ID: nht93-2.6

DATE: 03/04/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-22-93 FROM GUY DORLEANS TO CHIEF COUNCEL, NHTSA

TEXT: We have received your letter of January 22, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to aimability of headlamps.

Valeo is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. It appears that these headlamps will require unique aiming adaptors (meaning that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with them). These adaptors will be placed in the trunk of any vehicle with which they are supplied, and relevant instructions for use will be included in the vehicle operator's manual. Valeo has asked for confirmation that each version complies with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that the vehicle's headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that an adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the new headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where the Hopkins adaptor is in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the new headlamps.

ID: nht75-2.20

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firestone Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, which was given to you by Mark Schwimmer on April 16, 1975.

Your letter of February 26, 1975, explained that:

(i) Firestone would produce 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use on one of the prototype vehicles in the Urban Mass Transit Administration's Trans-Bus program;

(ii) these tires would be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 119; and

(iii) D50C-16.5 is a new size, not appearing in any existing tire and rim organization publications.

In such cases, S5.1(a) of the standard requires tire and rim matching information to be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires. Your letter suggested that, because Firestone does not expect the tire to be sold through any dealers, this requirement would be inapplicable. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, that interpretation is incorrect. S5.1 of Standard No. 119 applies to all new bus tires, including prototypes manufactured for prototype vehicles. Therefore, you must furnish the matching information to all dealers of Firestone non-passenger-car tires.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 26, 1975

Mark Schwimmer, Attorney -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

RE: TIRES FOR UMTA TRANS BUS PROGRAM

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

As I advised you in our telephone conversation, Firestone has the contract to produce tires for the prototype vehicles being tested by UMTA currently. We have received an order for an additional 100 tires in size D50C-16.5 for use on the prototype manufactured by The Rohr Industries. Since these tires will be produced after March 3rd, they will be certified by Firestone as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

Size D50C-16.5 is a new size and is not included in any list showing tire and rim matching information. FMVSS 119 specifies in Section S5.1(a) that where such information is not published in the documents listed it is to be supplied to dealers and to NHTSA.

By copy of the attached letter to the Tire Division, NHTSA, we are supplying the necessary information to NHTSA. However, since we have orders for only 100 tires to be used only on the prototype vehicle and since it is our understanding from the prime contractor that the test will be terminated at the end of this year, thereby precluding any possibility of this size being sold for this purpose through any dealers, we are not planning to send copies of the tire and rim matching information to our dealers.

May I have your confirmation that we will be acting within your interpretation of FMVSS 119 in this matter?

As you know, the testing of the three prototype buses is under the control of UMTA. It is not anticipated that any additional tires will be needed for the other two prototypes, however, if the prime contractors should order additional tires it would most likely be under the same conditions as the order received from Rohr Industrial and we would follow the same procedure as it is agreed will be acceptable with the D5OC-16.5 tires.

In view of the fact that an order has been placed with us, it would appear that the prime contractor anticipates a need in the near future. Therefore, we would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely, A. J. DiMaggio -- QUALITY ASSURANCE, FIRESTONE

February 26, 1975

The Tire Division National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Section S5.1(a) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, this is to advise that tire size D50C-16.5 is to be used with a 6.0 x 16.5 rim.

This size tire is not listed in any of the publications of the organizations listed in FMVSS 119.

Very truly yours, A. J. DiMaggio -- QUALITY ASSURANCE, FIRESTONE

ID: nht93-7.41

DATE: October 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Campfield -- President, Ultra B-O-N-D. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/22/93 from Richard Campfield to John Womack or Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter in which you address the repair of motor vehicle windshields. You explain that, as president of a window repair business, you are concerned with recent actions taken by the window replacement industry to form a committee to set a voluntary "standard" for window repair. According to your letter, the anticipated standard will be "archaic in its structure" because the committee is "prejudicial," in that virtually all the committee's members are in the windshield replacement industry. You contend that the effort to adopt the standard is intended to reduce competition from the window repair industry. You request that NHTSA recommend ways to prevent the window replacement industry from enacting the industry standard.

