ID: diamst

Mr. Gary Shultz
Vice President, General Counsel and
General Manager--Public Relations
Diamond Star Motors
100 North Diamond Star Parkway
Normal, Illinois 61791

Dear Mr. Shultz:

This responds to your letter asking about Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that section 583.6 specifies that manufacturers are to determine the percentage U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, before the beginning of each model year. You stated, however, that the regulation does not indicate what should be done when there is a change of plans in the source of production for a particular carline in the middle of the model year. According to your letter, one of your carlines currently in production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan, which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point.

You requested confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether section 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carline's content only on a one-time model year basis. You also requested confirmation as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, section 583.5(a) requires manufacturers to provide five basic items of information on the label: (1) U.S./Canadian parts content; (2) Major sources of foreign parts content; (3) Final assembly point; (4) Country of origin for the engine; and (5) Country of origin for the transmission. The first two items are determined on a "carline" basis; the last three items are determined with respect to individual vehicles.

Both Part 583 and the American Automobile Labeling Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304) contemplate that U.S./Canadian parts content and Major sources of foreign parts content are determined on a once-a-model- year basis for a particular carline. In particular, section 32304(b)(2) reads as follows:

At the beginning of each model year, each manufacturer shall establish the percentages required for each carline to be indicated on the label . . . . Those percentages are applicable to that carline for the entire model year. . . .

We believe that Congress included this provision to reduce unnecessary manufacturer costs, and was seeking to make it clear that the manufacturers could not be required to revise their calculations during the model year. The specified percentages are estimates by nature, and the assumptions underlying them are subject to change during the model year. It would be very burdensome to manufacturers to be required to constantly recalculate the estimated percentages throughout the model year.

Your letter raises the issue, however, of whether a manufacturer is permitted to revise the carline percentages in the event of a major change in source of production during a model year. It is our opinion that a manufacturer may revise the percentages in such circumstances, at its option. Such revision would be analogous to correcting an error and would prevent the possibility of misleading consumers. If you do make such a revision, however, the revised estimates should reflect the model year as a whole and not just the balance of the model year. In addition, the label should include a note indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the model year. This is necessary to prevent confusion when consumers compare the labels of vehicles within the same carline manufactured at different times.

You also asked whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Since final assembly point is determined for individual vehicles rather than carlines, the label must be changed to indicate the actual final assembly point of the vehicle. See section 583.5(a)(3).

The section which you cited, i.e., section 583.5(e), permits manufacturers to provide additional information for carlines assembled in the U.S./Canada and in one or more other countries. Since your carline would now be assembled in the U.S./Canada and Japan, your company may avail itself of this option. I note that section 583.5(e)(3) provides that a manufacturer selecting this option for a particular carline must provide the specified

additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline. In your situation, you would need to provide the additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline, beginning from the time the vehicles were manufactured in both places.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:583 d:2/l0/95

ID: 7079

Mr. Mark A. Sedlack
Product Design Manager
Century Products Co.
9600 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056

Dear Mr. Sedlack:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). More specifically, you asked how compliance testing would be conducted for a rear-facing child restraint labeled for use by children weighing up to 25 pounds.

The initial question we must address is what size test dummy would be used for compliance testing. S7.1 of Standard No. 213 provides that the six-month-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds. S7.2 of Standard No. 213 provides that the three-year-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing more than 20 pounds. Since the rear-facing child restraint in your example is recommended for use both by children weighing less than and more than 20 pounds, either the six-month-old or the three- year-old dummy could be used in the agency's compliance testing, as provided in S6.1.2.3 of the standard.

Your letter stated that you understood that this rear-facing child restraint would be subject to testing using the three- year-old dummy. However, you indicated that neither your company nor a testing facility understood how the three-year- old dummy could be installed in a rear-facing child restraint. You asked for clarification of how the three- year-old dummy could be installed.

At the outset, I must note that it is impossible for me to offer any guidance for how to install the test dummy in your particular rear-facing child restraint because I do not know the details of your design. I can offer general guidance that you should be able to apply to your particular design. The procedures to be followed in positioning the three-year- old dummy in any child restraint other than a car bed are set forth in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the three-year-old dummy to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1, then that rear-facing child restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for use in the rear-facing position by children weighing more than 20 pounds. This conclusion is similar to the agency conclusion announced in a July 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Donald Friedman that an infant restraint so small it cannot accommodate the six-month-old test dummy cannot be certified as complying with Standard No. 213.

In our letter to Mr. Friedman, the agency indicated that rulemaking could be initiated to sanction the use of an additional test dummy to evaluate the performance of a child restraint. However, that rulemaking would have to include an agency determination that this additional test dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring the system's performance in an actual crash. We can make the same statements with regard to the situation described in your letter. You stated in your letter that you have tested your company's existing convertible seats in the rear-facing position "with a CAMI dummy modified to 25 pounds with satisfactory results." If you have any information or test data showing that the CAMI dummy so modified is a reliable surrogate for measuring the performance of your convertible systems in the rear-facing position, such information might be helpful to this agency in deciding whether to initiate rulemaking in this area. Until such a rulemaking action were completed and amended provisions in effect, however, you cannot recommend that a child restraint be used for children weighing more than 20 pounds if that child restraint cannot accommodate the three- year-old test dummy.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:213 d:4/22/92

ID: NCC-211019-002 Zorn VW EPB FMVSS 135 2024.05.31_Interp

May 31, 2024

Mr. Thomas Zorn 

Vice President 

Vehicle Safety Office 

Volkswagen Group of America 

2200 Woodland Pointe Ave. 

Herndon, VA 20171 

Dear Mr. Zorn: 

This interpretation responds to your letter asking whether Volkswagen’s new Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems. Specifically, you asked (1) whether paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 135 would permit an EPB system that uses a traditional friction brake combined with a mechanical drivetrain lock; and (2) whether Volkswagen may rely on the entire EPB system for compliance with the test set out in paragraph S7.12. Based on the information you have provided, our answer to both of your questions is yes. 

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide advance approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. 

In addition, in responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 135 provides: “Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement.” The term “parking brake” is defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 571.3(c) as “a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle.” Thus, a compliant parking brake must prevent movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. Additionally, the parking brake system must also have “solely mechanical means to retain engagement,” meaning it cannot be held in place by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air, or electricity. 

Paragraph S7.12.2 of FMVSS No. 135 describes NHTSA’s conditions and procedures for testing whether a parking brake system complies with our standard. The test procedures require a test conductor to, among other things, drive the vehicle onto a 20 percent grade, apply the 

Mr. Thomas Zorn 

Page 2 

service brake with enough force to hold the vehicle stationary, shift the transmission into neutral, engage the parking brake system, and remove all force from the service brake. After the test conductor has taken the above steps, the vehicle must then remain stationary for five minutes. If the vehicle remains stationary for the required five minutes, the test conductor then repeats the test with the vehicle facing in the opposite direction on the grade. If the vehicle once again meets the stationary time requirement, and meets all other requirements in the paragraph, the parking brake system passes the compliance test.  

The EPB system described in your letter appears to be a parking brake of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement. You describe Volkswagen’s new EPB as a system that will “utilize a traditional friction brake combined with a mechanical lock that is automatically engaged in the vehicle drivetrain when the EPB is activated.” Based on this description, the system has a friction element combined with a mechanical drivetrain lock designed to hold the vehicle stationary. Additionally, based on the information provided in your letter, engagement of the friction element of the EPB is not retained by pneumatic or hydraulic means. To the best of our knowledge, the only ways to retain engagement of a friction type brake are by pneumatic, hydraulic, or mechanical means. Because your friction brake is not retained by pneumatic or hydraulic means, for the sake of this letter, we are assuming that engagement of the friction element of the EPB is retained by mechanical means.1 Applying that assumption, the Volkswagen EPB system described in your letter appears to meet the requirements of S5.2 of FMVSS No. 135. 2 

You also state that Volkswagen intends to rely on the entire EPB system to demonstrate compliance with paragraph S7.12 and ask whether NHTSA would conduct its compliance tests similarly. In conducting compliance testing for parking brakes, NHTSA follows the testing procedures set out in S7.12, as described above. You state that the friction element and mechanical lock are “designed to operate together only, and cannot be engaged individually by the vehicle operator.” Additionally, you indicate that it would be impossible for Volkswagen’s EPB system to engage the friction brake exclusively without the mechanical lock engaging. The testing procedure specified in S7.12 does not mandate a parking brake system hold a vehicle stationary by exclusively friction means. Accordingly, if NHTSA conducted compliance testing on the EPB described in your letter, it would follow the procedures as written in S7.12. 

I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew Filpi of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,

ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/24
Ref: Standard No. 135

ID: nht73-3.49

DATE: 04/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1973, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a.

Answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The reservoir configuration in your Sketch No. 1 would meet the requirements of S5.4.1 for compartmentalized reservoire. We have provided a similar interpretation to General Motors Corporation on this point, which is enclosed for your reference.

2. Since the configuration of your Sketch No. 1 conforms to S5.4.1, a single fluid level sensing device is acceptable.

3. The configuration shown in your Sketch No. 2 would not comply with volumetric requirements of S5.4.2 since your "reserve" fluid volume plus "protected" fluid compartments "A" and "B" volumes would not be equal to the total volume required by S5.4.2. S5.4.2 requires a volume for each reservoir equal to the fluid displacement resulting when all-wheel cylinders or calipor pistons serviced by the reservoir move from a new lining, fully retracted position (etc) to a fully worn, fully applied position. Thus, if this final condition existed on both subsystems, one subsystem would not have the specified fluid available.

4. The configuration depicted in your Sketch No. 3 would meet the requirements of S3.4.1 and S5.4.2 as well as S5.3.1(b) assuming the indicator lamp would be activated at or above the 25 percent level of fluid volume.

5. The configuration shown in your Sketch No. 4 would meet the requirements of S5.4.1 and S5.4.2 as well as the requirements of S5.3.1(b) with the same assumption that the lamp would be activated at or above the 25 percent fluid volume level.

ENC.

ID: nht73-1.50

DATE: 08/20/73

FROM: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning the meaning of the term "75 percent extension" as used in S5.2(j) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

The 75 percent extension point used in 85.2(j) is intended to represent the belt's extension during its use in a vehicle. The measurement of extension is therefore begun with the webbing retracted as fully as the design of hardware and the size of the retractor permit. It may be that when the belt is retracted to this point a considerable amount of webbing remains outside the retractor, as shown in Figure 2 of your letter. The measurement of extension nonetheless begins at this point, so that "75 percent extension" is 75 percent of the incremental webbing length between this point and the point of fullest extension.

To refer to the figures accompanying your letter, the measurement technique shown in Figure 2 is correct. That shown in Figure 1, which is based on 75 percent of the total length of the belt, is incorrect.

ID: 18897-3.wkm

Phillip A. Proger, Esq.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
Metropolitan Square
1450 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-2088

Dear Mr. Proger:

This refers to your meeting with Messrs. Daniel, Myers, and Woods of this agency on October 1, 1998, and your letter of October 8, 1998,⁽¹⁾ in which you asked whether it was permissible to deactivate momentarily the antilock brake system (ABS) malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) following a bulb check for an ABS diagnostic test. The answer is no.

Your letter stated that Lucas Varity Light Vehicle Braking Systems (LVBS) desires to perform an ABS diagnostic test immediately following the bulb check, thereby deactivating the MIL momentarily. Following this momentary deactivation, the lamp would again illuminate if a malfunction message existed in the system. You stated that one or more of your diagnostic tests would seek to determine whether a short circuit existed in the system which may inadvertently activate the MIL, and that other unspecified tests cannot be performed while the lamp is activated. You stated that a momentary deactivation of the MIL following the bulb check would be beneficial and consistent with the overall purpose of the lamp activation protocol of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems, as amended.⁽²⁾

Paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 105 requires each vehicle to which the standard applies to have a brake system indicator lamp or lamps that meet the requirements of S5.3.1 through S5.3.5. Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less may have a single brake system indicator lamp, while vehicles with GVWRs greater than 10,000 pounds must have a separate indicator lamp for ABS malfunction. Further, vehicles with GVWRs greater than 10,000 pounds are required by S5.3.3(b) to store a malfunction message in the ABS after the ignition switch is turned to the "off" position so that the MIL is automatically reactivated when the ignition switch is again turned to the "on" position. The MIL must also be activated during the check of lamp function, or "bulb check," whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position, and deactivated at the end of the bulb check unless a malfunction is present or a malfunction message exists from the previous ignition cycle. Thus, after the check of lamp function, if a malfunction message exists, the MIL must remain illuminated after the other indicator lamps deactivate. No deactivation of the MIL at that point, however "momentary," is permitted by the standard. Permitting the MIL to extinguish, even "momentarily," would defeat the purpose of the requirement and could be confusing to drivers and inspectors.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or have need any additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Ref:105
d.5/14/99

1. We note that you sent us three letters dated October 8, 1998, all referring to the October 1, 1998 meeting and all relating to the malfunction indicator lamp protocol of Standard No. 105. We are responding to the three letters separately.

2. With the exception of paragraph S5.3.3(b), the amendments to Standard No. 105 at issue here entered into effect on March 1, 1999. The compliance date of the requirements of S5.3.3(b) was extended until September 1, 1999 by Interim Final Rule, Request for Comments dated February 26, 1999 (64 FR 9446).

ID: 3037yy

Mr. Danny J. Pugh
Engineering Manager
Special Service Vehicles
Utilimaster Corporation
65266 State Road 19
P.O. Box 585
Wakarusa, IN 46573

Dear Mr. Pugh:

This responds to your letter of April 15, 1991 regarding requirements for safety belts and door hardware in the prisoner area of police vehicles. Specifically, you asked if police vehicles are required to have seatbelts for prisoners, and if so, what type. You also asked if these vehicles are required to meet the door hardware requirements of Standard No. 206 for rear and side doors.

All new vehicles, including police vehicles, are required to comply with all safety standards applicable to their type. Therefore, police vehicles, unless they are buses, are required to have safety belts at all designated seating positions when they are sold to the customer. Our December 13, 1990 letter to you regarding van conversions summarizes what type of safety belts are required depending on the seating position and vehicle type.

In addition, police vehicles are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 206, if the vehicle is classified as a passenger car, a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a truck. You should note, however, that the requirements of Standard No. 206 do not apply to back doors, including car hatchbacks, van rear doors, and pickup truck tailgates.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:206#207#208#210 d:6/l0/9l

ID: nht91-4.16

DATE: June 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-15-91 from Danny J. Pugh to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5958)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 15, 1991 regarding requirements for safety belts and door hardware in the prisoner area of police vehicles. Specifically, you asked if police vehicles are required to have seatbelts for prisoners, and if so, what type. You also asked if these vehicles are required to meet the door hardware requirements of Standard No. 206 for rear and side doors.

All new vehicles, including police vehicles, are required to comply with all safety standards applicable to their type. Therefore, police vehicles, unless they are buses, are required to have safety belts at all designated seating positions when they are sold to the customer. Our December 13, 1990 letter to you regarding van conversions summarizes what type of safety belts are required depending on the seating position and vehicle type.

In addition, police vehicles are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 206, if the vehicle is classified as a passenger car, a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a truck. You should note, however, that the requirements of Standard No. 206 do not apply to back doors, including car hatchbacks, van rear doors, and pickup truck tailgates.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam4570

"Dear Mr. Lawrence: This is a response to your letter of October 5 1988, asking this agency to 'reconsider and rescind' an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR /571.124). The interpretation which was the subject of your request was addressed to Mr. Leon Steenbock and dated March 17, 1988. Mr. Steenbock asked whether it is permissible under Standard 124 to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. In our response to Mr. Steenbock, we stated that while nothing in the Standard prohibits installing a hand-throttle control in a new vehicle, ''locking hand throttle controls' are expressly prohibited by Standard 124.' In your letter, you stated that most (and perhaps all) heavy truck manufacturers install hand throttles for engine warm-up, extended idle periods, and for vocational applications such as pumping, compacting, and mixing. You also stated that your company installs only locking hand throttle controls and that these locking hand throttle controls hold the driver-selected engine idle speed until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed, or disengages the throttle. In support of your position that the letter to Mr. Steenbock was incorrect, you referred to the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 124. NHTSA's response to requests that special provisions be made for hand throttles was as follows: Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that 'hand-throttles' and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of 'idle position.' Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within the same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of 'idle position' to provide for the use of throttle positioners. (37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.) In accordance with this stated intent, the definition of 'idle position' in S4.1 of Standard 124 was amended to read: (T)he position of the throttle that will provide the lowest engine speed for existing conditions according to the manufacturers' recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning equipment, and emission control equipment, and the use of throttle setting devices. Because of this language, we agree with your position that Standard 124 permits the installation of hand throttles, including locking hand throttle controls, provided that the vehicle's engine returns to the lowest engine speed threshold as adjusted by use of the hand throttle within the time and under the conditions set forth in S5 of Standard 124. To the extent that our March 17, 1988 letter is inconsistent with this interpretation, it is incorrect. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590";

ID: aiam0540

Dear Mr. Dandy: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, on the subject o seat belt retractor testing under S5.2(k) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; Your outline of the emergency locking retractor test procedure i essentially correct. During the initial 5,000 cycles, however, the belt is to be retracted completely, even though some vehicle installations may prevent complete retraction. The assumption in (3)(ii) of your letter is therefore incorrect.; The remaining points in your interpretation are correct. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel