ID: nht81-2.38

DATE: 06/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midwest Polychem, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have examined the proposed label for "GRC" brake fluid you have submitted to us for comment.

Generally, the label appears to meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 (36 F.R. 11937, June 24, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 21594, November 11, 1971). The words "or(Illegible Word)" in your conformity statement are redundant; since the standard is a minimum requirement, "conforming to" and "exceeding" it mean exactly the same thing. If the fluid packager is an entity other than Curley, the packager's name or code identification must appear either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can. We assume that the required serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging will be stamped either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can.

GRC

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

GRC

HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

DIRECTIONS

FILLING: Check fluid each month or every 2000 miles. Fill Mailer cylinder to within one-half inch of top.

BLEEDING: Remove plug from bleeder screw and insert bleeder hose. Place other and of bleeder in clean container partially filled with G.R.C. Brake Fluid. Lossen bleeder screw and pump brake pedal slowly until air bubbles stop and fluid is clear. Tighten blender screw and follow same instructions on all four wheels, Moster cylinder fluid level must be checked after bleeding each wheel and keep fluid level to within 1/2 inch of top.

CAUTION: FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

(Illegible Lines) GURLEY REFINING DESIGN GCR SUPER HEAVY DUTY BRAKE FLUID (Illegible Word) 2700-1 S.O. 244-3191 SIZE 211 X 407.5 C.E. 4.595 X 8.364 B.P. DATE 10-19-71

(Illegible Lines) (Illegible Word) AS DETAINED APPROVED AS SUBMITTED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: DATE NO. PROOFS 20 PROOF DATE 11-3-71 CHANGE A CHANGE B CHANGE C ARTIST D/TCA

ID: nht78-3.17

DATE: 09/27/78

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 208 applies to side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, does require side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.

Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strength requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

August 24, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

The Wayne Corporation manufacturers small buses (GVWR 10,000 lbs. and under), Busette and Transette, which have a normal passenger capacity of 16 to 20 passengers.

Some of these buses are equipped to accommodate transporting the handicapped. In some of these cases, the operators' requirements for lifts, wheelchair anchorage devices, side facing seats, etc., reduced the passenger capacity to less than 10 persons, in which case the vehicle becomes, for purpose of Federal Certification, a multipurpose passenger vehicle rather than a bus.

Which, if any, of the requirements of FMVSS 208, Passenger Crash Protection, apply to side facing seats installed in the MPV discussed above?

If you should find that S4.1.2.3 of FMVSS 208 applies at the option of the manufacturer, please advise the criteria to be used for the installation of the seat belts, taking into consideration that all current seat belt requirements relate only to forward and rearward facing seats.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: 21937.drn

Jiri Misik, Chief
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869

293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk Republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misik:

This responds to your request for information about "US field of vision" requirements for motor vehicle windshields for passenger cars and light duty vehicles. As explained below, the United States has no forward field of view standard for these vehicles.

In your letter, you noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, describes Areas "A," "B" and "C" to be cleared in motor vehicle windshields. In contrast you noted that in Europe:

In our case the edge of area "A" and "B" ... is not placed on the windshield but on the steel structure or even on the side window. This case is not mentioned in any US legislation which is related directly to wipe, wash and forward vision, anyway. Forward field of vision is only clearly defined in European Directive 77/649 and Australian ADR 8, clause 8.3.

With this background, you ask whether "there is a mandatory US provision to place the edge of 'A' area on the windscreen with regard to forward field of vision."

In response to your question, no provision in the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specifies forward field of view requirements for vehicles other than school buses. As you note, we have Standard No. 104, which establishes requirements for motor vehicle windshield wiping and washing systems. Since Standard No. 104 regulates windshield wiper performance, it defines each of Areas "A," "B" and "C" so that only the part of each Area that is within the glazing 25 millimeters inboard of the daylight opening is counted for the computation of the minimum cleared percentage. Please note that these are requirements for areas of the motor vehicle windshield to be cleared of water or other liquids. We have no standard analogous to EU Directive 77/649 which would use Areas "A," "B" and "C" to specify areas of mandatory forward fields of view.

Another indication that Standard No. 104 does not specify forward fields of vision is seen in the fact that there is no requirement that Area "A," as bounded by the angles specified in Tables I, II, III or IV, must be completely included on the windshield glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.10/5/00

ID: 2853o

Mr. Leon Steenbock
Administrative Manager, Engineering
FWD Corporation
Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle lever. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the throttle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicle acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood you to be referring to this type of design.

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:124#571 d:3/17/88

ID: 2856o

Mr. Wayne Apple
14738 Bronson Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987, in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. l08 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. l08. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

ref:108 d:4/18/88

ID: 2882o

Mr. Frank V. Tanzella
Tek Tron, Inc.
10R Rainbow Terrace Unit E
Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. Tanzella:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "motor vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by adding the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles after installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#207 d:7/18/88

ID: 2983yy

Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Bridgeport Office
100 Center Square Road
P.O. Box 464
Bridgeport, NJ 08014

Dear Mr. Wakamatsu:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned 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."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/29/9l

ID: nht91-5.44

DATE: September 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-91 from John Marcum to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5988)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 26, 1991, asking for a clarification of my letter to you of April 22.

