ID: 86-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yoshikazu Ito

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager, Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Ito:

This is in reply to your letter of November 29. 1985, to Jeffrey R. Miller, former chief counsel of this agency, with reference to the acceptability of a headlamp switch under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. According to you, "upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for headlamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF...."

You have asked whether the circuit complies with Standard No. 108 and any SAE standards referenced in Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 does not specify circuit design. The "optical horn" is neither required nor prohibited by Standard No. 108 and is viewed as permissible for its use for momentary signalling purposes. This would include simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beam filaments as in your design.

I believe that this uppers your other questions as well.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Re: Head Lamp Switch Circuit

Dear Sir:

We are automotive switch manufacturer in Japan and are making prototype of a head lamp switch for our customer's new car model for U.S.A. which has a circuit by which upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for head lamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF (please see an attached sheet). To our experience, the circuit has never been designed for cars which are to be marketed in U.S.A.

Would you like to answer the following questions?

1. Does the above-mentioned circuit comply with requirements of FMVSS and the concerned standards (SAE?) referred in FMVSSS:

2. What provision(s) of FMVSS and the standards involve this matter?

3. What are interpretation of the FMVSS and the standards provision(s)?

We really appreciate it if you could kindly send us your answers by December 27, 1985. Your kind assistances have been useful for us all the time.

Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Faithfully yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept.

ID: GF008360

Mr. Jeff Thompson
Vice President
Timpte Trailer Co.
1827 Industrial Drive
David City, NE 68632

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This responds to your recent letter addressed to Richard Van Iderstine regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting. Specifically, you ask whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, allows for installation of an auxiliary [1] three-light identification cluster between the taillamps at the lower edge of the trailer. With certain limitations, our answer is yes.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that 3 red identification lamps must be located on the top rear of a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Identification lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph 2.4 of SAE J592e defines identification lamps as "lamps used in groups of three." Your letter and an attached illustration indicate that your trailer satisfies these requirements. We assume that the auxiliary three-light identification cluster would also satisfy these requirements, except for those related to the cluster being at the top of the trailer.

With respect to additional lamps, FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit installation of auxiliary lighting equipment so long as this equipment does not "impair the effectiveness" of lighting required by the standard. Thus, the three-light identification cluster located at the bottom of the trailer would be acceptable if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required identification cluster at the top of the trailer or the required lamps located at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer.

After studying your illustration, it appears that the auxiliary cluster would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting. It would be located several feet below the required cluster, so it would be distinct from that cluster, e.g., it would not appear to be part of a six-lamp cluster. Moreover, it would be located close to the vertical centerline of the trailer, so it would be distinct from the required lamps at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer. In addition, drivers are used to seeing identification lamps in the same basic location on certain kinds of trailers such as flat-bed trailers.

We note that States also regulate auxiliary lighting devices in various ways.

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.1/14/04





---

[1] We use the term "auxiliary lighting" to refer to any item of lighting equipment that is not required by the terms of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: GF003901

Dae-Ki Min, Esq.
38 West 32^nd Street, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10001-3816

Dear Mr. Min:

This is in response to your letter of June 1, 2004, and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether identical tires manufactured prior to the completion of the uniform tire quality grading process and submission of results to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can subsequently be marked with appropriate grading information and sold in the United States.

49 CFR 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires that all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars be graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and that those grades or ratings be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. In addition, 49 CFR 575.6(d)(2)(i) requires that each tire brand name owner or tire manufacturer submit to NHTSA the information obtained during the tire grading process, at least 30 days before offering the tires to prospective purchasers.

In your letter, you state that the tires in question are identical and of the same grade as the tires subjected to the tire grading process, but were manufactured prior to the completion of the tire grading process because they were originally intended for a market other than the United States.

Under 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A), tires of a new tire line need not have the UTQGS ratings molded into their sidewalls, if the tires were manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line. In previous letters, we interpreted this time frame to mean within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States (see July 12, 1983, letter to Robert Ainsworth). In your situation, some tires were manufactured prior to the decision to import them into U.S. Accordingly, the six-month period would begin on the date of manufacture of the oldest tire that you would import to the U.S. In sum, all tires of the line manufactured not more than six months after the manufacture of the first tire of the line imported into the U.S. need not be permanently molded with UTQGS grades. However, we note that tires eligible for this six-month period are still subject to the paper labeling requirements of 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B).

