ID: 77-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bandag of Nassau, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 10, 1977, letter asking whether it is permissible for you to use a DOT number assigned to another tire retreader when you perform special retread work in your plant for the other retreader who lacks facilities to do the work himself.

Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, requires that the retreader apply a DOT symbol and identification number to the tire. The DOT symbol indicates conformance with Federal regulations. The number enables the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to identify the retreader that manufactures the tire. To permit one manufacturer to use the identification number of another would impair the NHTSA enforcement actions. Accordingly, you would not be permitted to use any DOT number other than your own on tires you retread.

SINCERELY,

BANDAG OF NASSAU, INC.

March 10, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: DOT Regulations

If two individuals are both financially interested in two distinct corporate tire entities -- one party operating the one retread plant and the other party operating the second retread plant -- each plant having its own DOT identification marker, is it permissable to use both DOT markers in the first plant to enable them to process special work that cannot be done in the second plant.

We shall appreciate your advising us on this matter.

L. Wenderoth

ID: nht70-2.26

DATE: 09/21/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Donald O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1970, concerning Mr. George R. Smith's comments on the energy-absorbing steering system in response to my interview in your August issue.

I did not mean to imply that energy-absorbing steering systems were not installed by some manufacturers, such as General Motors, prior to the effective date of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 - Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System.

Mr. Smith is correct in noting that Standard No. 203 does not require collapsible steering columns. It was intentionally written in performance terms rather than as a design specification. Most manufacturers chose the collapsible steering column to meet the standard, hence the common use of the term "collapsible column" to refer to our requirement. However, it should be noted that the standard is also being complied with by steering control systems employing other methods of energy-absorption including energy-absorbing rims and a collapsible bellows located forward of the steering wheel hub.

Regarding your request for a copy of the National Highway Safety Bureau "Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," this plan is a working document and represents the presently scheduled rulemaking actions to be issued by our Motor Vehicle Programs activity during the period of 1970-1972. I am pleased to enclose a copy as you requested.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of my interview remarks and I enjoyed reading Mr. Smith's comments.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht93-4.43

DATE: June 23, 1993

FROM: Howard Schecter

TO: Office of Cheif Counsal (Chief Counsel), NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/93 from John Womack to Howard Schecter (A41; Std. 115)

TEXT:

I am seeking help in obtaining a guidance document regarding a 3 wheeled motorcycle that I purchased from a second party in California and then shipped to Hawaii.

The trike is made with a Corvair frame, engine, and transmission. The front end is a Yamaha. Hawaii has a Reconstructed Vehicle Department, which I brought the trike to for inspection. I was told the trike didn't have a 17 digit Federal ID#, therefore I couldn't register the trike.

I called the manufacture in California. He told me the following: when he first started building these trikes many years ago, he was approached by an inspector from the DMV. He was told that he had to apply for a manufacturers license. After filing the application it was returned to him by the same inspector telling him that California didn't consider him a manufacturer since he was using all used equipment was allowed to continue building his trikes. He was then told to take his trike to the California Highway Patrol to obtain a VIN#, an engine ID#, and a control number.

He was not told anything about Federal ID#. He has shipped his trikes all over the U.S. including 4 trikes to the Big Island of Hawaii. He manufactures about 6 trikes per year. I would appreciate whatever help you can lend me so that I can get my trike registered in this state.

ID: nht76-1.6

DATE: 04/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: American Bosch Electrical Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

American Bosch Electrical Products

February 23, 1976

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 104

Gentlemen:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Alvin L. Slayton, Engineer -- Product Reliability Department

ID: nht93-8.27

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Build Buses, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Jane L. Dawson (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Last week I requested some clarification from you concerning the final rule to FMVSS 217, and you suggested that I fax you my questions. Please address the following:

1. The definition of "daylight opening" refers to the maximum unobstructed opening. What constitutes an obstruction and how close to the door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?

2. In the current rule, each school bus must be equipped with either a rear emergency door OR a LS emergency door in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment and a pushout rear window. Has the location of the INITIAL LS emergency door been changed so that it is now required to be as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment or is the INITIAL LS emergency door still required to be in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment, and only a LS door that is used as an additional emergency exit required to be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment?

Walter, I know that this will require a WRITTEN response from you, but I'd appreciate it if you would call me at (910) 841-5798 and go over it verbally before you write a response to save some time.

ID: nht92-7.24

DATE: April 29, 1992

FROM: Dan Glickman -- Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Fourth District - Kansas

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Jerry Ralph Curry to Dan Glickman (A39; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am writing this letter in regard to a request from David Lourana.

I have enclosed a copy of the correspondence I received from Mr. Lourana which explains the request. I would greatly appreciate any information you could share with me regarding the concerns detailed by the enclosed letter. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Phillip Fishburn in my Hutchinson office as he is assisting me in this matter.

Attachment

April 20, 1992

Electman,

I am trying to find out if there is a specific law pertaining to the "big 3" automotive manufacturers as to requirement of gasoline tank capacity accuracy?

