axle. See S 567.4(g). In addition, Safety Standard Ho. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that specifications concerning tire and rim selection be placed on either the certification label or a separate tire information label. See S S5.3.2.

As indicated above, persons who alter certified vehicles prior to first sale are required to certify that their vehicles, as altered, conform to all applicable safety standards. Such alterers are required by Part 567 to leave the original certification l abel on the vehicle and add an additional label. See S 567.7. If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values mus t be specified. See 567.7(b).

Persons who modify used vehicles are not required to attach a certification label. However, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Sa fety Standard No. 120. We encourage you to supplement the original certification label and/or tire information label by an additional label to reflect changes in gross vehicle weight rating, axle ratings, and tire and rim specifications, to avoid confusi on on the part of vehicle users.

3. Do we have to adopt a new VIN (vehicle identification number)?

The answer to this question is no. Safety Standard No. 115 requires that manufacturers of new motor vehicles provide vehicle identification numbers. The vehicle identification number is not affected by the subsequent modification of the vehicle.

4. Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle:

NHTSA does not have any regulations requiring sellers of used vehicles to inform buyers about axle modifications.

Our answers to your questions cover the Federal regulations and laws administered by NHTSA. I have also enclosed a general information sheet which provides additional information concerning our regulations.

You should be aware that by adding an axle you are considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act and subject to its provisions concerning safety-related defects. Under the Act, manufacturers must notify purchasers of safety-related defects and r emedy such defects without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed your plans and noted that in some instances the addition of an axle to a vehicle could constitute a safety-related defect, by making the vehicle unsafe for anticipated usage. You should ca refully analyze this issue for the vehicle in question. Among other things, you should consider whether, as modified, the overall vehicle structure, including the truck's frame, will be able to adequately accommodate the load distribution resulting from the additional axle and/or the higher GVWR, throughout the truck's anticipated length of service.

You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Standards concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your planned modifications. Also, with respect to Question 4, you may wish to contact the Federal Tra de Commission concerning whether it has any applicable regulations. Finally, a local attorney can advise you concerning the state law implications of your plans.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dec. 10,1986 NHTSA Rm 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Att: Ms Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

Dear Ms Jones,

Please render an opinion in the following matter:

1) If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49?

2) Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings?

3) Do we have to adopt a new VIN(Vehicle identification number )?

4) Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle?

You may call us if you wish, since we would like your response as soon as feasible.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance. I remain

Sincerely yours,

John K. Liu. President JKL/sh

ID: nht87-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: William L. Millard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William L. Millard, Esq. Law Offices of Shirley F. Majors 2656 South Arlington Road Akron, Ohio 44319

Dear Mr. Millard:

This responds to your letter concerning the "emergency shutdown switch" which would allow a passenger to shut of the ignition on a vehicle. You indicate in your letter that your client, Anthony M. Mazzagatti, would like to sell this idea to the Departmen t of Transportation. Your letter has been forwarded for a response to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency within the Department of Transportation. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

This agency did not purchase or require the use of particular patented devices. By way of background information, the NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 51391, et seq.) to issue safe ty standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These are performance standards which leave the choice about means of compliance to the manufacturer.

Since your client may wise to sell his device directly to manufacturers or to consumers, let me describe some Vehicle Safety Act provisions he should bear in mind. The NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipmen t for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Instead, under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable F MVSS. A copy of the Safety Act is enclosed for your information.

This "self-certification" process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its product meets all applicable FMVSS requirements. This agency periodically tests items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the standa rds, and also investigates alleged safety related defects. If your client or the agency determines that a safety related defect or noncompliance exists, your client would be obligated to notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem without cha rge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is e nclosed.)

If your client's product is installed in a previously certified new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then the person performing this alteration would be considered a vehicle alterer under the certification regulation, 49 Code of Federal Reg ulations (C.F.R.) 567, Certification. Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable safety standards. The safety requirements that may apply to the installation of your client's device as described in your letter are Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems, and Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. I have enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of o ur regulations.

