ID: nht73-3.27

DATE: 02/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of October 23, 1972 and January 25, 1973, concerning the intent of the antilock performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. I apologize for our delay.

Your question arises from an amendment to S5.3.1 of the standard. As originally adopted in February 1971, the section required that the vehicle be capable of stopping without wheel lockup except for "momentary" lockup allowed by an antilock system. As amended in February 1972, the word "controlled" is used in place of "momentary", so that the section now provides that stops are made

without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 m.p.h. except for controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system . . . .

In making this change, the agency had in mind the type of antilock system that was designed to permit one wheel on an axle to lock under some circumstances while the other wheels continued to turn. It was thought that adequate control could be attained by such systems, and the standard was amended accordingly.

The question you raise is whether a system could be designed in which all wheels could be permitted to lock for substantial periods, so long as they are "controlled" by an antilock system. As you correctly indicate, the term "controlled", unlike "momentary", is not a time-related word. Our answer, therefore, is that such an antilock system would be permitted under the standard as it now stands.

It is our present opinion, however, that such a system would probably not provide an acceptable level of performance. If it appears that such a system would be installed, it is likely that we would undertake rulemaking action to prohibit it.

ID: GF000573

Ms. Laurie T. Baulig
General Counsel
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Ms. Baulig:

This is in response to your letter of January 14, 2005, in which you requested a clarification regarding a recent technical amendment to paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119.

On January 4, 2005, we published a technical amendment which, in part, revised paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 (see 70 FR 299). Specifically, the amendment changed the metric value of tire speed restriction threshold from 88 km/h (55 mph) to 90 km/h (55 mph). Prior to the amendment, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 required that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire was 88 km/h (55 mph) or less. Now, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire is 90 km/h (55 mph) or less. In both instances, S6.5(e) requires that the actual speed restriction be shown as follows:

"Max speed __km/h (__mph)".

The amendment was intended to make FMVSS No. 119 more consistent with established tire industry protocol and labeling technology, and did not substantively change the standard.

You ask whether amendment to S6.5(e) requires that each tire manufactured after February 3, 2005 (the effective date of the amendment) be marked with the revised maximum speed restriction of "Max speed 90 km/h (55 mph)," if previously marked "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)," Our answer is no.

The January 4, 2005 amendment to S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 revised only the threshold below which all tires must be marked with their actual speed restriction (emphasis added). That is, the tire manufacturer could continue marking tires with the speed restriction of "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)", if that is the correct speed restriction, or other lower values, when appropriate.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc    Motomu Shinohara
      Secretary General, JATMA
      No. 33 Mori Building
      3-8-21 Toranomon, Minato-ku,
      Tokyo, 105-0001 JAPAN

ref:119
d.3/16/05

ID: GF000843.2

Mr. Robert S. Livingston
Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems
PO Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474




Dear Mr. Livingston:

This responds to your January 27, 2005, e-mail regarding lamp, reflex reflector, and conspicuity system requirements for trailers. First, you ask whether the rear side marker lamp, the rear clearance lamp, and the reflex reflector can be combined into a single lighting device so long as it is "visible from both vehicle axes. " Second, you ask whether the retroreflective sheeting located at the rear of the trailer can be combined with the retroreflective sheeting located on the underride guard. You provided a photograph of the prototype vehicle and indicated that its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is over 10,000 pounds. Our answers follow.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment on trailers and other motor vehicles is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining certain items of lighting equipment if the requirements for each item are met. Based on the language of this section, you ask two questions regarding combining lamps, reflex reflectors, and retroreflective sheeting on trailers.

Combining Lighting Devices

Tables I & II specify that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things:

1. 2 red clearance lamps located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as near the top as practicable.
2. 2 red side marker lamps, located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.
3. 4 red reflex reflectors. 2 located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as far apart as practicable. 2 located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.

You ask if these requirements can be met by single lighting devices at each rear corner of the trailer. The photograph accompanying your e-mail shows a lamp and a reflex reflector tilted at a (approximately) 45-degree angle on each rear corner of the trailer.

