ID: 86-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Mary Fulton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 1986 Ms. Mary Fulton Willas USA 8933 Quartz Avenue Northridge, California 91324 Dear Ms. Fulton: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1986, enclosing a brochure on your new product "TaleLights," and asking our "opinion of the product's legal standing." The brochure describes TaleLights as a "multi-message signboard" which is mounted "in the same rear window area where the new mandatory 'extra' brakelights are placed." TaleLights features automatically-activated messages such as "STOP," and manually activated ones such as "OOPS! SORRY." The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) presently cover aftermarket lighting equipment only to the extent that it is intended to replace lighting equipment that is originally installed on a vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108. We assume from your brochure that your product is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps, and under this assumption, your aftermarket product would not be covered by our requirements. It is, however, subject to the laws of each State in which it is to be sold and operated, and we suggest that you contact the motor vehicle administrators of States where you intend to market TaleLights. Your lamp is not an acceptable substitute for a center high-mounted stop lamp and it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a dealer, distributor, manufacturer, or motor vehicle repair business to remove a center high-mounted stop lamp and to replace it with TaleLights. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.18

DATE: 07/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1979, concerning Subaru's obligation to provide to prospective motor vehicle purchasers an explanation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). You ask whether Subaru must provide UTQG information to prospective purchasers prior to April 1, 1980, in view of the fact that all motor vehicles sold by your company are equipped with radial tires.

With respect to radial tires, the effective date for all requirements of the UTQG regulation, other than the molding requirement of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) and the first purchaser requirement of paragraph (d)(1)(iii), is April 1, 1980. Therefore, manufacturers, such as Subaru, which offer for sale only motor vehicles equipped with radial tires, need not provide UTQG information for examination by prospective purchasers prior to April 1, 1980.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 4, 1979

Richard J. Hipolit -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

In our telephone conversation on Friday, June 1, you confirmed my interpretation of the requirement for the date of publication of "Tire Quality Grading Information" for our prospective purchasers is dependent upon the effective date of the regulation. As we only use radial tires, the grading regulation effective date for which is April 1, 1980, our obligation to issue information to prospective purchasers is also April 1, 1980.

If this is still your opinion will you please confirm this in writing?

Thank you.

Yours very truly,

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.;

D. J. Schrum -- Manager Product Compliance

ID: nht76-5.59

DATE: 11/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gans Tire Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 12, 1976, question whether the manufacturer recordkeeping requirements of @ 574.7 of NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 574) may be fulfilled by a tire importer by one or both of the following arrangements: the purchaser records of tires manufactured by company B abroad and imported by Gans would be maintained by company A; the purchaser records of tires manufactured by Company B abroad and imported by Gans would be compiled by Gans but maintained by company B.

Either of these arrangements is acceptable under the language of @ 574.7(b), which provides that "[each] tire manufacturer shall record and maintain or have recorded and maintained for him, the information specified. . . ." this language permits the designation of a person other than the tire manufacturer to maintain the required records. Despite this designation, of course, the ultimate responsibility for maintenance would lie with the importer that qualifies as the manufacturer in the situation you describe.

SINCERELY,

GANS TIRE CO., INC.

October 12, 1976

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

This letter will confirm my conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office. As I mentioned to Mr. Vinson, we, in the past years prior to the DOT requirement for truck tires, purchased tires from Company A in Europe and imported them into the United States. Since that time this company has been acquired by another European tire manufacturer, Company B. We have now made the following arrangements:

1. To purchase tires from the international office of Company A, located in the U.S.A., to import these tires into the United States. The tires, in fact, will be made up and certified by Company B, but Company A will, in fact, control and keep the records of registration for these tires.

2. We are also purchasing direct from Company B in Europe. We are making arrangements to send to Company B a list of the customers who purchase the tires along with the necessary serial numbers, etc. They, in fact, will have the responsibility of holding this information for purposes of part 574.

Will you please confirm that these two plans are acceptable for purposes of compliance to part 574? I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to receiving your approval in the handling of this matter.

Thank you in advance for your kindnesses.