In addition, your client should be informed that the installation of this device in a used vehicle could be affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. This section provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal mot or vehicle safety standard....

Thus, a commercial business installing your client's product in a used vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of the safety standards.

Finally, please note that section 108(c) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that compliance with these regulations does not preclude him from liability under common law for any accidents or injuries caused by the use of this device.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. DC 20590

Re: Safety Switch

To Whom It May Concern:

I represent Mr. Anthony M. Mazzagatti in his attempt to sell a low-cost safety device that can save many lives. This device can be called an Emergency Shutdown Switch (ESD Switch). This would take the form of a button located in the center of an automobi le dashboard; it would be wired to the ignition system so that, if pushed, it would shutdown the primary ignition circuit. The only way to reset the ignition would be to stop the car, put the shift lever in park, and turn the key off.

This would save lives in several situations.

1) If a passenger finds herself in the company of a driver who is inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, she can push the ESD Switch. The car would roll to a safe stop and the passenger would have time to exit the vehicle. The driver would have time to r ethink his driving and, perhaps, travel no further.

2) In a panic situation, such as a stuck accelerator pedal, either the driver or the passenger would have the ability to stop the car without turning off the ignition and locking the steering column. If the ESD Switch was mounted in the middle of a minia ture stop sign plaque attached to the dash, it would be more likely to be used by panic stricken drivers than the ignition switch.

The ESD Switch. for the first time, gives the automobile passenger a voice in the safe driving of a vehicle. Its cost would be but a few dollars. The payback would be immense, not only in lives and money saved, but also in peace of mind.

My client would like to sell this idea to you. Please contact me to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,

William L. Millard. Attorney at Law

ID: nht87-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL W KINTNER, FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 05/10/67, TO HAROLD T. HALFPANNY, FROM LOWELL K BRIDWELL; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86 TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dannemeyer:

Thank your for your letter to Mr. Babbitt, our Director of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ed Money. Mr. Money recently imported a shipment of "spinner hubcaps" from Taiwan. These hubcaps were seized by the U.S. Customs Servic e for failing to conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hubcaps (49 CFR $ 571.211). You stated that it was your understanding that Standard No. 211 applies only to vehicle manufacture rs and not to aftermarket parts dealers, and that the Customs Service had erroneously applied Standard No. 211 to the products you constituent intended to import. Accordingly, you asked that we review the requirements of Standard No. 211 and state wheth er those requirements apply to "anyone other than a manufacturer of automobiles".

After carefully reviewing the language of Standard No. 211 and every prior interpretation of the standard, we have concluded that the Customs Service correctly applied Standard No. 211 to Mr. Money's hubcaps. Section S2 of Standard No. 211 specifies tha t, "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment." (Emphasis added) This language means that the standard applies to all wheel nuts, wheel discs and hubcaps for u se on passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether the part is to be used as original equipment or as a replacement part. This meaning has long been affirmed in this agency's letters of interpretation. We explained the appli cation of Standard No. 211 in letters of May 8, 1967, to Mr. Earl Kinter, and May 10, 1967, to Mr. Harold Halfpenny. I have enclosed copies of both these previous interpretations for your information. These letters are still accurate expressions of th e agency's opinion on this question.

Standard No. 211, which was one of the original Federal motor vehicle safety standards, became effective on January 1, 1968. As of that date, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] made it ill egal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any "spinner hubcaps" (Emphasis added). Therefore, we believe the U.S. Customs Service was

2 enforcing the law properly when it seized the hubcaps Mr. Money sought to import.

You enclosed with your letter advertisements from several other aftermarket parts suppliers offering spinner hubcaps for sale. Our enforcement personnel will investigate each of those suppliers and take appropriate actions if their hubcaps violate Stand ard No. 211.

