ID: nht90-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DOUGLAS MAYES -- PRESIDENT CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS TO NHTSA; RE BRAKING DISTANCE TEST AND LABORATORIES USED BY DOT; OCC 4087

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking questions in relation to your product called "gyroscopic wheel covers." We apologize for the delay in our response.

According to your letter and accompanying information, you claim that use of "gyroscopic wheel covers" can reduce stopping distance. You stated that Dr. Carl Clark of this agency suggested that you request this office to provide a letter specifically ou tlining the requirements of the agency's braking test, and a list of the various testing facilities used by the agency when testing a product for this purpose. You then asked for a letter stating the "stopping distance test guidelines" of Safety Standar d No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems," and a list of laboratories acceptable to DOT that could be used to test your product. You also asked whether an SAE standard is a proper example of a stopping distance test. You stated that it is your intention to us e these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document your product's test results in compliance with the DOT testing standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its products meet applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The standard specifies, among other things, a number of stopping distance tests that each motor vehicle must meet. I have enclosed a copy of the stand ard for your information.

I note that Standard No. 105 was not designed for the purpose of evaluating whether a product such as yours can improve stopping distance. We are unable to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of using Standard No. 105's stopping distance tests fo r that purpose, or how such a test program would best be carried out.

This agency does not provide recommendations or endorsements for particular testing laboratories. I have, however, enclosed a list of the independent laboratories conducting compliance tests for NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance during the cur rent fiscal year.

I have also enclosed a copy of an information sheet we have prepared which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

[NHTSA STANDARD NO 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS; 49 CFR CHAPTER V; DATED 10/01/89 OMITTED]

ID: 86-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive, P.O. BoX 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and use of the "fanfare" symbol. According to your letter, all Mercedes-Benz passenger cars are provided with a horn that when activated produces an audible tone. The control for so activating the horn is located in the steering wheel hub. In addition to the standard horn, your company also offers an optional system on some models which permits the driver to choose either the standard tone or a higher frequency tone by means of a dash-board-mounted rocker switch. The rocker switch is identified by the fanfare symbol. The audible tone selected is then produced by activating the horn control in the steering wheel in the usual manner. This letter confirms that the use of the fanfare symbol for the rocker switch described above is permissible under Standard No. 101.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any control listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such control. See section S5. Among the controls listed in Standard No. 101 is the 'horn' control. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 1.

It is our opinion that the "horn" control referred to by Standard No. 101 is limited to that which activates the horn to produce an audible tone. Thus, a separate rocker switch which permits the driver to choose different tones but does not activate the horn to produce an audible tone is not considered to be a "horn" control within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Since a control of this type is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, the identification of the control is at the option of the manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 77-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

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

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking what standards apply to vehicles designed to transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school.

Vehicles that transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school are not considered buses according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of "bus" found in 49 CFR Part 571.3. Accordingly, these vehicles transporting fewer than 10 passengers would not need to comply standards applicable to either school buses or buses in general. The vehicles to which you refer would be required to comply with standards applicable to passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles depending upon the type of vehicle being used to transport children. Your should consult Part 571.3 (enclosed) of our regulations to determine the classification of the vehicle you intend to construct since the vehicle classification establishes the applicability of the standards.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

May 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I first want to thank you very much for your response to my questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

My question today involves, I believe, proper certification, identification and standards compliance. I hope I am correct in the above description of the question as offered herein.

It is our belief that by terms of Federal definition, "a bus" incorporated 10 passengers or more, exclusive of the driver. "A school bus" is subject to the above passenger load and is further defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes, that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. If the above facts are correct, then my question is as follows.

What certification, and thus, what Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will apply to a vehicle designed primarily and used exclusively to transport students to and from school or related events, which has a passenger load of less than 10?

I am, of course, referring to a vehicle that transports primarily handicapped students Sample floor plans depicting wheelchair locking positions and some seat positions are enclosed. As you can readily see, both floor plans have less than 10 passengers.

We will certainly appreciate your answer to the questions presented and if you desire any additional details, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice President

ID: nht79-2.24

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kei Matsui Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima 730-91 Japan

Mr. Matsui:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1979, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) views on whether the inclusion of optional equipment on certain Mazda models would be sufficient to create a number of different series within that model.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that models equipped with different optional equipment could each be designed a "series" if Mazda desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the difference between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 11, 1979 Our Ref. No. RDE-79-8

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Sir:

Subject: Question on Interpretation of FMVSS No. 115 "Vehicle Identification Number" Docket No. 1-22, Notice 8

We are now developing a system to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 115 published in the March 22, 1979 Federal Register. As shown in the attached tables, our vehicles are advertized and sold under the designations given according to their specifications. For example, the Mazda GLC has the designations of "Basic", "Custom", "Decore Package" and "Sports".

Although these designations are utilized for the purpose of sales, they have been only given according to the level of the optional parts installed. Therefore, we think that these designations do not correspond to "Series" stipulated in S3 "Definition".

We would like to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not. We would appreciate your reviewing our above request and advising us of your comment at your earlist convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Kei Matsui Manager Development Administration Division

ID: nht80-3.24

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc., Dietmar K. Haenchen, Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980, asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section states that lamps "shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle ... that is not designed to be removed except for repair." It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license plate lamps could be mounted on the deck lid.

We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to insure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flamps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 April 1980

CERTIFIED MAIL

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 108; lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it applies to the mounting of lamps as specified in section S4.3.

Subsection S4.3.1 states ...each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair,...

It is Volkswagen's opinion that the above requirement would not preclude the mounting of lamps on movable flaps such as a deck lid since the deck lid is a rigid structure removed only for repair. With this rationale, present planning by Audi NSU Auto Union is to incorporate the backup lamps and license plate lamps into the deck lid of several future models (see attached sketch).

Marx Elliott of the NHTSA in a phone conversation with a member of my staff, indicated that he thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct, however, he recommended that we obtain a interpretation from your office.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen

Encl.

ID: nht92-1.38

DATE: 12/07/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RICHARD HORIAN -- PRESIDENT, WOODLEAF CORP.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-6-92 FROM RICHARD HORIAN TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7980)

TEXT: This responds to your two letters of November 6, 1992, with respect to the allowability under Federal regulations of the "Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light." As you describe it, "when a driver engages in hard braking, a circuit activates a separate lighting system to warn other drivers to pay special attention to a potentially hazardous situation."

This system will not utilize any of the existing rear lights on a vehicle, and will consist of a single lamp or pair of lamps, either mounted separately, or in the same housing as the center high-mounted stop lamp. The system will be red or amber in color, and either steady burning or flashing. The system is activated only when a predetermined threshold of pressure is reached upon depression of the brake pedal.

Supplementary lighting systems such as the one you have described are permissible as original motor vehicle equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting systems required by the standard, or if there is no provision of the standard that affects them. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 specifically prohibits the physical combination of the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device, thus your system could not be used in a common housing with the center light (see copy of enclosed letter to Mr. S. Suzuki on this subject). However, if the system is mounted separately, under the circumstances you have presented, we do not believe that there would be any direct impairment of the required rear lights, or indirect impairment such as might be created when confusion may result upon simultaneous operation of the supplementary light and any required light.

As the letter to Mr. Suzuki indicates, passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, were not required to be equipped with the center lamp. This means that your light could be combined in the same housing as a center lamp intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985, but it could not be part of a replacement center lamp intended for use on vehicles manufactured subsequently. In addition, with the exception just noted, installation of the system on a vehicle in use would not appear to affect the safety functioning of any safety system necessary for continued conformance of the vehicle, it would appear that your system is acceptable for sale and installation in the aftermarket as well. However, the individual States have the authority to regulate lamps for vehicles in use, and we suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion as to whether the system is permissible under State laws. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht78-1.16

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: M. H. Hollaway

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

Tires manufactured for use on passenger cars or other motor vehicles designed principally for highway use must comply with all Federal regulations applicable to those tires. Tires designed for use on farm vehicles, on the other hand, are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) a dealer may not "knowingly render inoperative" a device installed on a motor vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. A dealer who removes properly certified passenger car tires from an automobile and replaces them with tires that are specified for farm use would be in violation of section 108 in that the complying tires would have essentially been rendered inoperative by his actions. Section 108 does not apply to private individuals. Thus, a car owner would not be in violation of the law if he accomplished the tire replacement himself. Such action would be highly inadvisable, however, since these restricted use tires are not constructed in compliance with standards that ensure a minimum safe level of performance for highway operation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 16, 1977

Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20013

Gentlemen;

Will you please answer the following question?

Is it unlawful to use tires on a passenger car that are marked "Farm tires"?

These tires are passenger car type tires with white sidewalls. However, a local tire store refused to install them because of the markings.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours Truly,

M. H. Hollaway

MARCH 7, 1978

M. H. Holloway

Dear Mr. Holloway:

This is in further reply to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

We inadvertently neglected to point out in our February 14, 1978, response to your letter that any tire which is marked with a Department of Transportation (DOT) symbol is presumed to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to it. Any tire with such a symbol may therefore be mounted on a motor vehicle without violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the former tires are removed, regardless of the appearance of words associating the tire with farm use.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: nht74-2.39

DATE: 03/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Continental Gummu-Werke

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1974, raising certain questions about the effective date (September 1, 1974) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. You pose two hypothetical questions, asking whether tires must be quality graded when they are to be placed on vehicles manufactured or imported after September 1, 1974. In the first situation, the tires are manufactured in July 1974, while the vehicle is manufactured in August 1974 and imported in October 1974. In the second, the tires are manufactured in August 1974; the vehicle is manufactured in September 1974 and imported in November 1974.

The Quality Grading regulation applies to tires rather than vehicles. Its effective date of September 1, 1974, means that all passenger-car tires manufactured on or after that date must be graded in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement, however, that vehicle manufacturers must use tires manufactured after that date. In each hypothetical question you present, the tires are manufactured before September 1, 1974, and therefore are not required to be graded. The date of manufacture or importation of the vehicle is immaterial.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Our Ref.: 61011-Ga-gs

January 29, 1974

Subject: U.T.Q.G. - Docket 25 Notice 7

Gentlemen:

As you know, the tire industry is faced with considerable difficulties in adhering to the date set, i.e. September 1, 1974.

This applies in particular to tires we supply to European vehicle manufacturers whose passenger car production is partly shipped to the United States.

Tires for such vehicles which arrive for instance in the United States in September 1974, have to be manufactured by us already in June. Therefore, your interpretation of paragraph 575.4a, reading as under, is very important for us:

". . . . . . . each section set forth in Support B of this Part applies according to its terms to motorvehicles and tires manufactured after the eff. date indicated, . . . . .".

To clarify matters, please permit us to put up for discussion the following two possibilities: Case Production Date Date of Import No. Tires Car of the Cars into USA 1 July 1974 August 1974 October 1974 2 August 1974 September 1974 November 1974

We would be very much obliged if you would inform us as to whether the tires of the vehicles in the above two cases have also to be provided with the statutory U.T.Q.G. marking.

Looking forward to hearing from you, we remain

Yours very truly, Continental Gummi-Werke Aktiengesellschaft; NEBE; (Illegible Word)

ID: nht94-5.30

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Fred Benford To John womack (OCC-9891)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections . . .

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

2

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1995

FROM: Charles A. Grandy -- Baker and Daniels

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as Applied to Automobile Wheel Manufacturers

ATTACHMT: 1/30/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Charles A. Grandy (A44; Std. 110; Std. 211)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to submit a formal inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regarding the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contained in 49 C.F.R. @ 571 ("Safety Standards") to autom obile wheel manufacturers. Specifically, this letter seeks confirmation that automobile wheel manufacturers are not required to certify that wheels they manufacture comply with any Safety Standards.

As you know, 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 requires that a "manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall certify to the distributor or dealer at delivery that the vehicle or equipment complies with applicable motor vehicle safet y standards prescribed under this chapter." (Emphasis added). Unless a motor vehicle safety standard applies, however, this certification provision does not come into effect. Based on the applicable regulations and our conversation on October 10, 1995, the certification requirement does not appear to apply to automobile wheel manufacturers.

As we discussed on October 10, 1995, and by way of background information, our firm represents an automobile wheel manufacturer that exports wheels to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States to be used in the production of passenger cars . The manufacturer does not produce truck wheels, wheels for sale in the aftermarket or such items as wheel nuts, wheel discs or hub caps. Instead, the manufacturer produces automobile wheels for use exclusively in the OEM market to be used for the pro duction of passenger vehicles. Our question is limited to the delivery of such wheels.

In our recent conversation we concluded that automobile wheels, as such, are not subject to any of the Safety Standards. We discussed specifically the application of the Safety Standards described at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.110 and 49 C.F.R. @ 571.211. Upon review, neither of these provisions appears to apply to automobile wheels and we find no other Safety Standards applicable to automobile wheels. Accordingly, automobile wheel manufacturers should not be subject to the certification requirement describe d at 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 when delivering such automobile wheels.

Please review these issues on an expedited basis and confirm, if you will, our stated conclusions. You may direct all correspondence to the undersigned at the above-referenced address. If you should have any questions or comments, or need any additi onal information, please feel free to contact the undersigned directly at (317) 237-1400. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.