We read your letter with great interest. However, industry groups are free to adopt any voluntary standard they believe is appropriate for their needs. NHTSA does not become involved with the adoption of voluntary standards unless a voluntary standard raises safety issues that the agency ought to address. We are unaware of safety issues pertaining to the voluntary standard you described. While we are not aware of safety problems with the bonding process you describe, we do not have information to support your claims or those of your competitors.

Nevertheless, to keep our information on window glazing current, we will keep your letter on file in NHTSA's public docket dealing with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). In addition, the agency's engineers have been briefed on the issues you raise in your letter.

I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht78-3.22

DATE: 10/02/78

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

TO: Ward Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 22, 1978, letter asking whether your proposed emergency door label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Paragraph S5.5.3 requires that each school bus emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit" or "Emergency Door" as appropriate, in letters at least 2 inches high, of a color that contrasts with its background, located at the top of or directly above the emergency exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. The label that you propose would be located on the inside of the glass but would be visible from the outside of the vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has indicated in the past that the location of the emergency exit label can be directly above or on the top half of the emergency exit. Your location near the top of the glass on the rear emergency door appears to fall within this acceptable area. The standard further requires that the label be located on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. The intent of this requirement is to provide a visible emergency exit designation on both the inside and outside of a bus. Since your label would be visible outside the school bus even though its location would be on the inside of the glass, the NHTSA concludes that it complies with this requirement. In reaching this conclusion, the agency assumes that you will have a similar label that will be visible inside the bus.

In summary, since your described label is the required size, consists of contrasting colors, and is placed in the appropriate location, it appears to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

WARD Industries Inc.

August 22, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admn.

Ref: FMVSS 217

Dear Sir:

A drawing showing proposed location of the emergency door identification label is enclosed. Paragraph S5.5.3 requires the designation "emergency door" or "emergency exit" as appropriate, in letters at least two inches high of a color that contrasts with its background, located at the top of or directly above the emergency exit on both inside and outside surfaces of the bus.

This decal would be placed on the inside surface of the glass but would be viewed from the outside. The lettering would be black on a solid white background.

Please review this and advise if this will meet requirements of Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS 217.

E. M. Ryan, Chief Design Engineer

EMERGENCY DOOR

2" BLACK LETTERS ON WHITE BACKGROUND PRESSURE SINSITIVE DECAL

NOTE: DETAIL VIEW 1/4 SCALE

WARD

SCHOOL BUS MFG., INC. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72032

OUTSIDE EMERGENCY DOOR DECAL LOCATION

DATE

CHK

DRAFT: (Illegible Word)

ENGR: SCALE N OR PART ORDER NO. REV CHANGE BY DATE ENGR (Illeg.) (Illeg.) PER BUS (Illeg.)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht89-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 29, 1989

FROM: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM AND LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a product manufactured by Nationwide Industries, Inc., and marketed under the brand names "SNAP fix-a-flat FOR PICK-UP TRUCKS," "SNAP fix-a-flat," and "SNAP super fix-a-flat" is an item of "m otor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1391(4)). Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. SS 2052(a)(1)(C)) excludes "Motor vehicle equ ipment from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the CPSA.

The product in question is sold for inflating and temporarily repairing flat tires. It consists of a container which holds liquid latex and a propellant of pressurized gas. Photographs of the containers and the labeling of the product are enclosed.

As stated on the labels, the propellant gas used for this product is extremely flammable. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of deaths and serious injuries associated with ignition of the gas from this product contained in tires which were being repaired, usually at a garage or service station. In all but one instance known to the Commission, the person injured was a mechanic or other employee of a repair facility and not the owner of the tire being repaired.

Although the product appears to be intended primarily for use with cars and trucks, the labeling on some containers suggests that the product could be used on tires of bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain vehicles. See photographs A3, C1, C3, D1 , D2, and D3.

Section 6(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2055(b)), requires that before the Commission may release information about a product identified by manufacturer, it must first provide the manufacturer of the product with a summary of the information and an opport unity to comment on its accuracy. However, section 29(e) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2078(e)) authorizes the Commission to provide information about products to other agencies of the Federal Government without having followed the procedure required by sec tion 6(b), provided that the agency receiving the information does not disclose it to the general public.