I hope this information clarifies the law on this subject. If you have any further questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John B. Krueger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. Krueger Staff Engineer Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 3001 West Big Beaver, Suite 602 Troy, MI 48084

Dear Mr. Krueger:

This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1987, asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to define the term "optically combined" as used in paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Presently, the SAE is circulating for comment its own proposed definition of the term, to be incorporated into SAE J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting.

For many years paragraph S4.4 (your referenced S4.4.1 which was renumbered recently) has contained a prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a taillamp or an identification lamp. NHTSA has provided written interpretations to those w ho have asked whether specific designs are "optically combined" within the meaning of paragraph S4.4, but the agency has not added a definition to paragraph S3, the definition section of the standard. If a definition is to be provided, it must be incorpo rated into the standard, and the agency is unable to do that without first formally proposing the definition and offering the public an opportunity to comment upon it. I can say, however, that the SAE's proposed definition is not inconsistent with the in terpretations of the agency.

These interpretations are available in the NHTSA docket room (Room 5109, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.) for your reference should you or other SAE staff or committee members wish to examine them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 10, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 205590

Attn: Ms . Erika Z. Jones. Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS 108 in paragraph 54.4. 1 includes the following statement ". . .no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp". SAE standard J592, which is referenced by FMVSS 108, also contains this same prohibition against optically combining a clearance lamp with a tail lamp or an identification lamp.

There is a need to define the term "combined optically", and we respectfully request this definition from your office.

While this term has been a part of SAE documents for many years, unfortunately, there has never been a definition, and this is now needed to prevent abuses in the combining of these various lamp functions.

Canada has been concerned about the definition of this term for quite some time and has requested the assistance of the SAE Lighting Committee. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. J. G. White of Transport Canada on this subject and this includes the definition which Canada proposed in the July 12, 1986 issue of the CANADA GAZETTE on page 3244.

The SAE Lighting Committee is currently circulating the attached proposed definition for this term, and you will note that it is almost identical to the Canadian proposal.

A clear definition from the NHTSA would be appreciated by the SAE as well as the lighting industry.

Sincerely,

John B. Krueger Staff Engineer

Enclosure JBK. co

PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR ADDITION TO SAE J387 TERMINOLOGY - MOTOR VEHICLE LIGHTING

OPTICALLY COMBINED

A lamp shall be deemed to be "optically combined" if both of the following conditions exist:

A. It has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two filament bulb).

B. Its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.

LABORATORY GUIDELINE - If two separate light sources each contribute some luminous flux to the function being tested, then both sources must be operating during a photometric test procedure.

Rationale: O In FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.4.1 , it is stated that ". .. .no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp...." Similar wording occurs in subsection 14 of CMVSS 108.

For lack of this definition, lamps are being manufactured and installed on trailers that combine the tail and clearance lamp functions under one lens, with two closely-spaced bulbs. This clearly violates the spirit and intent of these safety standards.

O This definition harmonizes well with ECE Regulation 48, page 2, paragraph 2.6.5, " Reciprocally Incorporated Lamps."

O The following icons of the lighting fraternity have participated in the preparation of this definition: Paul Scully, Jim Wright, Warren Heath and Gordon Bonvallet.

SS3330-7-5 (DTSR/S)

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A ON5, October 28, 1986.

Mr. Paul Scully, Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company, 4200 East 135th Street, Grandview, MO 64030, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Scully:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter

of August 5 to Bob Vile concerning the definition of "optically combined".

I think your proposal would do nicely. A definition much the same as the one you suggest in your letter has been included in the Canadian daytime running lights proposal, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

I hope that "optically combined" can be included soon among the terms defined in SAE standards, and that producers of lamps with wrongly-combined functions will take note and correct their bad practices.

Yours very truly,

J.G. White, P. Eng., Head, Crash Avoidance Standards, Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate.

