ID: nht94-1.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 4, 1994

FROM: John Moore -- Maintenance, Ferrucci Nurseries

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to John Moore (A42; Std. 207)

TEXT:

I am seeking verification of information regarding the installation of passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation. I have been instructed by George Shifflet that as long as we're in compliance with safety regulations, we are permitted to make the installation. Please verify this information in writing, and either fax to me at (609) 697-4241, or mail to me at:

Ferrucci Nurseries Rd 1, Box 299 Piney Hollow Rd. Newfield, NJ 08344

Should you need to discuss this request further, please contact me at any time.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht94-1.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/10/93 from Cheryl Graham to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA (OCC-9345)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

by way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole res traint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design in stalled on...a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design," then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by y our letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in p reventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe.

The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the tail lamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array.

We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the

permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its add ress is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

ID: nht94-1.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Don Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 1/11/94 from Don Vierimaa to Pat Boyd (OCC-9595)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of January 11, 1994, to Pat Boyd of this agency requesting an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. In the future, please address your requests for interpretations to the Chief Counsel.

You have asked "may a manufacturer install a 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting instead of 2 inch (50 mm) sheeting on the side of new trailers?"

Paragraph S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 states that retroreflective sheeting shall have a width of 50 mm (Grade DOT-C2), 75 mm (Grade DOT-C3), or 100 mm (Grade DOT-C4). Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a), as amended on October 6, 1993 (58 FR 52021 at 52026), set s forth the requirements for application of retroreflective sheeting to the side of trailers. Without elaboration, it simply identifies it as "a strip of sheeting." This means that the manufacturer of the trailer is permitted his choice of Grade DOT-C2 , -C3, or -C4 material. Therefore, a manufacturer may install sheeting that has a width of 100 mm on the side of a trailer.

ID: nht94-1.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturing Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack (OCC-9050)

TEXT:

We have reviewed your letter of September 2, 1993, asking for three interpretations of S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions that relate to heavy trailer conspicuity.

You have set forth the metric dimensions specified in S5.7, together with corresponding values under the headings "English (actual)," and "English (nominal)." The latter is a rounding off of the values of "English (actual)." Your first question is whet her you may consider the English (nominal) dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with Standard No. 108.

We assume that you would like to provide measurements in the conventional manner to your members who may not be familiar with the metric system, as a means of assisting them to comply with the conspicuity requirements that become effective December 1, 19 93. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not expressed in equivalents, but in precise values, whether metric or conventional, and there can be no rounded "equivalences" for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. SAE J1322 JUN8 5 "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting" which you reference has not been incorporated into Standard No. 108. In implementation of Departmental and national policy, NHTSA has begun to specify the requirements of the Federal motor vehic le safety standards using metric system values, and manufacturers are expected to learn and to comply with them.

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk.

Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheetin g may be located higher that 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a n otice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for consp icuity treatment that is outside the specified

range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance as mounted on a vehicle in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers are expected to mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers. In the case of your hypothetical tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at the belt line, whether 2.3 m or higher, would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper s pecification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frames, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

Your third question presents five Figures and asks with respect to each whether the vertical and horizontal sheeting for the upper right and left contours, as specified by S5.7.1.4.1(b), may be of the dimensions and locations shown. This section require s application of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied "vertically" and "horizontally" to the contours "as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." With respect to Figures 1 a nd 2 (van trailers), we shall assume that the horizontal strips are mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable. Figure 1 depicts two separate strips at right angles to each other, each 300 mm in length. This design is not in accordance w ith Standard No. 108. The side strip does not appear mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable, and the top strips do not appear to be mounted as far apart as practicable. While the presence of door hinges may necessitate designs simila r to Figure 1, this design, as drawn on an unobstructed surface, does not comply. To effect compliance, either the side strips should be moved upwards, or the top strips should be moved closer to the outside corners.

Figure 2 depicts two strips joined at the corners to make an inverted "L." Each leg of the "L" is 300 mm in length when measured from the outside, top to bottom, or side to side. This configuration is in accordance with S5.7.1.4.1(b).

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 30 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body ...." Howe ver, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figur e 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

Finally, Figure 5 depicts a dry bulk trailer with a 300 mm strip centered horizontally at the top of a round body, and two strips of the same length placed lower, at an angle slightly off of vertical, but far from the edges of the body contour. We under stand that the body of the trailer tapers to a blunt end represented by the circle upon which the horizontal conspicuity treatment is laced. As the approximately vertical strips cannot be placed on the tapering trailer body, they should be located as fa r apart as practicable, and the depicted location appears to represent that placement. Similarly, if two horizontal strips cannot be placed on the trailer body, NHTSA will not question the compliance of the vehicle based on the provision of a single, cen ter strip of retroreflective material.