In addition to the six-month period, certain limited production tires are fully excluded from all UTQGS requirements. In order to qualify as limited production tires, the tires must meet all the following criteria of 575.104(c)(2):

(1) Total annual domestic production or importation into the United States of tires of the same design and size by either the manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 15,000 tires;

(2) The tire's size must not have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles domestically produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 during the year prior to the tire's manufacture; and

(3) The total annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 35,000 tires.

In all other circumstances, your tires may not be sold in the United States unless they are graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and those grades or ratings are permanently molded onto the sidewall of each tire. Further, "molding" means the process by which the tires are shaped in the mold and imbedded with the required grading information during the actual production of the tire. Accordingly, a tire cannot be "molded" with the appropriate UTQGS grading information after it has been manufactured. Instead, the molding process must occur during the manufacture of the tire and not thereafter.

Finally, we note that in addition to UTQGS, there are several Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to tires sold in the United States. Please be advised that these FMVSSs also require that certain tire safety information be molded into the tire sidewall during the manufacturing process. Specifically, FMVSS No. 109 applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger vehicles, and FMVSS No. 119, applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger vehicles. Further, tire manufacturers may choose to voluntarily comply with FMVSS No. 139, which applies to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles that have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 139 is scheduled to become mandatory in the near future. For more information on effective dates and phase-in schedules please see 69 FR 38116, June 26, 2003; and 69 FR 31306, June 4, 2004.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:575
d.8/9/04

ID: 003832rbm

Mr. William E. Lawler
IMMI
18881 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 408
Westfield, IN 46074-0408

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This letter responds to your request for interpretation of the labeling requirements of S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208) as they relate to an inflatable tubular structure installed inside a fire truck. The fire truck would be within a range of 30,000-70,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). According to your letter, the inflatable device is designed and installed to prevent the occupant's head from striking the side window or door frame during a rollover. The inflatable structure you describe is not subject to the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 or any other safety standards.

S4.5.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 208 states that "except as otherwise provided in S4.5.1(b)(2), ^[1] each vehicle shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint." The subparagraph then goes on to state what the required label must look like. The label requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1) are limited to vehicles with the type of inflatable restraint system defined in S4.1.5.1(b). That paragraph defines an inflatable restraint system as an air bag that is activated in a crash.

S4.1.5 applies to all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996. A corollary provision, S4.2.6, applies to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997. S4.1.5.3, which applies to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, and S4.2.6.2, which applies to those vehicles addressed by S4.2.6 manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, require that vehicles falling within their purview meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means of an inflatable restraint system, as defined in S4.1.5(b). These types of inflatable restraint systems are the only ones subject to the labeling requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1).

The inflatable tubular restraint described in your letter does not appear to be designed to provide protection in a frontal crash. Instead, your letter states that they are designed to provide head protection in a rollover crash. As such, they are not subject to FMVSS No. 208, including its labeling requirements. Moreover, as discussed in a March 23, 1999, interpretation to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. (copy enclosed), the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 apply only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less. There are presently no other labeling requirements that would apply to these inflatable tubular structures.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.7/7/03





---

[1] S4.5.1(b)(2) sets forth the sun visor labeling requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements adopted by NHTSA on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680). Those requirements are not applicable to the vehicle in question.

ID: 22382

Mr. Donald Myers
Haldex Brake Systems
10930 North Pomona Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64153-1297





Dear Mr. Myers:

This is in response to your letter of November 3, 2000, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Specifically, you describe the following situation:

Haldex Brake Systems discovered that an internal component to the valve that controls the trailer supply pressure and the tractor parking brakes (made in 1997) was breaking after being in use for several years. This broken component resulted in the lack of separation of the two brake circuits. Haldex determined that this broken component resulted in the air brakes no longer complying with FMVSS No. 121, and that this broken component combined with a major leak in the brake system could result in total loss of the service brakes. Haldex initiated a recall and has been replacing the valves. Haldex has sought reimbursement from its supplier for the cost of the recall, but the supplier has refused, stating that FMVSS No. 121 applies to new motor vehicles only, not to "in service" motor vehicles.

You ask whether FMVSS No. 121 applies to "in service" motor vehicles. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 121 applies only to new motor vehicles. Operational regulations and requirements applicable to "in service" vehicles are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In addition, individual states may have their own requirements setting minimum "in service" equipment and performance standards for heavy trucks.