David Gans, President

ID: nht75-1.9

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 16, 1975, letter to Mr. John Carson of this agency, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination. You requested an interpretation of the footnote to Table 1 of the standard which reads: "Framed areas may be filled".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this footnote as permitting the vehicle manufacturer the option of depicting the interior of a symbol to which it applies with the same color as the boundary of the symbol, as an alternative to depicting the interior with the same color as the background. In the hazard warning signal symbol, which consists of a triangle containing a smaller triangle, only the area between the triangles is part of the interior. The center of the small triangle is part of the background. Therefore, only the first and third of the sampels submitted with your letter are permitted. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the samples indicating which ones are permitted.

SINCERELY,

September 16, 1975

John W. Carson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing this letter in regard to the hazard warning signal symbol mark in FMVSS 101 which reads:

"Framed area may be filled"

I would appreciate it very much if you could choose the best sample which I have drawn below. Please check if they are good or not good.

Thank you.

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: ALAN S. ELDAHR -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PRESIDENT

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/17/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; REDBOOK A34; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for the information you sent us on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. My company is interested in producing a small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles. The unit will measure approximately 1 1/2" x 12" and will display messages programmed by the driver.

This can be accomplished in one of two ways. First, we can incorporate both the LED display and the high mounted stop lamp into one unit. The unit will be mounted on the vertical center line (as required for the stop lamp). Messages will display until the service brakes are applied, at which time the stop lamp will come on as usual.

The second alternative is to produce the LED display as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. This unit can either display messages continuously, or stop when service brakes are applied (as above).

Both units will comply with all other safety standards: photometric requirements, visibility ranges and bulb replacement, and neither shall impair the effectiveness of any other lighting equipment required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We would appreciate a reply with your comments and input on any problems you might forsee with our format or design.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-5.34

DATE: September 4, 1991

FROM: Michael E. Kastner -- Director of Government Relations, National Truck Equipment Association

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael E. Kastner (A38; Part 567; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to meet with Mark Sidman and myself last Friday concerning FMUSS 204 and the difficulties faced by Multi-stage Manufacturers in certification. I also wanted to take this opportunity and pose a question to you or your staff.

The National Truck Equipment Association ("NTEA") has encountered a number of questions involving the need for an altered certification label under a particular set of circumstances. We would like NHTSA's interpretation of the following scenario.

An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under these circumstances, does the company installing the equipment on the completed vehicle need to affix an altered vehicle label?

Traditionally, the NTEA has advised its members that an altered vehicle label is required in this situation. If that is not the case we would like to advise our members accordingly.

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

ID: nht70-1.31

DATE: 01/09/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Dr. N. Kinon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1969, concerning electrically heated windshields.

At present, we do not have a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which deals specifically with electrically heated windshields. This does not mean, however, that various states may not have restrictions covering this matter. Standard No. 205 stipulation both visibility and structural performance requirements for glazing surfaces used in automobiles as well as in other vehicles. If the product you manufacture meets the requirements of Standard No. 205, then it is acceptable under our existing regulations.

We assume from previous conversations with Mercedes Benz that this electrically heated windshield would be offered as an optional piece of equipment. We understood that it would be used as a supplement to the standard blower-type defrosting system. If this is actually the case, then the electrically heated windshield would not have to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 108, but the blower-type unit would have to pass the defrosting test.

We recognize that the automotive industry has shown an increasing interest in using electrically heated glass to defrost windows. At present, several manufacturers offer electrically heated glass in the rear window (backlight) as an optional piece of equipment. Assuming that this product helps defrost glazing surfaces, we recognize that it has a safety potential that should be effectively utilized.

On the other hand, we also recognize that this product could interfere with visibility, depending upon the wire size pattern and location. This is an area which needs further study.

ID: nht78-3.39

DATE: 12/26/78

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

TO: Dominic S. Piacenza

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1978, asking whether a memorandum of understanding exists between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the apparent overlapping jurisdiction regarding tire marketing practices created by Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1423). You ask whether NHTSA's jurisdiction extends solely to safety-related issues.