ID: nht94-1.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Associate Administrator for Enforcement -- NHTSA

TITLE: Motorcycle Projector Beam Headlamps Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/94 from John Womack to Jeffrey D. Shetler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting a interpretation from NHTSA regarding the application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle and its compliance with FMVSS 571.108.

When reviewing FMVSS 108 we are not sure if our proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle will meet the specified requirements. Your response regarding the following questions would be greatly appreciated:

1. Table IV of FMVSS 108 specifies that if two (headlamps) are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.

Attached is a layout drawing which provides a general description of our proposed application of a projector beam headlamp. Our headlamp is not completely aligned symmetrically because the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side. However, the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline.

Question: Is our headlamp in compliance with the provision stated above?

2. Section S5.1.1.23 of FMVSS 108 indicates that instead of the headlamps specified by Table III, a motorcycle may be equipped with one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamp shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable.

Question: Does this requirement mean our proposed projector beam shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7? Or, is our proposed layout in the attachmen t acceptable?

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our questions. If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext. 2456.

ID: nht94-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D. -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TO: Office of Chief Counsil -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Martin Sackoff (A42; Std. 109)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

The subject of this request is in reference with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 - New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.

The specific question is with reference to S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, which states "S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength. Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table 1 when tested in accordance with S5.3".

I shall very much appreciate receiving a reply concerning the definition or interpretation of the term "breaking" of the tire. Does this mean a blowout of the tire, or simply the breaking of the tire caused by forcing the steel plunger into the tread?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-1.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 11, 1994 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, letter dated 12/22/94 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 11, 1994, to the Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT, with respect to an inquiry from Georgia State Representative Bill Lee regarding the disposition of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold direct ly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature , thus the matter is not the subject of any DOT-administered statute or of any NHTSA regulations. From time to time the Department of Defense (DOD) asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery o f Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine wh ether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for Representative Lee.

ID: nht94-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: Ilmars Ozols

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/6/94 From John Womack To Ilmars Ozols (A42; VSA 5104(4)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

As a result of my telephone conversation with one of your associates on February 1, 1994, I am communicating with you and would like to request your assistance to determine if SERV-O-TRAY is in compliance with existing National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration relevant codes and regulations with regards to after market product installation in a motor vehicle.

SERV-O-TRAY is a patented folding/adjustable table for vehicles intended to provide comfort for drivers and front seat passengers whether the vehicle is stationary or movement mode.

For your information I am enclosing a photograph of SERV-O-TRAY prototype installation in a motor vehicle and SERV-O-TRAY's technical description which hopefully will assist you in your task.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address, or telephone (619) 327-8290.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-1.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maurice Hannigan -- Commissioner, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from P. J. Harrington to Potter Valley Community Unified School Dist. Superintendent and letter dated 3/31/93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke

TEXT:

It has come to our attention that a misunderstanding has arisen about a letter we issued on March 31, 1993 to W.C. Burke of your Department. That letter explained the marking responsibilities of a person who installs replacement glass (referred to as gl azing in the Federal standard) under section S6.4 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205, copy enclosed.) On January 12, 1994, Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Ma rvin Shaw of my staff contacted Mr. Walter Burke and Mr. Kyle Larson of CHP to discuss this matter. This letter is a follow up to that discussion.

Based on its understanding of the March 1993 letter, CHP is requiring installers to mark replacement glazing with a number (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) and has directed school districts to tell installers of glass to contact NHTSA "(t)o obtain a number as required by (Standard No. 205)." Standard No. 205 does not require the typical aftermarket installer to obtain such a number from the agency.

We explained in the March 1993 letter that a person who cuts glazing (i.e., a typical installer of aftermarket glazing) must mark the piece with the following information required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "Amer ican National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designa tion or trademark.

Mr. Larson stated that he was under the impression that "(3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer" was a number assigned by NHTSA. As we explained to him, this is not the case. The installer devises his own model number. The only number assigne d by NHTSA under Standard No. 205 is the code mark assigned to a manufacturer who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material" (known as a "prime glazing material manufacturer").

We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter on this subject. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: James H. Shuff -- President, Freedom Trailers

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/94 from John Womack to James H. Shuff (A42; STD 120; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: I was advised by Mr. George Shifflet of the D.O.T. to contact you and request a ruling on the Park Model Travel Trailers that I am building.

I am custom building park model travel trailers. These units, by ANSI code 119.5, are limited to a maximum of 400 sq, ft. There are park models that are recognized by H.U.D. but they are 500sq. ft. They are intended for recreational use only and no t for year round living. These units can be used in the same manner as conventional travel trailers for winter camping in the year round parks. These units can be as wide as 12'.

The units that I am building are to order only. Once they are constructed they will be towed to their campsite and set up. The tires and the rims will be retained by me and used over again. Mr. Shifflet did not seem to think that there would be a p roblem with this, but suggested that I contact you for an opinion.