Moreover, and with direct applicability here, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment has an obligation to remedy safety-related defects in its products. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. '30118(c), a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement must notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as owners, purchasers, and dealers if the manufacturer:

(1) learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety; or

(2) decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In addition, the manufacturer must remedy the defect or noncompliance free of charge (49 U.S.C. ' 30120(a)). In this case, the failure of the Haldex brake systems constitutes a defect that is related to motor vehicle safety.

The notification and remedy requirements of Chapter 301 are not generally applicable to suppliers of component parts that are then incorporated into items of motor vehicle equipment by an equipment manufacturer. In such instances, the responsibilities of the supplier are not governed by Chapter 301 and would be determined under other applicable law, such as contract law and the terms of any agreements between the supplier and the equipment manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01

ID: nht92-8.42

DATE: February 28, 1992

FROM: Stephen E. Selander -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 114; Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Stephen E. Selander (A39; Std. 114)

TEXT:

General Motors Corporation (GM) is designing an electronic key locking ignition system which we would like to offer for sale in the near future. GM believes that this system meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 114 without using a conventional mechanical key. In view of the novelty of this approach, GM would like to have the concurrence of the NHTSA with our opinion.

FMVSS 114 S.3 Definitions includes the following definition of a "Key":

Key includes any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device.

An electronic "Key" is consistent with the preamble to the Final Rule - FMVSS 114 (33 Fed.Reg. 6472 (1968)) where the following appears at the top of the middle column:

The term "key" is defined so as to include methods of activating the locking system other than the commonly accepted concept of a key.

This electronic key locking system would be operated by a key (an electronic code) entered and removed by the operator. When the key is entered into the locking system by the operator, a match is made with an electronic code stored in the system's memory. This match is analogous to the tumblers of a conventional lock cylinder matching the cut of a conventional key.

When a correct key match occurs, the person could then move the locking system out of the lock position to other positions such as accessory, off, on, or start, in order to activate the vehicle's engine, motor, or accessories.

With the locking system out of the lock position, the transmission can be shifted out of the "PARK" position in order to operate the vehicle. The transmission shift lever must be returned to the "PARK" position in order to place the locking system back into the lock position.

Placement of the locking system back into the lock position by the operator would automatically cause removal of the key from the system. At that time, re-entry of the correct key (electronic code) would be necessary to operate the vehicle.

SUMMARY

A key locking system, using an electronic key code other than a conventional mechanical key, has been developed which, GM believes, will meet the requirements of FMVSS 114.

However, GM requests the concurrence of the NHTSA regarding the definition of "Key" so that design work can continue and the system can be offered to the public in a timely manner.

If helpful, we would be pleased to demonstrate an example of the system under development.

If the agency has any questions or requires additional information, please contact me on (313) 974-1704.

ID: Braun_0001630v2

Barry E. Wolff, Director of Risk Management
The Braun Corporation
631 West 11^th Street
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your request for the agency to refrain from taking enforcement action on account of vehicle alterations your company intends to make. You stated that certain alterations to accommodate individuals with disabilities would result in a non-compliance under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. As explained below, we have decided against providing the requested relief.

Under the Federal motor vehicle certification requirements, a business that modifies fully certified vehicles prior to first sale for purposes other than resale is classified as an alterer (49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles). An alterer must identify all of the safety standards affected by an alteration and certify that, as altered, each vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected.

In your letter you explained that Braun, as a vehicle alterer, converts new, fully certified motor vehicles to accommodate wheelchairs and then sells the newly-certified motor vehicles. You explained that a minivan conversion to provide for wheelchair access typically eliminates the second row of seating, including the compliant child restraint anchorage systems (LATCH systems) installed in that row. Under FMVSS No. 225, vehicles with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions must have in the rear seating positions a minimum of two LATCH systems and an additional tether anchorage. To bring the vehicle back into compliance with FMVSS No. 225, you stated that two LATCH systems are added to what was originally the third row of seating.