With respect to reflex reflectors, S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that your trailer be equipped with a conspicuity system. Further, S5.1.1.29 specifies that a trailer equipped with a conspicuity system in conformance with S5.7 need not be equipped with the reflex reflectors required by Table I, if the conspicuity material is placed at the locations required for the Table I reflectors. Thus, if your trailer is equipped with conspicuity material at the appropriate locations specified above, you may omit installing reflex reflectors on this trailer.

With respect to side marker and clearance lamps, S5.4 discussed above allows these lamps to be combined, if the photometric requirements for each lamp are met, as installed on the vehicle. SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps," July 1972, specifies that both side marker and clearance lamps meet the minimum photometric requirements (expressed in candela) at test points located 45 degrees to the left and right of each lamp. We are familiar with combination lamps that emit a photometric output over 180-degrees wide in order to simultaneously satisfy the photometric requirements for side marker and rear clearance lamps. This is because the angle between the furthest forward test point of the side marker lamp and the furthest inboard test point of the rear clearance lamp is 180-degrees.

We examined the photograph of the prototype trailer and question whether your lamp could simultaneously meet the applicable photometric requirements of J592e for both a clearance and side marker lamp because it does not appear to be a combination lamp capable of emitting light over a 180-degree angle. We suggest you contact the lamp manufacturer to determine whether the proposed combination lamp would be capable of complying with all the applicable requirements as installed on your trailer.

Combining Retroreflective Sheeting

Table I specifies that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things, a conspicuity system meeting the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108. In particular, S5.7.1.4.1 requires 3 elements of retroreflective sheeting at the rear of each trailer. Element 1 must be located at the bottom, horizontally across the full width of the trailer. Element 2, consisting of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, must be located horizontally and vertically at the upper contours of the body. Element 3 must be located horizontally across the full width of the rear underride guard. You ask if Element 1 and Element 3 retroreflective sheeting could be combined into one retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard.

Our answer is no. S5.4 does not apply to your second question because trailers equipped with underride guards must have separate retroreflective sheeting on the underride guard, and on the rear at the bottom of the trailer. Thus, the retroreflective sheet

located on the underride guard cannot satisfy the location requirements for Element 1 retroreflective sheeting, which must be located on the trailer, above the underride guard. Accordingly, your trailer must have Elements 1 and 3 retroreflective sheeting to comply with the requirements of S5.7.1.4.1. We are enclosing Figures 30-1, and 30-2 to clarify this issue.

We note that the picture of your prototype trailer appears to be missing Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. Your trailer must also, be equipped with Element 2 retroreflective sheeting.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.5/3/05

ID: GF000906

Mr. Jeff Maharg
Engineering Manager
Tracker Marine Group
P.O. Box 760
Ozark, MO 65721

Dear Mr. Maharg:

This responds to your February 5, 2004, e-mail and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain trailer lighting requirements. Specifically, you ask whether a small (5ft. x 8ft.) trailer must be equipped with front side marker lamps. In short, our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

With respect to your question, Table III of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 lists required lighting equipment for trailers with an overall width of less than 80 inches. [1] Table III requires that each such trailer be equipped with two red and two amber side marker lamps. Table IV specifies the location of the required lighting listed in Table III. With respect to side marker lamps on trailers, Table IV mandates that one red side marker be located as far to the rear as practicable, and one amber side marker be located as far to the front as practicable, on each side of the trailer. Accordingly, your trailer must be equipped with two amber side marker lamps located on each side of the trailer as far to the front as practicable.

From the attached pictures of your trailer, it is unclear whether it is equipped with rear red side marker lamps. Further, the front amber side markers do not appear to be located "as far to the front as practicable." Finally, we note that your trailer

must also be equipped with red and amber reflex reflectors that are either incorporated into side marker lamps or located adjacent to the side marker lamps. The amber reflex reflector that appears to be mounted on the wheel cover does not satisfy this requirement. In order to satisfy FMVSS No. 108, you must install all required lighting in the correct location.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/18/04





---

[1] Your e-mail and attached photos indicate that your trailer width is approximately 5 ft (60 inches).