Encl. cc: R. Vile - N.A. Philips G. Wright - Fisher Guide A. Burgett - NHTSA

(SEE ATTACHMENT)

ID: nht87-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/87

FROM: JACK DE NIJS -- DERONDE CASINGS LTD

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DONALD N. STAHL RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119, PART 574; UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T. FORTH AND DONALD N. STAHL TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 03/01/88 FROM DAVE TAYLOR TO JOHN T. FORTH, EXHIBIT 1; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK DENIJS EXHIBIT 2; DRAWING OF TIRE DATED 01/14/88, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS TIRE INFORMATION, EXHIBIT 3

TEXT: GENTLEMEN,

WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS FROM A COMPANY IN SWITZERLAND. THE NAME OF THAT COMPANY IS; TYRES RECYCLING SYSTEM S.A. C.H. 6535 GRONO. THESE TRUCK CASINGS HAVE BEEN REBUILT FROM BEAD TO BEAD SO IT DOES NOT SHOW A DOT NUMBER.

THE ONLY THING IT SHOWS IS THE SIZE OF THE TIRE, THE NUMBER OF PLY'S AND THAT COMPANIES CODE NUMBER.

WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW?

CAN WE IMPORT THESE CASINGS INTO THE U.S.A. FOR RETREADING OURSELVES AND FOR RESALE TO OTHER RETREADERS FOR RETREADING?

A PROMPT RESPONSE WOULD BE APPRECIATED

YOURS TRULY,

ID: nht87-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: P. Soardo -- Istituto Elettrotecnio Nazionale, Galileo Ferraris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Prof. P. Soardo Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale Galileo Ferraris 10155 Torino Italy

This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 1987, to the agency with reference to the "homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined - capable of performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function of the front fog lamp." You have told us that the device Is intended principally for the aftermarket and will use a two-filament H4 bulb, the main filament providing the "driving beam, " and the secondary filament performing "the ' fog' function." When it is mounted on the vehicle it will "meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams. "

As you may know, there are two types of laws in the United States that pertain to motor vehicle lighting equipment, the laws of the United States government. "Federal" law) , and those of the 50 individual States ("Local" law). One of these laws is Feder al Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for original equipment, and, as a general rule, only aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace original equipme nt. There are no original equipment requirements in Standard No . 108 for a combination driving-fog lamp such as you discuss, and hence there are no Federal aftermarket requirements for it either. provided that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of required front lamps, Standard No. 108 allows a vehicle manufacturer to install the driving-fog lamp as original equipment. Because Standard No. 108 does not allow use of the H4 bulb in headlamps for four-wheeled vehicles it could not serve as a head lamp. There are no Federal restrictions preventing the sale of this device in the aftermarket as a supplementary lamp.

However, the lamp would be subject to Local law, and some of the States of one State does not signify approval by another, so there would not be "homologation" permitting sale in all States based upon approval by only one State. Even if a Local law does not require approval of a driving-fog lamp, it may forbid its use . We are unable to advise you on Local laws but you may wish to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle administrators for an opinion. The address of this organization is 1201 Conn ecticut Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Strada delle Cacce, 91 10135 Torino - Italy

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 (USA)

Dear Sirs,

a manufacturer or lighting equipment has asked us whether it is possible to obtain homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined -capable or performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function or the fron t fog lamp.

The device, which is intended mainly for the aftermarket. uses a two-filament bulb, type H4.

The main filament is used to obtain the driving beam. the secondary filament is used to obtain the "fog" function.

The special design characteristics or this light unit allow the headlamp -when mounted on the vehicle - to meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams.

We look forward to hearing your comments to the above at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, we remain.

Yours sincerely. (P. Soardo)

ID: nht87-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; EriKa Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas L. Long

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Thomas L. Long Vice-President R & D Think, Inc. P.O. Box 414 Smyrna, TN; 37167

Dear Mr. Long:

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed "on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light." You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that light outlet (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear

window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 103 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches, and while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchase: with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements.

Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached, nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice on State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

ID: nht87-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David V. Brewer -- Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer and Schons

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer

TEXT:

David V. Brewer Esq Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Brewer & Schons Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 10332 Eugene, OR 97440

This responds to your September 26, 1986, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No, 106, Brake Hoses to your client's coupling device. You asked us to reconfirm the statements made in a March 24, 1980 interpretation issued by former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt to Mr. Ronald Irvine that the one-piece unit coupling device in question, used to simultaneously interconnect two air lines and the electrical lines between a tractor and trailer, is not subject to Standard No . 106. We confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation has not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of the standard.

The 1980 letter to Mr. Irvine explained that we assumed from the drawings The enclosed that completed brake hose assemblies with their own end fittings attach to the coupling device. Under that assumption, NHTSA concluded that the coupling device would n ot be considered a "brake hose assembly" or a "brake hose end fitting" because the coupling device in question was not included in the standard's definitions of those terms. As a result, certification by the manufacturer to Standard No, 106 was inappropr iate.

We have not modified our interpretation of Standard No. 106 as it applies to the coupling device described by Mr. Irvine in his 1980 inquiry. If the "Ideal Coupling" not owned by your client is the sane device, it is not subject to the requirements of St andard No. 106. Of course, as discussed by the agency in its 1980 letter, your client is nevertheless responsible for any safety related defects in the coupling device under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, since it is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 26, 1986

CERTIFIED MAlL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Ideal Coupling -- Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On March 24, 1980, Ronald Irvine of our office received a letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (reference #NOA-30), in regard to a one piece coupling unit device for the connection of electrical and air brake lines on tractor-trailers. A true copy of Mr. Berndt's letter dated March 24 is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein.

Mr. Berndt's letter was based upon a request by our client Ideal Welding and Machine Company. The coupler product is now the property of our client Nipac, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon. The undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein, which are simply an updating of the request for rulings made in 1980, be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicabilit y of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standards dealing with air brake systems.

Nipac, Ltd., which commenced business in 1980, is currently engaged in the business of marketing products for industrial use. The company owns the rights to the coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air brake hoses of a truck and trailer w hich provide a simplified one piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air brake lines. Clarion Shoji Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, has already manufactured several thousand units of this device, on the strength of the March, 1980 ruling from your office.

Because the device involves the connection of air brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labeling and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the further sale of the d evice in the United States. Since your certification has not been updated in six years, the purpose of this letter is simply to update that certification.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling (now owned by Nipac, Ltd.) does not constitute an air brake hose, end fitting or assembly that requires labeling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some sort of certification, labeling or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form, of label, certification, or testing is required;

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e., the manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ, BREWER & SCHONS

DAVID V. BREWER Ideal Coupling - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

NIPAC, LTD.

By JACK DEAN, President

By LLOYD WETZIG

DB/lav Enclosures: U.S. Patent #4,183,599 issued January 15, 1980 Letter; Reference #NOA-30 cc: Jack Dean

(See 2/24/80 letter from F. Berndt to Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz and Brewer)

ID: nht87-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Miller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, AZ 85036 Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your April 14, 1987 letter to us asking about Federal requirements applicable to the sale of new school buses. You enclosed a copy of a bid from a school bus dealer offering to sell a 48-passenger activity bus to a school district. The b id describes options for changing the school bus paint and deleting "school options." You ask whether a bid with "an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options" accords with our school bus regulations.

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the "school options" which the bid makes nonobligatory. It is unclear from the bid whether the reference is to the school bus performance requirements mandated by our federal motor vehicle safety stand ards, or to the way the school bus is painted and marked. If the "school options" are the features required by Federal school bus safety standards, the answer to your question is no--i.e., the dealer may not sell a new school bus that fails to comply wit h those standards. On the other hand, Federal law does not prohibit school districts from changing the color or markings of their school buses. Instead, requirements for the identification of school buses are set by each State.

Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety stand ards for school buses. Those standards set performance requirements that all new school buses must meet, including standards for passenger crash protection, emergency exits, rollover protection and fuel systems. The Safety Act requires manufacturers of s chool buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. The Act also requires school bus dealers to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. These requirements, set by federal law, apply to each school bus manufacturer and seller. A school bus dealer cannot elect whether to comply with those requirements and choose to sell a new activity bus that does not comply with our school bus safety standards.

Our second set of school bus "regulations," issued under the Highway Safety Act, include recommendations for identifying school buses. These recommendations are set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclos ed). While the "standard" recommends that activity buses should be painted yellow and marked "School Bus," the decision to adopt its recommendations is made by each State. Therefore, questions you might have about activity bus identification should be ad dressed to your State officials.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington,DC 20590 Attn: Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of a bid from an Arizona school Bus dealer offering a new bus for sale to a school district, with an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options.

In the past we have declined such invitations believing that such a sale would be in violation of federal law pertaining to the sale of school buses.

I would very much appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely ,

Paul Miller Sales Manager PM/md

Parker Unified District No. 27 P.O. Box 1089 Parker, Arizona 85344 Attn: Mr. Art Fox

April 10, 1987 Quotation No. B-748 Subject: Activity Bus

One Blue Bird All American Rear Engine 48 Passenger Activity Bus including all standard equipment and the following options:

Caterpillar 3208 Turbocharged 225 H.P. Diesel Engine with 5 Year/150,000 Mile Extended Warranty.

Allison MT643 4-speed Automatic Transmission with 3 Year/Unlimited Mileage Warranty.

Stemco front wheel seals

Rockwell 6" front and 8" rear brakes

Engine hour meter

Transmission temperature gauge

120 gallon fuel tank

11R x 22.5 Michelin Radial Tubeless Tires, including spare

Push-thru luggage compartment, 116 cu. ft. with locks

vandal locks on all doors

High headroom

Two 6" defroster fans

12,000 BTU driver's heater, 80,000 BTU center heater, 80,000 BTU rear heater Eight light warning system

AM/PM/Cassett/PA/Stereo Radio

12 rows of Blue Bird Activity Seats meeting FMVSS

Full width mud flaps Front and rear rubber fenders

5 lb. fire extinguisher

16 Unit first Aid Kit

Triangles and flares

Tan floor with plywood sub-floor

Interior parcel racks

Intermittent wipers

Tinted windows

Trans/Air Air Conditioning Model TA99 Dual System with two 15.6 compressors

full length luggage rack ducts with adjustable louvers, two 3-fan roof mounted condensors for a total of 106,000 BTU/hr

Price including transportation with tax to be added:

Option: Two-tone paint with school options deleted as required, Add:

MAKE YEAR MODEL W B. CA

THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM IT'S DATE.

ID: nht87-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the identification requirements for a master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol o ther than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer had an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2.1(a) states:

Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in fo rm to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. . . . Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. . . .

Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown In your letter for the master lighting switch. Also, footnote 2 of the table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting swit ch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.

A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of the master lighting switch Identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2. 1(a) perm its words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.

Your second question concerns identification requirements for an upper beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symb ol.

Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements for an upper beam control , regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, If so, how to ident ify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as that designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) tell tale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbols drivers must f amiliarize themselves with for the same function.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation or FMVSS 101; Controls and displays.

We believe, (1) if the head lamps and tail lamps are controlled by master lighting switch, this is not required to be marked with any symbol , other than and it is the manufacturer's option to use other symbols in addition to the, as desired.

(2) When using the turn signal lever for the upper beam control, no symbol is required, and it is at the manufacturer's option to use symbol as desired.

Shown by current models in Attachment 1 are the symbols we have been using. In future models, we plan to change the symbols to those shown by future models in Attachment 1.

Please inform us in a timely manner if these symbols are acceptable and whether our interpretation is correct. If you have any questions, please contact me at (515) 353-5444.

Sincerely, Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC. Attachment