ID: nht75-4.11

DATE: 09/03/75

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

TO: Crane & Excavator Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 28, 1975, letter asking whether the unloaded vehicle weight of a mobile crane carrier would include components that are essential to its specialized function but are not removed for transit purposes. You also suggest alternative wording for a particular exclusion criterion proposed for mobile crane carriers and similar vehicles under Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

I have enclosed a copy of a recent notice that amends Standard No. 121. The preamble to the notice deals with the issues you have raised and should make clear to you that vehicle components are not generally considered part of the rated cargo capacity and therefore would not be subtracted from a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating to determine the unloaded vehicle weight.

YOURS TRULY,

FMC CORPORATION Crane & Excavator Division

July 28, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Council Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Your letter to me of July 2, 1975: N40-30 (TWH)

Thanks for the referenced letter of interpretation as requested by me on June 23, 1975.

I fully realize that NHTSA definition of GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) does not require that the GVWR be the sum of the vehicles GAWR but must not exceed the sum of the vehicle GAWR's.

Your referenced letter states "Unloaded vehicle weight will normally be the GVWR of a vehicle minus its rated cargo load and its assigned occupant weight (at least 150 lbs.). The rated cargo load would not include the weight of portions of a vehicle which are essential to its specialized function but are removed in accordance with State regulation for transit purposes".

Therefore, I assume the following: "The rated cargo load would not include the weight of portions of a vehicle which are essential to its specialized function but are not removed in accordance with State regulation for transit purposes".

Please advise me if my assumption is correct.

To more fully allow our customers to meet the maximum number of State and local regulations it is necessary that our GVWR be a summation of the vehicle GAWR's. Therefore, few of our truck cranes will fall within the 95% or more of GVWR.

The regulation would be more meaningful and specific if you deleted "An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95% of the vehicle GVWR" and replaced it with "An unloaded vehicle weight whose cargo portion is less than 5% of the vehicle GVWR". I recommend this change.

Please advise me if my assumption is correct and your comments on my recommendation.

H. Ray Cozad, Chief Engineer

ID: nht75-4.20

DATE: 03/28/75

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

TO: The Glass Doctor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated January 29, 1975, asking whether a product which you use to repair damaged windshields is prohibited by Federal law or regulation. Your letter was forwarded to our office by the NHTSA Regional Administrator in Fort Worth. You describe the repair process which you use as one in which the air in a damage spot or crack in the windshield is displaced by the product in a liquid form. As this product hardens it bonds itself to the glass, making the damaged area stronger than the other areas of the glass.

There are no Federal laws or regulations which prohibit the use of such a material or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new (but damaged) windshield (such as in shipment) could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR @ 571.205) and we would therefore discourage its use in new windshields.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

The Glass Doctor

JANUARY 29, 1975

Dept. of Transportation-NHTS Legal Dept., Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Gentlemen:

The Glass Doctor has a patented compound and patented process for repairing damaged glass on vehicular windshields. The compound is a lucite or plexiglass base product which must be kept dark and refrigerated prior to use. Once exposed to sunlight (ultra-violet) and heat, the hardening process commences. This process is irreversible, similar to cement.

Repairs to windshield damages are accomplished through a process by which the air in a damage spot or crack on the windshield is displaced by the product while same is still a low viscosity fluid. As the compound hardens, it bonds itself to the glass, making the damaged area actually stronger than the other areas of the glass. A good analogy is that of welding two pieces of metal together. The same principle applies to our glass repair compound and process. We are able to confine existing damage, restore the strength of the glass, and improve the cosmetics of the damage anywhere from 75% to 99%.

In the course of offering our repair service to many of the Motor Freight Trucking firms in the Dallas area, the question has been raised as to whether use of our repair process would be in conflict with existing D.O.T. regulations.

Would appreciate greatly any correspondance from your department which would ascertain that use of our process would in no way conflict with existing D.O.T. regulations.

Sincerely,

E. J. Banks

ID: nht95-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/10/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY ECHT TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10789)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Echt:

We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, asking whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system.

Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash." With this in mind, "and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped", you have asked:

"1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissib le under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver."

Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original e quipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use.

Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementa ry lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within t he meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system.

Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot.

Sincerely,

ID: nht69-1.30

DATE: 03/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter reaffirms the position of the National Highway Safety Bureau with respect to the handling of petitions for the addition of now tires as stated in recent telephone discussions with members of the Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance.