As explained by your letter and in a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, one version of the model year 2005 Chrysler minivan is presenting a problem. This is because the new "Stow and Go" seat installed in the third row of the more expensive version of the minivan utilizes a 60/40 split bench seat design. The larger portion of the seat is already equipped with a compliant LATCH system. However, according to your letter, the smaller portion of this split bench seat is too narrow to permit installation of an aftermarket LATCH system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Thus, Braun would be unable to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 225 using the existing "Stow and Go" seat. Additionally, simply replacing that seat with another seat is difficult because the "Stow and Go" seat folds into the floor pan of the vehicle.

NHTSA has established a limited exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to accommodate individuals with disabilities (49 CFR 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With Disabilities). The exemption is only available to motor vehicle repair businesses making certain vehicle modifications after first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under limited circumstances, a vehicle manufacturer, including an alterer, can qualify for the exemption as a motor vehicle repair business. However, it appears from your letter that this exemption would not be available to Braun as the vehicle modifications your company makes are completed prior to first retail sale. Accordingly, we are unable to provide the relief you request regarding this vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.6/18/04

ID: nht76-1.6

DATE: 04/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: American Bosch Electrical Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1976, question whether Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, still references SAE J903a as it did in 1969, and whether a future reference to SAE J903b or SAE J903c is anticipated.

The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no. A proposed change in Standard No. 104 would be published in the Federal Register, and interested persons would be given an opportunity to comment.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

American Bosch Electrical Products

February 23, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 104

Gentlemen:

As a manufacturer of automotive windshield wiping systems we have a requirement to maintain compliance with the referenced standard. FMVSS 104, effective January 1, 1969, references SAE J903a (May 1966) as criteria for test conditions of wiping systems. Concerning these two documents we have several questions:

1. Is FMVSS 104 currently of effective date January 1, 1969?

2. Are any changes in FMVSS 104 pending that (Illegible Word) reference SAE J903b or SAE J903c? If so, please explain.

This information is needed for present planning. Please reply to the attention of the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Alvin L. Slayton, Engineer -- Product Reliability Department

ID: nht81-1.12

DATE: 02/09/81

FROM: DONALD W. VIERIMAA -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: EXCLUSION OF THE TOWBAR OF A PERMANENT TRAILER DOLLY FROM THE FMVSS 108 LENGTH CRITERIA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO DONALD W. VIERIMAA, NOA 30, REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/04/73 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO PAUL K. WILSON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Berndt:

S4.1.1.3 of FMVSS 108, which does not require intermediate side marker devices on vehicles less that 30 feet long, was interpreted by your office in 1973 as excluding converter dollies and their integral towbars from the overall length determination. Although in our industry, converter dollies, permanent dollies, and their towbars are often indistinguishable in utility, appearance, and length, neither the 1973 letter from the Chief Counsel's Office nor wording in FMVSS 108 specifically excludes permanent dolly towbars from the 30 foot overall length determination. However, S4.3.1.3 of FMVSS 108 does state that "On a trailer, the amber front side marker reflectors and amber front side marker lamps may be located as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue." (emphasis added). This language would appear to exclude the towbar from the length determination.

Since permanent and converter dolly towbars are similar in utility and appearance and since lamps need not be located on the towbar in any case, we request your concurrance that both should be excluded from the overall length determination.

Sincerely yours,

ENCLS

ID: nht93-7.2

DATE: September 30, 1993 Est.

FROM: Randolph Schwarz

TO: John Messera -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Randolph Schwarz (A42; Std. 116)

TEXT:

I would appreciate your help in getting a few short questions answered regarding DOT 5 silicone brake fluid. I had called the NHTSA Hotline and was advised that, as the Engineer for FMVSS 116, you are currently the appropriate person to contact.

My basic question is that when retrofitting a vehicle with DOT 5 silicone brake fluid, does one have to be concerned with the compatibility of this fluid's seal swelling additives with various elastomers that may be used in past and present brake systems, such as SBR, EP, EPDM, neoprene, etc?.

Would the fact that a DOT 5 brake fluid meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 insure such elastomer compatibility?

With regard to elastomers, does FMVSS 116 only address SBR compatibility (SBR cup tests)?

If FMVSS 116 only mentions SBR, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification or have an advisory note on the product container regarding elastomer compatibility/incompatibility?

Product information from Dow Corning and Union Carbide differ in FMVSS 116 DOT 5 requirement for maximum viscosity at -40 F (900 cSt vs. 1,500 cSt respectively). What should the correct specification be?

If it would help expedite matters, feel free to write your responses directly on this letter. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.