I had read an article years ago that it stated a automotive gas tank takes a certain amount to be filled that wasn't. As stated in article; completely dry up to and including the neck of the tank. If not required, how is a person to know if he or she is receiving what is paid for - "gas"?

I think there is a requirement but I am not 100% sure.

Could you please help?

Sincerely,

David Lourana

ID: 16120.ztv

Mr. Scott Patten
Government Relations Coordinator
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Patten:

This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1997, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to motorcycle headlamps.

You have asked whether the shape of the outer lens of a motorcycle headlamp must be symmetrical in a headlamp design in which "the effective area of the reflector is symmetrical." The bulb, reflector, and lens are centered on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. You believe that an asymmetrical outer headlamp lens is permissible as it is not specifically prohibited. You have also cited in support a letter from the NHTSA Chief Counsel dated January 12, 1987, to Stanley Electric. Co. stating that "the effective area of the reflector is used as the reference for headlamp location, rather than the outer edge of the headlamp lens."

We confirm your belief that an asymmetrtrical outer lens for a motorcycle headlamp is permissible under Standard No. 108. Table IV requires a motorcycle with a single headlamp to have the lamp located on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. As long as the bulb, reflector, and lens are centered on the vertical centerline, as you have indicated, the headlamp outer lens need not be the conventional circular or rectangular shape.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/20/97

ID: 1985-04.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/12/85

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LARRY HIROHATA -- VEHICLE EQUIPMENT SAFETY SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OFFICE HONOLULU, HAWAII

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/09/85 FROM JOHN LOVSTEDT TO JERE MEDLIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hirohata:

This is in reply to the letter of August 9, 1985, from John Lovetedt, Highway Safety Manager, to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency asking for a clarification of paragraph S4.5.11(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1985.

This paragraph (a renumbering of a paragraph in effect since January 1, 1972) states that "means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes." Mr. Lovstedt asked whether this meant that a headlamp could be wired to operate as a turn signal lamp. On the basis of a specific prohibition in regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety against combining a headlamp and a turn signal lamp, he concluded that headlamps should not be so wired.

This conclusion is correct. We believe that confusion could result from such a configuration given the relatively minor light output of a turn signal lamp compared with that of a headlamp. The provision is intended to allow cycles of activation and deactivation by automotic means of headlamps on police and emergency vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-7.33

DATE: October 21, 1993

FROM: Schaub, James (Bubba) -- Midas Muffler And Brake Shop

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 5/18/94 Letter From John Womack To James Schaub (A42; PART 570)

TEXT: First allow me to introduce myself. My name is James "Bubba" Schaub. I manage a Midas Muffler and Brake Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, located at 180 Gause Blvd., and have for 9 years now. My concern is in the area of ethical and sound business practice. I'm taught by Midas to replace Brake rotors and/or Brake Drums when they exceed the minimum thickness (on disc rotors) or maximum Diameter (on Drums), published by original Equipment manufacturers. My questions are as follows -

1. Please [ILLEGIBLE WORD] F.M.V.S.S. 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

2. Is there any basis for [ILLEGIBLE WORD] in following this policy? (of disc rotor and/or Drum replacement when out of manf. safety [ILLEGIBLE WORD]).

Please understand that my concern lier only with doing the right thing - the safe way, for our customer. Let it be known that the [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] are not following their own recommendations, for safety in this matter, which causes my customers to believe that we (midas) are fraudulently, selling and installing parts on thier vehicles when [ILLEGIBLE WORD] not needed. But, if I can present on established standard to our (midas) Customers, I can prevent them from feeling they've been taken advantage of.

(ARTICLE FROM UNDERCAR DIGEST IS OMITTED.)

ID: nht76-1.27

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning the rim listing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and 110.

You wish to designate the 15x5.5JJ rim as permissible for use with tire sizes 225-15 and 230-15. You have requested confirmation of your interpretation that you need merely list the rim in a document that is furnished to your dealers, to any person on request, and in duplicate to the Tire Division of the NHTSA. Your interpretation is correct. Please note, however, that this listing must include dimensional specifications and a diagram of the rim, unless each of the association publications referred to in S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 109 in which the rim is listed already contains such specifications and diagram.

We hope that you will also ensure that this tire-rim combination is listed in one of those publications as soon as is possible.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

JANUARY 27, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 109 - New Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars FMVSS 110 - Tire Selection and Rims

We are writing to confirm our interpretation of paragraph S.4.4.1 of FMVSS 110 and paragraph S.3 and S.4.4.1 of FMVSS 109.

It is our understanding that in order to add an additional permissible rim width for a tire which is already listed in the tables of FMVSS 109, we need merely include it in a document (such as our Data Book or Technical Bulletin) which is furnished to our dealers and to any person upon request, and in duplicate to the Tire Division of NHTSA.

It is our immediate need to add the 15x5.5JJ rim as a permissible fitment for tire sizes 225-15 and 230-15.

Your prompt reply would be appreciated. Thank you.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.