ID: nht76-1.19

DATE: 03/08/76

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

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 30, 1976, letter requesting clarification of my March 7, 1975, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Military Specification MIL-H-3992C.

My previous letter indicated that brake hose and brake hose assemblies sold to the military in conformity with MIL-H-3992C are, because of the provisions of 49 CFR 571.7(c), subject to neither the labeling nor the performance requirements of Standard No. 106-74. While Part 571.7(c) appears to exclude from the requirements of Standard No. 106-74 only that equipment which is sold directly to the Armed Forces, the NHTSA interprets this section as also excluding that equipment which is sold to military contractors, under contracts requiring it to conform to military specifications such as MIL-H-3992C, for installation in vehicles which are in turn sold directly to the military. We are considering the issuance of an interpretive amendment of Part 571.7(c) to this effect.

YOURS TRULY,

MIDLANDROSS

February 3, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Further clarification of your March 7, 1975 letter to the undersigned (reference number N40-30 (MIS)) is requested with respect to the question of direct sales to the military. We, as a brake hose assembler, sell MIL-H-3992C specification hose to a vehicle manufacturer, the prime contractor for a military vehicle. Does this constitute selling "directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications?" Does this further place the end-use control of the hose assemblies with the prime contractor?

Rulings by you or your office would be appreciated on the above questions.

Leon C. Huneke Chemical Engineer

ID: nht76-1.30

DATE: 03/01/76

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

TO: Leisure Time Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as they apply to the manufacture of mobile homes with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

The standard requires that these vehicles be equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 in<2> of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. While you are free to provide additional mirrors, the standard clearly requires two mirrors each of which has at least 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Substitution of a number of small mirrors for one or both of the 50 in<2> mirrors is impermissible, even if a total reflective area of 50 in<2> is provided.

If you require any further assistance, do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

Leisure time PRODUCTS, INC.

January 29, 1976

Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111

As a manufacturer of motor homes of over 10,000 pounds GVWR, I am not certain on how to interpret Section S6 of Standard No. 111. I understand the minimum requirements for mirror size, capability, and location which would be applicable. The item which I question is the 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Are the mirrors required to be of one piece instead of possibly two piece? For example, two mirrors one with 40in.<2> reflective surface and additional mirror of adequate size to meet the 50in.<2> requirement for each side of vehicle.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Tommy Watson Engineer of Codes and Standards

ID: nht76-1.47

DATE: 11/17/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1976, question whether any Federal regulation requires that the maximum load rating assigned to a passenger car tire be reduced by approximately 10 percent in calculating its maximum load rating for use on a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, or bus.

The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, became effective September 1, 1976, and provides for the reduced maximum load rating you describe. Section S5.1.2 of the standard provides in part that "[when] a tire listed in [the passenger car tire standard] is installed on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, or trailer, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.10 before calculating the sum [that must at least equal the axle system's gross axle weight rating]." A copy of the standard, with subsequent amendments, is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

John W. Snow National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have noted that page XI of the 1976 Tire and Rim Association standards, copy enclosed, requires that a passenger car tire be loaded to not more than 91 percent of its rated load when used on a truck, bus or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Is this limitation included as a part of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 or 119?

If the requirement is applicable, we propose to include it in our Vehicle Equipment Inspection Guide. If the restriction is not referenced in the standard, are we preempted from adopting it as a part of the enclosed State regulations on tires?

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht76-2.15

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 2, 1976, in which you ask whether the definition of "Contactable surface" in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, includes areas on the front of the seatback located more than three inches from the top of the seat.

Your interpretation of "contactable surface" is correct. The standard states in paragraph S4 that only the uppermost three inches of area on the front of the seatback is considered part of the "contactable surface." The remainder of the front of the seatback is not considered part of the "contactable surface" and need not meet the head impact requirements of S5.3.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

September 2, 1976

Tim Hoyt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Enclosed are two (2) prints that show our interpretation of the MVSS #222 seat impact regions. In a previous letter, we were informed that the head impact region (marked "H") extends downward to the "12 inch level" above the S R P on the aisle of the seat. The front of the seat was not mentioned.

Our interpretation of S 4. definitions.

"Contactable Surface" is that we do not need to meet the head impace requirements on the front of the seatback below the "H" region. This region is shaded and dimensioned 3" on the print. Is this interpretation correct?

Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain,

L. T. Mitchell, Jr. Engineering Department

H - HEAD IMPACT REGION

K - KNEE IMPACT REGION

(Graphics omitted)

H - HEAD IMPACT REGION

K - KNEE IMPACT REGION (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.42

DATE: 12/01/76 EST

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

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1976, regarding questions on Docket No. 75-8; Notice 5, for a two-lamp rectangular headlamp system. The answers are provided in accordance with the paragraph numbering of your letter.

1) The two-lamp rectangular headlamps must meet the requirements of SAE J579c.

This is an improved performance lamp over the requirements of SAE J579a and, therefore, must meet the requirements of SAE J579c.

2) The maximum permissible candela for the Type 2B headlamp is 75,000 as specified in SAE J579c. The lower limit for other types of headlamps is retained awaiting future rulemaking action.

3) SAE J580b as specified in the 1976 edition of the SAE Handbook is the correct reference specification for the Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

3-1) Answered above

3-2) Answered above

3-3) Appropriate revisions to subreferenced SAE standards have at this time not been made for the Type 2B headlamp. In the case of SAE J580b, conducting the tests with a modified deflectometer to fit the Type 2B lamp would be sufficient. It is anticipated that revisions will soon be made to the appropriate subreferenced SAE standards for the Type 2B headlamp.

Your suggested revisions for the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards to incorporate the Type 2B headlamp, including a modified design of deflectometer, may be sent directly to:

Society of Automotive Engineers Detroit Office, Suite 206 2100 West Big (Illegible Word) Troy, Michigan 43084 ATTENTION: Mr. James Tishkowski

We hope this clarifies the questions contained in your letter. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

ID: 1985-04.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Dennis Johnston

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 12, 1985 Mr. Dennis Johnston Director, Pupil Transportation Office of School Standards Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Department of Education and Cultural Affairs 700 N. Illinois Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Dear Mr. Johnston: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the school bus lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With the desire of warning motorists that a school bus is preparing to stop at a railroad crossing, you ask about the appropriateness of using the amber lights in a red and amber lamp school bus warning system for this purpose. The amber lamps would be activated 300 to 500 feet before the crossing, and remain activated when the bus had halted and its door had opened. However, the red lamps would remain deactivated, and not flash as they do when the bus has stopped to take on or discharge passengers. This would be accomplished by means of a switch which would be used only for the warning purpose described above. Paragraph S4.1.4(b)(2) of Standard No. 108 prescribes the method of operation of a red and amber school bus warning system: "(ii) The system shall be wired so that the amber lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened." We interpret this as meaning that the system must operate in the prescribed manner whenever the bus entrance door is opened for whatever purpose, after the initial activation of the amber lamps. Therefore the system you describe is not permissible under Federal school bus lighting requirements. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Richard Pertz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 25, 1985 Richard Pertz, Esq. Julian & Pertz, P.C. 1629 Oneida Street Utica, NY 13501 Dear Mr. Pertz: I regret the delay in replying to your letter of July 12, 1985, regarding interpretations of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. You asked whether the agency has issued any interpretations concerning S5.1.2 of the standard. In addition, you asked whether Ford Motor Company had submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) any interpretations of paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 111, regarding requirements for mounting inside rearview mirrors in passenger cars. This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. As part of its responsibilities, this office issues interpretations of safety standards, upon written request. This agency has issued two interpretations of S5.1.2 of Standard No. 111. Copies of these interpretations are enclosed. In addition, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance investigated the compliance of different makes of passenger cars with Standard No. 111 between 1977 and 1981. The Ford passenger car models tested were the Ford LTD, Econoline, and Fiesta and the Mercury Zephyr and Cougar. As a part of its submission to the agency in these investigations, Ford provided information on its compliance with S5.1.2. The files are available on microfiche from the Technical Reference Office, Room 5108 (202-426-2768) at the address shown above, and the file numbers are CIR Nos. 1708, 2062, 2063, 2064, and 2245. Your request in your letter of September 3, 1985, for comments by Ford on notices of proposed rulemaking on Standard No. 111 has been referred to the Docket Section. They will reply directly to you regarding this information. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 7023

Mr. James G. White
Head, Crash Avoidance Standards (ASFBE)
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Transport Canada

FAX: 613-998-1965

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your FAX of February 18, 1992, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, who has asked this office to respond to your question 1.a.

