ID: nht79-1.48

DATE: 04/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1979, requesting our interpretation of whether the turn signal identification symbol which you propose meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The answer is yes. As long as the turn signal symbol is displayed in the horizontal mode, as shown in Table 1, it will comply with the standard. Small additional arrows that will not be confused with the turn signal symbol may be incorporated to indicate movement of the control. Your thin vertical arrows do not appear to pose any possibility of causing such confusion.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SABARU OF AMERICA, Inc.

March 26, 1979

Our Ref. No. 039-79C

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We request your approval of our interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays, as it applies to turn signal switch identification.

For 1980 model year Subaru proposes to place identifying arrows in the horizontal mode. We also propose to have small arrows in the vertical axis to denote the direction of movement necessary to activate the turn signal switch. From the enclosed sketch you will note that the horizontal arrows are the predominant ones.

Due to production lead time problems, response at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Paul Utans -- Associate Vice President, Product Compliance

Enc.

cc: Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.; Fuji Liaison Office (Graphics omitted)

ID: 19323.wkm

Mr. Michael L. Mack
Bosch Automotive Proving Grounds
Bosch Braking Systems Corporation
32104 State Road 2
New Carlisle, IN 46552-9605

Dear Mr. Mack:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you referred to paragraph S5.6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems, and asked whether, after activating the parking brake and releasing the service brake, the vehicle would be allowed to "roll a bit" before the parking brake takes hold. The answer is a qualified yes.

Paragraph S5.6.2 of Standard No. 121 provides:

Grade holding. With all parking brakes applied, the vehicle shall remain stationary facing uphill and facing downhill on a smooth, dry portland cement concrete roadway with a 20-percent grade, both

(a) When loaded to its GVWR, and

(b) At its unloaded vehicle weight plus 500 pounds (including driver and instrumentation).

We assume that Bosch is referring to the distance traveled during brake "wrap-up" (partial revolution of the braked wheels to enable the brake shoes to reach peak torque). Although the standard is silent on this issue, the agency discussed it in a February 8, 1990 Federal Register notice (55 FR 4447-4453, copy attached), stating that some small amount of movement, on the order of several inches, can result during the transition from the service brake application to the parking brake application. Therefore, we would not consider such small amount of movement during brake wrap-up to be in violation of the grade holding requirements of Standard No. 121.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.7/2/99

ID: nht95-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Kawa Saki Motors Corp., U.S.A

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: Projector Beam Headlamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY SHETLER (A43; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 2/7/94 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/6/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER

TEXT: Attached per my telephone conversation with Mr. John Womack are the following:

1. Two drawings of projector beam headlamps a) original drawing submitted with our February 7, 1994 request for interpretation (Drawing A) b) modified drawing showing the addition of a cowling over the headlamp (Drawing B)

2. February 7, 1994 Kawasaki correspondence to NHTSA

3. May 6, 1994 correspondence from Mr. Womack

Standard 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.

The subject Kawasaki motorcycle headlamp in Drawing A and B contains the upper and lower beam in one housing and is a single headlamp. However, the addition of the cowling (Drawing B), which is a permanent part of the motorcycle to which the headlamp wi ll be applied, provides the appearance of two headlamps.

My question to Mr. Womack during our telephone conversation was concerning the addition of the cowling and the interpretation of the requirements in Standard 108.

Will the revised proposed application of the projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle as seen in Drawing B meet the requirements of Standard 108?

Thank you in advance for your quick response to our inquiry.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext. 2456.

Regards

DRAWINGS OMITTED.

ID: 11806WKM

Mr. D. L. O'Connor
Manager
Government & Customer Compliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, OH 44316-0001

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on April 18, 1996, and your follow-up letter also dated April 18, 1996.

You state that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Venezuela, South America, in that Venezuela wants verification from a U.S. governmental agency that Goodyear tires comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when the DOT symbol is marked on them. You state that this is the same problem that Goodyear encountered in exporting tires to Colombia last year, and that Venezuela would accept the same type of letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that we issued to you last year for Colombia. You request, therefore, that we issue a letter to you similar to the one we issued last year regarding the Colombian imports.

As you requested, please find enclosed a "To Whom It May Concern" letter very similar to the one we provided you on August 9, 1995. As we explained to you at that time, the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment as do many other countries, including the Central and South American countries. Accordingly, this statement is as far as we can go in describing the Federal government's role in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed letter will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:4/30/96

ID: nht72-5.33

DATE: 12/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crawford and Company Insurance Adjusters

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1972, concerning an accident involving a 1972 International tractor which you maintain was not certified by its manufacturer as complying with applicable Federal standards. You state that the accident may have been due to "insufficient gross vehicle weight".

The Certifications regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 558) do require final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles they complete, by affixing to them a label containing information specified in the regulations. In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, the regulations require that such information include a gross vehicle weight rating, and a gross axle weight rating for each axle. These ratings are set by the manufacturer based on definitional criteria found in the regulations (@ 563.3, 49 CFR @ 571.3). Your definition of a "final-stage" manufacturer, "anyone who installs a component that is not readily attachable", is correct only if the component installation is to an incomplete vehicle.

Your letter has been forwarded to our Office of Standards Enforcement, who will conduct whatever investigation is appropriate to determine whether violations of NHTSA regulations have occurred. Such an investigation does not include ascertaining the cause of any accident, or whether a particular vehicle may have been overloaded. It concerns only whether the respective manufacturers have complied with NHTSA regulations applicable to them.