ID: GF001032

ID: GF001069

Michael Price, Project Manager
Mobilized Systems, Inc.
1032 Seabrook Way
Cincinnati, OH 45245

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your February 10, 2004, e-mail and subsequent phone communications with George Feygin of my staff, regarding certain U.S. Military Trailers that are being shipped to the United States from Europe for repairs. Specifically, you ask whether these trailers must comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) while they are in transit on U.S. highways from the seaport of entry to the repair facility in Cincinnati Ohio, and back to the seaport.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issues FMVSS applicable to new vehicles and equipment (49 CFR Part 571). Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSS.

49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that "no standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."  [Emphasis added]

In the present case, youve indicated that the trailers were designed and manufactured as military command posts and sold directly to the military in conformance with specific contractual specifications. Accordingly, the trailers in question are exempt from applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Even if the trailers were not manufactured for, and sold directly to the military, they could be operated on public roads in the United States without being brought into conformity with all applicable FMVSS. While 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits the

introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable FMVSS, Section 30112(b)(3) exempts from this prohibition "a motor vehicle intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . . and on the outside or any container or the vehicle . . . and exported." Accordingly, so long as the trailers are labeled "for export only," they could be operated on U.S. roads from the seaport to the repair facility and back without having to be brought into compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:224
d.3/23/04

ID: GF001071

Mr. David Regan
Trecan Combustion Limited
4049 St Margarets Bay Road
Hubley, Nova Scotia B3Z1C2
Canada

Dear Mr. Regan:

This responds to your February 10, 2004, letter and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether snow melting machines manufactured by your company would be classified as "motor vehicles." You manufacture three different machines with the primary function of melting large quantities of snow. In order to move from location to location, these machines are equipped with wheels and function much like a trailer. As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider these machines to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations.

Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, your letter states that your snow melting machines are designed primarily for use by airports and other large facilities, such as parking garages. While these machines are capable of highways travel, you state that in all likelihood such travel will be limited to reaching permanent or semi-permanent job sites (i.e specific locations where large snow piles are continuously accumulated). Based on this information, it appears that these machines are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the snow melting machines described in your letter are not "motor vehicles." Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including the requirement to meet all applicable FMVSSs.

We note that our finding is limited specifically to the equipment described in your letter, and is largely based on your representation of its intended use. In your correspondence, you state that some snow melting machines may be sold to large cities, but you do not elaborate further. We presume that snow melting machines purchased by large cities would also remain mostly at some single location designated for snow melting activities. However, we wish to caution that our finding does not apply to snow melting equipment that is intended to be used extensively on public roads on a recurring basis.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/12/04

ID: GF001563a

Mr. Ian James
Retainagroup Limited
134 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1 W 9SA
England

Dear Mr. James:

This responds to your January 5, 2004, letter, as well as e-mail and phone communications with George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). You ask if glazing is considered a part of the door for the purposes of the standards parts marking requirements. You also ask whether parts marking can be applied to vehicles at the point of export, as opposed to the point of manufacture.

We note that you originally wrote intending to comment on our June 26, 2002, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed revisions to the theft prevention standard (67 FR 43075). As Mr. Feygin informed you, the comment period for the NPRM closed on August 26, 2002. Nonetheless, because the issues you raise are primarily requests for interpretation of the standard, we can address them in this letter.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires identifying numbers or symbols (usually Vehicle Identification Numbers, see 49 CFR Part 565) to be placed on major parts of certain passenger motor vehicles. 49 CFR 541.5 lists 18 "major parts" subject to the parts marking requirements. Front and rear doors are included in this list.

With respect to your first question, the agency does not consider window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal or fiberglass door structure to be a part of the "door" for the purposes of the parts marking requirements. Instead, under Part 541, the "door" is limited to the actual door structure. Glazing is designed and manufactured from a combination of glass and plastic, materials that are significantly different from metal and fiberglass normally used in manufacturing the "major parts" listed in 541.5. In inventory lists, manufacturers typically designate window glazing as a separate part from the metal doorframe. Glazing is also considerably more fragile than the major parts in 541.5, which makes it vulnerable to damage in a collision, and can be replaced relatively easily in a door. For these reasons, we do not consider marking the window glazing to meet 541.5s requirement to permanently mark the vehicles doors.

With respect to your second question, Part 541 does not require that parts marking be applied at the point of manufacture. However, a vehicle certified by the manufacturer to meet U.S. safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards must be marked prior to the delivery to dealer or distributor for the certification to be valid (49 U.S.C. 30115). Thus, the standard does not prohibit application of parts marking at the point of export so long as it is done prior to the delivery to distributor or dealer.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.4/14/04

ID: GF001689

Mr. Kenneth Reed
Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars
555 MacArthur Boulevard
Mahwah, NJ 07430

Dear Mr. Reed:

This responds to your letter asking about S4.2.2(a) of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with Jaguars "pass key technology." The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.  The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

Under S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, the key-locking system in vehicles that have an automatic transmission with a "park" position, when tested under specified procedures, must generally prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. S4.2.2(a) states (in relevant part) that notwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of the system (including battery discharge) occurs.

You asked how S4.2.2(a) applies to key-locking systems using "pass key technology," i.e., systems using electronically coded cards or other means to enter an electronic key code into the locking system. In past interpretation letters, we have stated that the electronic code itself can be considered the key. You noted that in situations of sudden and complete loss of electrical power, the electronic key code could be immediately erased from the vehicles volatile memory, before a vehicle could be stopped.

In considering your question, we believe it is helpful to note the history of the provision at issue. On January 17, 1992, we published in the Federal Register (57 FR 2039) a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of amendments to Standard No. 114. Honda and Toyota, asking about key-locking systems using conventional keys, asked that the standard make it clear that key removal was permitted in the circumstance of electrical failure when the vehicle's transmission was not in park.

In addressing these requests, the agency stated:

NHTSA believes that there is an interpretation issue concerning whether the March 1991 amendments permit key removal after battery discharge. For example, the Honda system ordinarily prevents key removal unless the transmission is locked in park, as required by the amendments. Only under a failure condition, battery failure, is it possible to remove the key when the vehicle's transmission is not in park. It could be argued that a non-failed battery is an assumed test condition for the requirement and that Honda's system therefore meets the requirement as written. 57 FR at 2041.

As explained in that notice, however, the agency decided to resolve the issue raised by Honda and Toyota by making it clear in the text of the standard that key removal is permitted in the circumstance of electrical failure when the vehicle's transmission is not in park. To implement this decision, the agency adopted the language of S4.2.2(a) discussed earlier; i.e., specifying that "(n)otwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of the system (including battery discharge) occurs . . . ."

In considering the issues raised by your letter, it is our interpretation that the narrow provisions related to electrical failure do not apply to pass key technology where electronically coded cards or other means are used to enter an electronic key code into the locking system. These provisions were specifically crafted in the context of addressing whether (and under what circumstances) traditional keys should be permitted to be removed after battery discharge occurs, whereas, in the case of "pass key technology," electrical failure can automatically result in the immediate removal of the electronic key code. Moreover, the clause provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal would not be appropriate in situations where sudden and complete loss of electrical power could result in immediate erasure of the electronic key code before a vehicle could be stopped, since paragraph S4.3 requires that steering be maintained in that situation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:114
d.5/27/03

ID: GF001832

Mr. E. Paul Daniels
Pirelli Tire North America
406 Ridge Road
Orange, CT 06477




Dear Mr. Daniels:

This responds to your letter dated January 26, 2005, asking whether S6.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119 permits a motorcycle tire treadwear indicator height of greater that 0.8 mm.You asked about the possibility of raising it by as much as 0.6 mm, i.e., to 1.4 mm on new molds.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

The Federal standard applicable to your question is FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.The relevant portion of that standard reads as follows:

"6.4  Treadwear indicators Motorcycle tires shall have at least three such indicators which permit visual determination that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 0.8 mm (1/32 of an inch)."

The treadwear indicator requirement in S6.4 sets forth a specific standardized treadwear indicator height.A higher treadwear indicator is not permitted.We note that if the treadwear indicator height were raised to 1.4 mm, consumers would not be able to visually determine when the tire wore to a depth of 0.8 mm.

We further note that in a document published on January 30, 1996, the agency denied a petition for rulemaking from Herzlich Consulting, Inc. to increase the treadwear indicator height requirement for passenger car tires (see 61 FR 2991).The agency explained that the treadwear indicator height limit was based on a long-standing industry practice, and that NHTSA adopted this industry practice.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:119
d.3/24/05