That question is: "Is Koito correct in stating that FMVSS 108 does not require the 'O' point on IHAD (sic) indicators to be marked by the numeral '0'"? In the letter from Koito that you furnished, Koito had remarked that the requirement in S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2) of Standard No. 108 "to have a zero mark" did "not necessarily mean a mark of figure 'O', but may be just a reference mark."

Koito is incorrect. S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming specifies requirements for Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices (VHADs). VHADs provide for headlamp aim inspection in both the vertical and horizontal axes. S7.7.5.2(a)(2) Horizontal aim states that "An 'O' mark shall be used to indicate alignment of the headlamps relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." This clearly establishes the requirement for use of the figure "0" as the mark, and not use of a reference mark. You will note that S7.7.5.2(b) references setting the VHAD "at 'O' vertical and 'O' horizontal." This means at the "O" mark.

Both S7.7.5.2(a)(1) Vertical aim and (a)(2) reference the necessity to provide "an equal number of graduations from the 'O' position representing angular changes in the axis." These graduations are not required to be marked. The presence of the "O" mark will assist the person aiming the headlamp to ensure that the VHAD is set at the junction of the horizontal and vertical axes, rather than at one of adjacent, unmarked graduations.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:109 d:3/5/92

ID: 77-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/77

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

TO: Chief Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We seek your help in the clarification and interpretation of federal certification regulations, with specific emphasis on the assignment of responsibilities to the final manufacturer of trailerized and truck mounted tanks. A number of serious problems are encountered in the fulfillment of the responsibility for certification. For example, after a customer picks up his tank and leaves our premises it is impossible to know exactly what changes in tires and chassis or what product and what quantity of product he may haul in the tank.

Tanks may haul such products as ice cream mix, whey, frozen orange juice, wine, additives and various other products that have considerable variation in density. Recently, a number of our tanks were used for hauling water in place of bulk milk or cream, due to the drought conditions existing in Wisconsin. Therefore, it is our firm conviction that the manufacturer should show on the certification both the gross vehicle and axle weight rating in pounds for the completed vehicle. It would then become the responsibility of the operator of the vehicle to see that the volume of product hauled in relation to density is within the vehicle load carrying limitations. It is certainly within control of the operator to limit the loading of his vehicle, to select replacement tires required to handle the load and to replace the chassis for his tank that meets the load carrying requirements of his vehicle.

So that each vehicle is operated safely and within federal safety regulations, we urge your interpretation of the certification regulations whereby the final manufacturer would certify the ratings of the completed vehicle in the amount of weight specified, as a better and more workable certification procedure.

ID: 77-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. J. Lagomarsino - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 16, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. (Illegible Word) Smith concerning the safety of radial tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the Department of Transportation, promulgates safety standards requiring that tires meet minimum levels of strength and endurance. Should a tire not meet the performance levels prescribed in the tire standards, its manufacturer would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. (Illegible Word) 89-563) and subject to the penalties specified thereunder.

The NHTSA has not concluded that radial tires produced in the United States are less safe than those produced elsewhere. All tires, sold in the United States, both domestically and foreign-manufactured, must comply with (Illegible Word) safety standards.

The problem to which your constituent refers, the so-called "phoney steel belted radial," concerns steel belted radial ply tires that use only a single steel belt in their construction. As cited above, our standards specify performance and not design requirements. Thus, tire manufacturers may use whatever materials they choose in constructing tires that meet the prescribed performance level. Within our standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, we require the tire manufacturer to identify the generic name of the material used in the ply cords, and we require that the actual number of plies in the tread area be specified. Therefore, when a consumer purchases a new passenger car tire, he can identify whether the steel belted radial ply tire has one or two steel belts.

Since your constituent describes a situation of misleading advertising, I believe his letter should also be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission. I suggest that you contact that agency for an opinion on the issue.