If you wish to know the results of this investigation when it is completed, you may write our Office of Standards Enforcement, NHTSA, or call Mr. George Shifflett of that office at (202) 426-1693.

ID: nht87-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec 31, 1986

U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

This is in further response to your letter of July 15, 1986, in which you asked a number of questions concerning our standards and regulations. This responds to your question about Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting Requirements. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

You asked about the requirement in Part 585.5(a)(4) of the regulation. That section provides that a manufacturers report "contain a statement regarding the extent to which the manufacturer has complied with the requirements of S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. " You explained that you did not understand what the sentence means and asked whether your sample report conformed to the requirement of the regulation.

S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides for the phasing-in of the automatic restraint requirements and sets certain percentage of passenger car production requirements that each manufacturer must meet. The purpose of Part 585.5(a)(4) is to have each manufact urer state to what degree of extent it has met the applicable phase-in requirement. Thus, a statement, such as the one contained in your sample report, which sets out the percentage of your vehicles produced during an applicable reporting period that com ply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of the standard would meet the requirement of Part 585.5(a)(4).

If you have any further questions, please me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1989

FROM: TRACEY POWELL -- LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD, CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/5/90 FROM S. WOOD, NHTSA, TO T. POWELL, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION; [REDBOOK A35; VSA 103(D); STD. 108]

TEXT: The AMA recently completed a study to see how many states have complied with 49 CFR @ 571.108 permitting modulating headlights for motorcycles. We believe modulating headlights should be allowed in every state to help prevent accidents. I was informed that you might find the results of our study of interest.

Responses to our recent mailing to a representative in each state indicate that 37 states and the District of Columbia allow the use of modulating headlights either by the passage of legislation or by virtue of not being prohibited by law. Iowa, Miss issippi, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia remain unclear even after follow up calls. Although the 1985 ruling clearly recognizes the difference between modulating and flashing lights, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island continue to prohibit the use of modulating headlights based on the possibility that a motorcycle with a modulating headlamp might be perceived as an emergency vehicle since flashing lights are generally reserved for emergency vehicles.

I have enclosed a response from Maryland indicating their acknowledgment of NHTSA's ruling and intentional disregard for compliance. We would appreciate your assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights throug hout the United States as approved in 49 CFR @ 571.108.

ENC.

ID: nht91-1.2

DATE: 01/01/91 EST

FROM: Andy Tanner -- Glas-Weld of Jacksonville, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Subject: Labeling guidelines

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Andy Tanner (A37; Std. 205; VSA Sec. 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Upon the recommendation of Mr. Clark Harper, I would appreciate an official answer on a few labeling questions. Our company restores marred bus windows and renders them in like new condition in accordance with the Z 26.1 specifications.

Most of these windows were manufactured of acrylic materials produced by such companies as E I Dupont. For the sake of this example, the windows formed from Dupont product would carry the registered trade name "Lucite". As our windows are remanufactured the following questions arise:

a. Do we have to indicate the materials manufacturer or his trade name or is a generic designation which would exclude the origination information acceptable?

b. The windows, prior to restoration, conformed to the Z 26.1 specification. In our operation little material is removed from the surface and the windows retain the conformity with the original requirements as regards strength. The surface is then processed to insure good environmental properties. If the windows are basically unchanged, do we keep the original labeling or must unaltered properties be restated in our marking?

Your guidance would be greatly appreciated, as I wish to provide the proper information to both my customers and the involved Federal authorities.

Please do not hesitate to contact us, if I have failed to make any question adaquately clear.

ID: 77-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Caron Service Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking where you can obtain vehicle certification forms and a permit to undertake modifications of trucks to lengthen and shorten their frames.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates regulations pertaining to vehicle safety. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the agency. The NHTSA does not license manufacturers or alterers. Accordingly, you need not obtain a Federal permit to alter trucks in the manner you propose. Similarly, the NHTSA does not supply forms for vehicle certification. You may have these forms printed in the form provided by Part 567, Certification, of our regulations (copy enclosed).

The type of manufacturing operation you describe would place upon you responsibility, as an alterer of the vehicle prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to the standards.

I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where to obtain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

SINCERELY,

VEHICLE CERTIFICATION

COMPLETED VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY:

DATE OF COMPLETION: INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY:

DATE INC. VEHICLE MFG GROSS VEH. WEIGHT RATING GROSS AXLE WEIGHT RATING

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN

VEHICLE ID NUMBER: TYPE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION: ( ) TRUCK ( ) BUS ( ) MPV

ID: nht79-1.4

DATE: 01/16/79

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

TO: R. D. Phillips

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard D. Phillips Attorney At Law P.O. Box 66 Ludowici, Georgia 31316

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your December 15, 1978, questions about the status of school buses subject to recall for antilock malfunction now that the "no lockup" requirement of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been invalidated in the cases of trucks and trailers. You also ask whether the antilock systems in question must be reconnected, whether the vehicles would thereby be made more or less safe, and what the effect of continued disconnection might be on liability considerations.

I have enclosed the agency's official interpretation of the effect of the invalidation on the operational status of vehicles equipped with antilock. In the case of vehicles subject to recall, we stated that section 154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414) mandates an "adequate repair," and that, in the NHTSA's view, the benefits of "no lockup" performance mandate the offer of repair and reconnection.

The letter also states that disconnection, consistent with regulations of other authorities and the instructions of the manufacturer, would not violate the Vehicle Safety Act. While the NHTSA finds that the repair would provide desirable "no lockup" performance, we are unable to counsel you on the Long County Board of Education's liability if the system were not reconnected.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure