ID: nht90-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, IDEAL Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kimmelman (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

When a new car, light truck or van is purchased and delivered to the buyer with a dealer installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it is our understanding that at the time of delivery the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We further interpret the Standards to require the following:

1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer .

2. The hazard warning flasher must be certified as meeting the require- ments of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.

3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage indication is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.

Please inform us if the interpretations noted above agree with those of the Department of Transportation.

ID: 2414y

Ms Margaret Schmock
Dept K2/ELE2
Robert Bosch GmbH
Postfach 42
7410 Reutlingen
W. Germany

Dear Ms Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, l990, with respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, and "CAC Title 13, Article 9".

You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. l08 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. l08 has been changed.

We understand that "CAC" refers to "California Administrative Code". The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustment range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement.

We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pierce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854).

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/25/90

ID: nht76-3.33

DATE: 03/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Clarence J. Baudhuin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 29, 1976, letter to Secretary Coleman, concerning problems with your 22 foot Executive "MINI" Motorhome.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that a motor vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) shall

not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Your letter and its enclosures indicate that your vehicle's weight is 9180 pounds, its designated seating capacity is six, and the GVWR specified by Executive is 9000 pounds. From this information, there appears to be a violation by Executive of Part 567. In addition, the possibility that the rear axle may be overloaded under normal conditions of use may constitute a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

Please note that a final-stage manufacturer is not automatically prohibited from certifying a GVWR that differs from that specified by the chassis manufacturer. For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, Executive is free to certify a lower GVWR, provided the above-cited constraint is observed.

The remaining questions presented in your letter are not matters over which we have jurisdiction, and probably are most appropriately handled by a private attorney.

ID: nht71-3.17

DATE: 06/08/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1970, requesting an interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574).

The proposals you described in your letter, paragraphs 1 and 2, will certainly meet the minimum requirements of the regulation and are perfectly acceptable. The regulation requires that a record be kept of the type of tire shipped on or in the vehicle. It does not require that the individual tire identification number be(Illegible Word) with the name and address of the purchaser.

If a vehicle dealer sells a vehicle equipped with tires which were not shipped on or in the vehicle, the vehicle dealer is considered a tire dealer under section 574.9(b) and as such, he is required to record the name and address of the first purchaser along with the tire identification number, and forward this information to the tire manufacturer. However, the tire manufacturer may designate someone else to maintain the required records by section 574.7. Therefore, it would be acceptable to have your vehicle dealers forward the required information to you instead of to the tire manufacturer, if the tire manufacturer designates you to maintain the records of tires installed on your vehicles.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: nht72-4.29

DATE: 09/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cody Chevrolet Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention of Mr. Jerome Palist of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean a bus "designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children" (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), therefore, "gross vehicle weight rating" should not be computed under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met by inserting, "BUS."

This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes a position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.

ID: nht73-1.37

DATE: 11/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

Yours truly,

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Larry Schnieder

Dear Sir:

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

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

I would appreciate any advice or reference to a standard.

Thanking you in advance.

Very truly yours,

Crane Carrier Company --

Darrell Gambill,

Standards Engineer

ID: nht75-2.15

DATE: 04/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Dominion Auto Accessories Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 20, 1975, inquiring as to the permissibility of selling your "Panamirror" in the United States as aftermarket equipment.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirror, provides minimum performance requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. According to the standard, the inside rearview mirror must furnish the driver with a specified field of view to the rear of substantially unit magnification. Any vehicle manufactured for sale, sold, or introduced into interstate commerce must be equipped with an inside rearview mirror that meets the designated level of performance. It appears that the "Panamirror" would not satisfy the requirements of the provision, because it is convex in structure and therefore would not provide a view of substantially unit magnification.

If the mirror were installed on a vehicle as aftermarket equipment (after the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale) in such a way as to render inoperative the inside rearview mirror, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) as amended (Pub. L. 93-492) would apply where the installation was accomplished by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. The section prohibits the named parties from knowingly rendering inoperative a system installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

ID: nht75-3.26

DATE: 03/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Automotive Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting an opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR @@ 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.

The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on the part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.

If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will be required.

ID: nht75-1.14

DATE: 08/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Business

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

Sincerely

Enclosure

ATTACH.

June 18, 1975

Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

W. J. JOYCE -- CONSULTANT, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

ID: nht93-7.32

DATE: October 21, 1993

FROM: James "Bubba" Schaub -- Midas Muffler and Brake

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/94 from John Womack to James Schaub (A42; Std. 105; Part 570)

TEXT:

First allow me to introduce myself. My name is James "Bubba" Schaub. I manage a Midas Muffler and Brake Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, located at 180 Gause Blvd., and have for 9 years now. My concern is in the area of ethical and sound business practice. I'm taught by Midas to replace brake rotors and/or brake drums when they exceed the minimum thickness (on disc rotors) or maximum diameter (on drums), published by Original Equipment Manufacturers. My questions are as follows:

1. Please interpret F.M.V.S.S. 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS.

2. Is there any basis for fraud in following this policy? (Of disc rotor and/or drum replacement when out of manf. safety tolerances).

Please understand that my concern lies only with doing the right thing - the safe way, for our costumers. Let it be known that the local auto dealership service dept.'s are not following their own recommendations, for safety in this matter, which causes my costumers to believe that we (Midas) are fraudulently selling and installing parts on their vehicles when they're not needed. But, if I can present an established standard to our (Midas) costumers, I can prevent them from feeling they've been taken advantage of.