The information in this letter about the product under consideration is subject to the provisions of section 6(b) of the CPSA. The Commission has not provided the manufacturer with either a summary of this

information or the opportunity to comment on its accuracy. For this reason, I request your assistance in not disclosing it to the general public.

If you need additional information about this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Enclosures

ID: GF003175

Mr. Steven Jonas
Principal Engineer
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Jonas:

This responds to your April 13, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask if expanded parts marking requirements in Part 541 apply to passenger cars with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds. Our answer is yes.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires identifying numbers or symbols (usually Vehicle Identification Numbers) to be placed on major parts of "high-theft" lines of passenger motor vehicles (i.e., a higher than median theft rate). "Passenger motor vehicle" was defined in the 1984 Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act so as to exclude multipurpose passenger vehicles, leaving passenger cars as the only included type of vehicle. As originally issued, Part 541 thus applied to above median theft rate lines of passenger cars regardless of GVWR.

The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 331) expanded the application of the parts marking requirement by expanding the definition of "passenger motor vehicle" to include multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and light duty trucks (LDTs) with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. This definitional change brought above median theft rate MPVs and LDTs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less within the parts marking requirement. On April 6, 2004, NHTSA issued a final rule that expanded Part 541, inter alia, to passenger motor vehicles with theft rates below the median (69 FR 17960). As a result, all passenger motor vehicles are now subject to the parts marking requirement.

You ask about a statement in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule in which we said that NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to expand parts marking requirements to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds. That discussion applied only to multipurpose passenger vehicles and light duty trucks and not to passenger cars. The parts marking requirement has applied to passenger cars regardless of the vehicles GVWR since the issuance of Part 541. Nowhere in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule is there a discussion of narrowing the application of Part 541 to passenger cars based on the vehicles GVWR.

We regret any confusion and plan on issuing a correcting amendment that will clarify the application of Part 541 to passenger cars (541.3).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.5/10/04

ID: 1983-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Trucks -- Tom Dobbs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Tom Dobbs Oshkosh Trucks 2307 Oregon Street Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901

Dear Mr. Dobbs:

This responds to your recent telephone request asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, would prohibit the use of a hand control that would allow the vehicle operator to apply only the rear brakes if the driver so chooses. You question whether this can be proper in light of the requirement that vehicles be equipped with brakes that act on all wheels. Although the standard requires brakes acting on all wheels, nothing in the standard prohibits the type of hand control that you mention.

For years, tractor-trailer combinations have been equipped with brakes acting on all wheels. Some of these combinations also have been equipped with hand controls that allow the operator to activate only the trailer brakes. It has been argued that in some instances this control can be used to reproduce beneficial results in combination vehicles. While we can see no beneficial results that could possibly be gained by the use of hand controls in trucks, such a control would not be prohibited by the standard. The standard simply requires a service brake system acting on all wheels. The trucks that you mentioned would still have this system, and therefore, would continue to comply with the standard.

You should note that the agency does not encourage the use of such hand controls, particularly on trucks. This type of control provides a opportunity for vehicle operators to lessen the effectiveness of their braking systems. Should an operator use the hand control instead of the full service brakes in a stop and create an accident, there could be the potential for tort liability for both the operator that purchased vehicles with such systems and for the manufacturer who installed them knowing that they could lead to the easy missue of the braking system. We suggest that you contact your attorneys for further guidance in this area.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peter Kopanon, Director, Registry of Motor Vehicles, Boston, MA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Kopanon, Director Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashus Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

This is in reply to your telephone call of August 1, 1984, requesting our opinion as to the applicability of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR 1204.4, to Massachusetts.

As I understand it, your call was prompted by our letter of May 14, 1984, to Mr. Paul Pakos, in which we ruled that a vehicle with a capacity of 8 or fewer persons would be a "Type II School Vehicle" under the standard if it were used to transport students to and from school. Your question is whether Massachusetts is required by law to adhere to this aspect of the standard.

Standard 17 is among the standards issued by this agency under authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 401-408. The Act provides that the States are to administer their highway safety programs in accordance with the standards. However, it also gives us the discretion not to insist that a State comply with every standard. We have employed this discretion to administer the highway safety program on the basis of mutual cooperation rather than by rigid enforcement of the standards.

In the case of Standard 17, we have worked with Massachusetts and all other States to improve the overall quality of pupil transportation, in keeping with the intent of the Standard. The results of our mutual efforts can be seen in the marked decline in serious school bus accidents during the last ten years. We intend to continue to follow this cooperative policy.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 135cmc

Mr. David Spurgess
Director Systems Engineering
TRW Automotive
12000 Tech Center Drive
Livonia, MI 48150

Dear Mr. Spurgess:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of S7.8 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135.You requested the Agencys concurrence with, or guidance regarding a suggested interpretation.You suggest that S7.8 is intended to require the testing of only a single antilock brake system (ABS) inoperative condition and that it is up to the discretion of the representative conducting the test to ensure that this has been accomplished appropriately.The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

FMVSS No. 135 specifies requirements for service brake and associated parking brake systems for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 7716 pounds or less.The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions.Included in FMVSS No. 135 is S7.8, Antilock functional failure, which is part of a series of individual system functional failure tests.The series also includes: S7.7, Stops with engine off; S7.9 Variable brake proportioning system functional failure; S7.10, hydraulic circuit failure; and S7.11, Brake power unit or brake power assist unit inoperative.

S7.8 is a performance test conducted with an ABS functional failure simulation.In order to simulate a functional failure S7.8.2(g)(1) includes the following test specification: "Disconnect the functional power source, or any other electrical connector that creates a functional failure."

In your letter you state:

If a complex electrical control system is the basis for the ABS, it is feasible . . . that there are more then [sic] one electrical inputs into the module that may or may not directly apply to the performance of the ABS.

You state further:

[T]he purpose of S7.8 is to provide a performance requirement for a single condition of ABS inoperative. . . . [I]t is up to the discretion of the representative conducting the test to ensure that the selection [of which electric connector to disconnect] has been accomplished appropriately to ensure that only the ABS has been disabled and tested.

You are correct that S7.8 of FMVSS No. 135 is intended to be performed with a single function failure in the ABS only.In fact, each individual system functional failure test referenced above is intended to verify only the performance of the single failure type to which it directly applies.In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 135 (60 FR 6411) the Agency clarified that in the antilock functional failure performance test only a single ABS failure is covered.Under S7.8, if the Agency were to test a complex system, such as your letter describes, the Agency would simulate ABS functional failure by disconnecting any electrical connector that creates only an ABS functional failure.The Agency may contact the manufacturer for assistance in determining how to perform this failure and for a procedure that does not impact or has limited impact on other systems.

However, when FMVSS No. 135 was established, the Agency recognized the increasing integration of ABS into the service brake system.The Agency noted "if a functional failure of the ABS also affects or degrades the service brake system, no artificial means are [employed] to keep the service brake system intact when that failure is introduced." Therefore, if the electric control system for the ABS is designed such that an ABS failure cannot be isolated and simulated under S7.8 without also affecting some other braking function, then the antilock functional failure requirements must be met with both the ABS failure and the additional braking function failure.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my office at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:135
d.11/18/02

ID: nht74-1.44

DATE: 09/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pan Commercial

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 27, 1974 asking for a clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

You are correct in your impression that under section 103(d) of the Act "no state legislation can be more stringent than the Federal ruling." Under paragraph S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108, effective October 14, 1974, "a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps." This means that as of that date, only motor-driven cycles whose maximum speed exceeds 30 mph are required to be manufactured with turn signal lamps. Lower-speed cycles may continue to be provided with them if the manufacturer chooses, but a State cannot require him to do so. This is the result of the preemptive effect of section 103(d).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

August 27, 1974

R. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Adminstration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

I am referring to the proposed legislation docket #74-16 pertaining to modifications of requirements for motor driven cycles. Under this proposed ruling, article 571.108 S4.1.1, a motor driven cycle with a speed of less than 30 MPH would not need to be equipped with turn signal lamps.

I have contacted the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Massachusetts and in their opinion Massachusetts will always require turn signal lamps. I was under the impression that under section 103D of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no state legislation can be more stringent than the Federal ruling.

In the light of the proposed Federal ruling and the apparent contradiction of State and Federal Traffic Laws, may I ask you for your advice in this matter,

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

PAN COMMERCIAL; Bernard E. Wuthrich