As we advise you, under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." You ask whether "demonstrations or training" includes the carrying of passengers for demonstrations and evaluations. The answer is yes. Where, as here, the imported vehicle is intended for public transit, the carrying of passengers would appear to be an important and necessary part of demonstrating the features of the bus and evaluating the feasibility of offering electric-power public transportation in the United States.

You also ask whether there are any special conditions that may be observed, such as whether passengers should be charged for the rides. There are no special conditions that NHTSA has imposed under section 591.5(j) that relate to your operation. However, any test should be consistent with safe vehicle operation, such as not loading the vehicle above the capacity of the tires and suspension, having adequate braking ability, and provision for sufficient emergency exits. The question of whether a fee should be imposed for riding the bus could be relevant in a personal injury action brought against you by a rider; however, this is not a question to be answered under Federal law. You should consult a private attorney for guidance.

The fact that the law allows importation of a nonconforming bus for purposes of demonstration should not be interpreted as meaning that NHTSA is not concerned with the safety of a vehicle engaged in transporting members of the public. The agency believes that importers of buses should ensure that the vehicle is not loaded above the capacity of the tires and suspension, and that there is adequate braking ability and provision for emergency exits. Importers are reminded that the agency has the authority to impose terms and conditions related to safety in permitting importations of this nature.

Finally, you ask if there is a limit as to the length of time a demonstration with passengers is permitted. So long as the demonstration is ongoing and the length of time is reasonable, demonstrations with passengers would be permitted for the duration of the vehicle's stay in the United States.

ID: nht74-2.11

DATE: 08/19/74

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

TO: Dura Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dura Corporation's July 24, 1974, questions whether S5.6 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires parking brakes on air suspension liftable axles, and whether the "no lockup" requirements of the standard apply to a liftable axle on a "tandem axle rig".

The parking brake performance options of S5.6 do not require parking brakes on an air suspension liftable axle such as you describe. S5.6.2 requires only that the parking brakes installed on a vehicle meet minimum performance levels. S5.6.1 requires parking brake retardation force on "an axle other than a steerable front axle". We do not consider this requirement to apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated.

The standard's "no lockup" requirement (S5.3.1) applies to

"any wheel at speeds above 10 mph except for . . .

(b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.

Under this provision, if a vehicle has two nonliftable, nonsteerable axles at the rear which do not lock up (such as an antilock-equipped tandem axle rig) it may be equipped with a liftable nonsteerable axle which does not meet the "no lockup" requirements.

Yours truly,

July 24, 1974

Sidney F. Williams -- Office of Operating Systems, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Dura Corporation is presently involved in manufacturing add-on liftable axle/suspension assemblies which are marketed with OEM and body builders. Due to the impending effectivity dates of FMVSS 121 we are presently preparing to equip our products to comply. Our liftable airide axle/suspension assemblies are applicable to both pusher and tag situations.

The intent of this letter is to request an official interpretation of FMVSS 121. Our present understanding of the standard is as follows:

An anti-lock system will be required with the add-on axle/suspension if added to a single axle rig but not required if added to a tandem axle rig.

II. An emergency/parking spring brake will not be required with the add-on axle/suspension. This supposition is based on a loss of air pressure will automatically lift the axle rendering the spring brake inoperable.

Please indicate if the above statements are correct. Your consideration and cooperation in this matter is truly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Raymond E. Jones, Project Engineer -- DURA CORPORATION

cc: W. Locke

ID: nht75-4.16

DATE: 11/10/75

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

TO: Mountain States Tires Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 1, 1975, which included a list of information items you believe are required to appear on retreaded tires pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.

With the following qualifications, your list is correct:

1. The tire must be labeled with the symbol "DOT" followed by the letter "R", and other information required by 49 CFR Part 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as a certification that the tire complies with Standard No. 117. This requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement that the casing retain the "DOT" symbol from its original manufacture.

2. The words "bias/belted" are not required, because the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area, are now required to appear.

3. Tube-type and tubeless tires must be labeled with the specific words "tube-type" and "tubeless", respectively.

4. The items listed in your third group may appear on a paper label only if that label is not easily removable.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117.

YOURS TRULY,

MOUNTAIN STATES TIRE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

May 1, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

From various sources, it is our understanding that after May 12, 1975, the following requirements must be met in retreading passenger car tires:

To be processed the casing must have on it from the original manufacturer

The symbol "DOT"

The tire size

Number of plies or ply rating

The completed retread must be permanently marked in at least one location with letters of a minimum of .078 inches high with the following:

Maximum Load

Actual number of plies in sidewall and tread, if different

Name of cord in sidewall and in tread area if different

The completed retread must also have this information on it, either with a permanent label, paper label or retained on the casing:

Size

Tube or Tubeless

Mamimum Inflation

Bias belted or Radial

Please advise us as soon as possible if the above information is correct so that we may have current, proper and accurate information for our members.

Claud Riggs, Exec. Secy.