NHTSA's authority is not confined solely to the area of motor vehicle and traffic safety. For example, under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901) the agency has been given authority over the areas of fuel economy and economic losses to consumers as they relate to automobiles. While the Safety Act is primarily concerned with safety issues, Section 203 of that law does provide NHTSA with limited authority over tire marketing practices. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104), issued by NHTSA under the authority of Section 203, provide information to consumers in tire performance areas relating to both safety and economic issues.

While the FTC is aware of and supports NHTSA's efforts in the field of tire grading, no memorandum of understanding exists with regard to the scope of NHTSA's activities. Section 205 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1425) does state that, in the event of conflict between orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act concerning motor vehicle tires and FTC orders or interpretations, the orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act shall prevail.

ID: 77-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Clarence D. Long - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 9, 1977, to the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of Mr. Edward L. Armstrong, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, expressing his concern that new passenger car manufacturers will discontinue supplying spare tires, has been referred to this office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, for additional consideration and reply.

We believe that Mr. Armstrong's concern deals with the recently approved "temporary use" spare tire that will be manufactured and used with some of the new 1978 model automobiles. The use of a temporary use spare tire is not a new concept. These tires have been used with compact sport cars, such as Firebird and Camaro, since 1967. The further development of these spare tires has been fostered by the desire of the U.S. automobile manufacturers to produce small, lightweight cars in furtherance of the national energy conservation program. I am sure that you have noticed the new 1977 models by some domestic automobile manufacturers are, in fact, smaller. Of course, the development of these smaller, lightweight, energy-efficient automobiles has resulted in a substantial reduction in usable car trunk space, and therefore, providing a second reason to develop a spare tire which takes less storage space than a conventional tire.

Since this spare tire is designed for use on the nation's highways, it must conform to the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, for strength, endurance and high speed performance. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of this standard.

ID: 12421.jeg

Mr. Michael Ostrowski
499 S. Ridge Road
Lake Forest, IL 60045
Dear Mr. Ostrowski:

This responds to your faxed letter concerning an interpretation we provided to you on August 27, 1996. I apologize for the delay in this response.

In your first letter, you asked us to "evaluate the brake system design of 1987-1990 Range Rovers" ("the I-H brake system") for compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. More specifically, you provided diagrams of a brake system design for those vehicles and asked whether the design came within Standard No. 105's definition of "split service brake system." We concluded that the brake system appeared to come within that definition.

In your follow-up letter, you raised a new issue concerning whether the Range Rover design comes within the definition of "split service brake system." As discussed below, the issue you raise does not change our prior conclusion.

Our earlier letter included the following discussion:

The term "split service brake system" is defined in S4 as "a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem."

As we understand the diagrams, the brake system at issue has two subsystems. The first subsystem, which we will refer to as Subsystem 1, is identified as the "primary hydraulic circuit." The second subsystem, which we will refer to as Subsystem 2, is identified as the "secondary hydraulic circuit."

Subsystem 2 includes the hydraulic lines and components exiting the master cylinder which activate the aft piston in each front brake caliper, and one piston in each rear brake caliper. Subsystem 1 includes the hydraulic lines and components exiting the master cylinder which activate one forward piston in each front brake caliper.

Based on our understanding of the diagrams, a leakage-type failure in Subsystem 1 does not impair the operation of Subsystem 2, or vice-versa. Therefore, the brake system appears to come within the standard's definition of "split service brake system."

In your follow-up letter, you state that a retired brake engineer has advised you that "one key reason why the U.S. brake system suppliers and the Big 3 do not use the 'I-H' brake system is that a piston seal leak in the top piston of either front caliper will result in brake fluid wetting the brake pads on that wheel and therefore will 'impair the operation' of the other subsystem." You asked us to review again "the I-H arrangement of the subject 1987 and later Range Rovers."

We do not have any information concerning whether a particular leakage-type failure in one subsystem of the brake system at issue would result in brake fluid wetting the brake pads. However, even if it did, we would not consider it to impair the operation of the other subsystem. In such an instance, the other subsystem would operate no differently than if the brake pads were not wet. Of course, as we noted in our earlier letter, Standard No. 105 does require vehicles to meet stopping distance requirements with a leakage failure in either subsystem.

If you have further questions about this interpretation, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:105
d.8/1/97