It was related during these discussions that further action on the petition of November 13, 1968, requesting the addition of the C78-13 tire size designation to Table I-J of the Appendix A of Standard No. 109 cannot be taken until the information indicating compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is received covering the desired test rim width. The Standards are directed at total motor vehicle safety; accordingly, they are just as applicable to replacement tires as to tires intended for new motor vehicles and the guidelines for the addition of new tire size designations and new alternative rims to Standards No. 109 and No. 110 as published in the Federal Register of October 5, 1968, therefore apply.

The question of a precedence having been established by the addition of the 5'JJ alternative rim to Table I of the Appendix to Standard No. 110, without supporting date, in the case of the C70-15 tire size designation has been raised by your organization. Our records indicate that your request for the addition of this tire size was based on the petition of August 19, 1968. This action was well in advance of the procedural guidelines established on October 5, 1968. Although this test rim was added to Table I of the Appendix A of Standard No. 110, without text data, the National Highway Safety Bureau believes that a safety hazard could exist if this tire and rim combination is not compatible. We would, therefore, appreciate test information certifying compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 110 by the 5'3JJ rim and the C70-15 tire size combination.

Our records indicate that you have submitted petitions dated July 11 and August 25, 1968, requesting the addition of twelve additional alternative rim sizes to Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. To date, data indicating compliance with Standards No. 109 and No. 110 has not been received and we have advised you in several telephone discussions that no action is contemplated until data is submitted.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate that all future petitions for additions to Standards No. 109 or No. 110 must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1968. The Bureau makes no provisions or exceptions based on the ultimate use of the tires. All new tires will be considered within the framework of these guidelines.

ID: nht70-1.33

DATE: 01/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 16, 1969, concerning the relationship between performance requirements of Standard No. 108 and the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards in Standard No. 108.

Public Law 89-563 requires that the motor vehicle safety standards be stated in terms of what is to be accomplished rather than in terms of specific designs, and that they be objective, reasonable, practicable, and meet the need for motor vehicle safety. In addition, the law required that the initial safety standards be based on existing standards.

Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was based on the existing SAE standards as specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108. In some instances, these specified SAE standards in turn subreference other SAE standards that are design oriented, particularly the subreferenced standards on bulbs, bulb sockets and sealed beam headlamp units.

As provided by an interpretation (copy enclosed) issued on August 12, 1968, entitled, "Bulbs and Bulb Sockets," bulbs conforming to Table I of subreferenced SAE J573 and bulb sockets conforming to subreferenced SAE J567 need not be used in lamp assemblies meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108. Therefore, as an example, tail lamps need meet only the requirements of SAE J585c (including color test in accordance with SAE J578a) when tested in accordance with the specified Sections of subreferenced SAE J575c.

The above interpretation does not apply to sealed beam headlamps. Paragraph S3.1.1 and Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 specify that headlamps shall be designed to conform to SAE J579a and J580a. These specified standards in turn subreference SAE J573b and J571b. The dimensional requirements of SAE J571b serve a need for safety in that replacement sealed beam units are readily available, and standardization of inspection equipment and procedures is possible.

In summary, the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards are applicable except as specifically provided by the enclosed interpretation.

With reference to the last paragraph in your letter, it is recognized that a manufacturer of motor vehicles may, as part of his contractual relationship with a supplier, require that the supplier certify conformance of the items provided by the supplier. Currently Public Law 89-563 does not require Ichikoh to certify conformance to Standard No. 108 of the lighting equipment it provides. However, an amendment to the standard has been proposed which would make the standard directly applicable to certain items of lighting equipment. This proposal would require Ichikoh to certify conformance, but only if Ichokoh were shipping such items directly to distributors and dealers in the United States. I enclose a copy of this proposal for your information.

ID: nht70-2.15

DATE: 06/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Cristales Inastillables de Mexico S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1970, requesting the National Highway Safety Bureau's approval or comments on an Electrical Testing Laboratories Report No. 411430, concerning your CM-20 safety glazing material. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or confirm whether specific motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment comply with Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for ensuring that his product complies with applicable standards. Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1402), furthermore, requires manufacturers to "certify" that their products comply with applicable standards, and specifies how this certification is to be accomplished. A notice published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1967, further explained how manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment may comply with this requirement. I enclose a copy of this notice and the aforementioned Act, with the appropriate sections marked for your information.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 (S3.4) provides an additional method by which manufacturers of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles may certify that their products comply with that standard. This method may be used as a substitute for the methods specified in section 114 and the enclosed notice. It consists of labeling the glazing material with a label that meets the requirements of Section 6 of ASA Z.26.1-1966, "Marking of Safety Glazing Materials", but to which has been added the symbol "DOT", and a manufacturer's code number which assigned by the Bureau on request. The label which you furnish in the appendix to your ETL

Report No. 411430, provided the required "AS"-designation, glazing-model number, and assigned DOT code mark are at least 0.070 inch in height, will meet this requirement. Should you desire to certify your glazing in this manner, we will furnish you with a manufacturer's code number.

Although the Bureau does not furnish approvals of glazing materials, many states do require some form of approval before specific glazing material can be used in motor vehicles subject to their jurisdiction. For information regarding such approvals and assistance in obtaining them I suggest you write to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Attention: Mr. Armand Cardarelli, Suite 500, 1828 L Streets N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, you are required by section 110(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(a)) to designate an agent for service of process purposes. The designation must conform to regulations governing its making (49 CFR 551.45), and I enclose a copy also with appropriate sections marked for your reference.

ID: nht68-3.9

DATE: 01/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. F. Lambert for Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: MR. BRIDWELL HAS ASKED me to reply to your letter of December 1, 1967.

In your letter you raise three questions. The first is:

"(1) We find that in smaller rim diameter models that it is impossible to place all the branding in the white sidewell side between the buffing rib and the top of the rim flange area as shown in Figure 1, Page 14 - MVSS No. 109.

In complying with a state requirement, namely V-1, it was necessary to place the stamping above the buffing rib. Permission is requested to place the stamping above the rib in a protected area where it will not be scuffed and destroyed."

The labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 make it mandatory that the approved symbol (DOT) and the code mark be between the maximum section width and the bead, other information need only be conspicuously labeled. Additionally, there is no requirement that the information be in one section of the area specified, but rather the entire circumferential area can be used for the labeling.

Your second question is:

"(2) Reprocessed Tires

In tire manufacturing sometimes a mold fold will occur in the area of the branding. The area is buffed. If such stamping is removed, will it be necessary to rebrand the tire, or will the use of a label be sufficient? This usually occurs on one side of the tire only."

Your question concerns new tires that have had the labeling information removed by some subsequent manufacturing process. In order to comply with S4.3 of Standard No. 109, the tire will have to be labeled on both sidewalls. Please note however, that S4.3.1 states that "until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporates all specified information not molded into or onto the tire."

Your third question is:

"(3) Removal of 'V-1' born Models

It is our understanding that MVSS Standards No. 109 and 110 prcempt the 'VESC' regulation 'V-1' revised. We are also aware that states can impose safety regulations for tires and motor vehicles provided they are higher than the Federal Standards and are for use on the state owned equipment.

We request a statement from the Department of Transportation stating the position the Department will take regarding the 'V-1' requirements."

Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not require that tires be manufactured without the "V-1" symbol. Presently, a manufacturer may, at his option, continue the practice of molding tires with the "V-1" symbol.

ID: nht71-2.15

DATE: 03/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Willett Company

COPYEE: WILLIAM V. REYNOLDS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a letter dated February 10, 1971, that was received from Mr. William V. Reynolds of the National Association of School Bus Contract Operators asking that we send our reply to you. The letter asks two questions concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which are restated below with our response.

1. Is the standard applicable to a school bus operator who installs seat belts (not presently required) at the behest of a school board for use when transporting children attending Special Education Classes?

The answer to this question is no. Standard No. 213 applies only to child seating systems, and not to seat belts or persons who install seat belts. In addition, there are no other Federal requirements applicable to one who installs seat belts for passengers in either a new or used bus. There is, however, a Federal standard (No. 209) that requires all seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, to meet certain performance requirements. We strongly recommend that you examine the seat belts you wish to install to determine whether they were manufactured to comply with this standard. This can be done by examining the belt assembly, particularly its label or buckle assembly, for the date of manufacture, which may appear in an abbreviated fashion. Also, many seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, will be labeled with a specific statement that they comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This statement may alternatively appear on the box in which the belt assembly is delivered.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulation concerning requirements for seat belt assemblies at the driver's position, in buses under that

agency's jurisdiction, which became effective August 1, 1970. These requirements would be applicable to you if the buses in question are subject to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

2. Is the standard applicable to devices designed by the school physiotherapy department and built in the school carpentry shop for use in transporting handicapped children with a handicap that is peculiar to that one child? (This includes both regular and van-type buses.)

The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 213 applies to all child seating systems for use in motor vehicles, including buses, regardless of whether the child seating system is manufactured by a company for sale or whether it is manufactured for persons for their own use, as in your case. If the standard poses a particular hardship in the situation you describe, however, we will be glad to discuss the matter further with the persons involved.

ID: nht72-1.18

DATE: 09/18/72

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

TO: Demman Rubber Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 14, 1972, requesting information as to whether you may sell tires to a Mr. Harvey Livingston, who is in the business of repairing tires with correctable defects. You ask what assurance you should obtain that the tires are actually repaired and rebranded by Mr. Livingston before their sale by him.

The sale of passenger car tires is subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. "New (Illegible Word) Tires" (49 CFR 571.109). Under these provisions tire manufacturers may sell passenger car tires only in the following circumstances: They may sell tires which perform to the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, and which have been certified as specified in the standard and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574); or, they may sell, until October 1, 1972, (See our notice of August 17, 1972, 37 F.R. 16694) tires which have been reclassified pursuant to paragraph S6 of Standard No. 109. This requires the removal original labeling and the affixing of new labels which were against the was of such tires on public highways. These restrictions apply to the sale of passenger car tires so any purchasers including persons such as Mr. Livingston, who wish to repair the tires and resell them.

If you sell conforming tires to Mr. Livingston, he would not be required by Federal regulations to remove Demmas labeling and to affix his own. Whether or not he did this would depend upon whatever agreement you reach with him. A satisfactory assurance, should you agree with him to follow this procedures, would be a written agreement to that affect; but you should also record the serial numbers of tires which you sell to him. Demman, however, is not permitted to remove its own labeling before sale.

Even if Mr. Livingston affixes the DOT symbol and his own identification number to the tires, the NHTSA would not necessarily find him responsible should the tire fail to conform to Standard No. 109. Mr. Livingston would be entitled to a show that the reason for the nonconformity is not attributable to the work he performed. If he could demonstrate this, Demmas could then be found responsible for the nonconformity.

If you sell Mr. Livingston "reclassified tires", Mr. Livingston would be required to label the tires as required by Standard No. 109, and to certify their conformity to the Standard before he could sell them as passenger car tires. In this situation, Mr. Livingston would be responsible if the tires failed to conform to Standard No. 109.

We have send Mr. Livingston a copy of our response.

ID: nht72-2.37

DATE: 07/21/72

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

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, in which you requested our interpretation of several sections of Standard 121. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your first question concerns the air reservoirs which are considered to be included in the service reservoir system. As shown in your diagram, three tanks are capable of providing air to the service brake chambers: the wet air tank, the dry air tank, and the accessory tank. The first two tanks are clearly part of the service reservoir system. The accessory tank, however, has not been generally considered as part of the service brake system, and it is our opinion that it should not be included in computing the reservoir system capacity.

Although the exclusion of the accessory tank from the service reservoir system would seem to weigh against the present location of your pressure gauge in the accessory system circuit, there is another feature of its operation in its present location which leads us to conclude that it would not be acceptable under the present wording of S5.1.4. In the event of a pressure loss in the accessory system (your Condition #1), the gauge would accurately indicate the pressure in the dry tank until the pressure falls to 65 p.s.i., at which point the gauge would cease to indicate the dry tank pressure and would be only an accessory tank gauge. Thus, if the check valve functions properly, the dry tank would be at 65 p.s.i. even though the gauge may read O p.s.i. Because the pressure deliverable to the brake from the service reservoir system would be the 65 p.s.i. of the dry tank, the gauge would not be indicating the service reservoir system air pressure as required by S5.1.4.

Your third question is whether the vehicle must be stationary throughout the static retardation force test of S5.6.1. Our reply is that the vehicle need not remain stationary. Its friction may be overcome by the test pull, although it must exert a force of the magnitude specified in the section.

Your last question relates to the treatment of trailing axles under the requirements of S5.7.1. You indicate that you presently offer an automatic emergency system as an option and that it appears inconsistent to require park brakes on each axle under the automatic application option when they are not required on each axle the other option. We are continuing our evaluation of the parking brake requirements, including the axle-by-axle braking required by S5.7.1. At this time it has not been decided whether to formally institute rulemaking to adjust the requirements. We will advise you if such rulemaking will be forthcoming.