ID: nht90-4.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Lawrence W. Rusk -- Project Engineer, Drum Brakes, Allied-Signal, Inc., Bendix Automotive Systems

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref: FMVSS105, Revision to Standard Effective September 1, 1991

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated November 7, 1990 from P.J. Rice to L.W. Rusk (A36; Std. 105)

TEXT:

This standard is being modified to no longer permit the "locking out" of drum brake automatic adjusters. In the past, release type automatic adjusters used on duo-servo rear drum brakes were made inoperative during the 105 test to prevent the tendency o f such mechanisms to overadjust during the test procedure. Overadjustment can cause poor cooling in the rear brakes, and eventually may lead to dragging rear brakes. An apply type auto adjuster is not subject to overadjustment during the 105, but most Bendix current production duo-servo drum brakes are fitted with the release type. Apply type adjusters have more piece parts than release type, and therefore do cost more in any brake they are used in.

Both current and revised standards allow for manual adjustment of the rear brakes after the initial burnish, and after each of three subsequent reburnishes. With inoperative adjusters, this is done to compensate for lining wear that occurs during the te st. Therefore, such manual adjustments were to expand the drum brake shoes to be closer to the drum. Since the revised standard still allows for adjustment at each burnish, with operative release type adjusters, manual adjustments could be made to back the shoes away from the drum and therefore counteract the release adjuster's tendency to overadjust.

In summary, it seems to us at Bendix Automotive Systems that duo-servo brakes with release type adjusters could be made to pass the revised 105 by making manual brake adjustments to offset overadjust tendencies. On September 26, 1990, I discussed this p roposal with Zach Fraser in the Enforcement Group. He suggested that I request a written interpretation from you on this proposal. Please consider this our formal request for an NHTSA position on the concept described herein.

If you or other representatives of NHTSA would like to discuss this issue further, I can be reached at (219) 237-2074. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht88-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 1988

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: M. IWASE -- MGR., TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO M. IWASE FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-18-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE AND LETTER DATED 4-8-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1988, with respect to the agency's proposed S7.7.5.2 of Standard No. 108, on-vehicle aiming requirements which would include a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD). This was proposed on December 29, 1987, as Notice 5 to Docket 85-15.

You have asked whether two designs contemplated by Koito comply with the VHAD as proposed. With respect to the second design, "Structure-2", you requested that it be considered confidential as it involves a Koito idea related to a patent application. However, you withdrew that request on June 9, 1988.

With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlamp system that "includes" a VHAD, rather than "incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...." This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

We have further comments about your devices. Structure 1 incorporates a stationary lens and housing, but the reflector is adjustable. The lamp must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the reflector in any position within the proposed aimability range of +/- 4 degrees vertical and +/- 2 1/2 degrees horizontal, or any combination thereof. Structure 2 features a detachable spirit level which is inserted when the replaceable bulb is removed from the headlamp. Although the proposal does not specifically prohibit this feature, the test procedures do not anticipate a VHAD design where the light source would be removed and replaced with the VHAD.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht72-4.47

DATE: 08/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In your letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).

The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses, requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. "Designated seating capacity" is defined to mean "the number of designated seating positions provided," while "designated seating position" means "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats" (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of "intent," is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 139(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).

Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in compliance with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).

We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirements for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.

ID: aiam1196

Dear Mr. Hunter: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, in which you aske our opinion as to the effect of Standard 208 upon your vehicle air conditioner installations.; Standard 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, for the next few year allows manufacturers the option of providing either seat belts or passive protection systems, of which the air cushion is presently the most widely considered, in various combinations. The decision as to when passive protection would become mandatory has not yet been made.; The passive protection requirements of Standard 208 are measured wit instrumented dummies, and the standard does not specifically regulate the method by which manufacturers provide the protection in the various crash tests. The way a manufacturer chooses to meet the standard, including the arrangement of the components of the vehicle interior, is thus left to his own discretion and the NHTSA does not offer opinions as to particular vehicle designs.; The 'vacuum advance system' you refer to evidently refers to the ai pollution control programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. That agency's address is Washington, D. C. 20460.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

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

TO: Jim Cawse; Fred Diehl -- Plastics Technology Division, General Electric Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/2/95 letter from Jim Cawse and George Diehl to Philip Recht

TEXT: Gentlemen:

We have received your letter of January 2, 1995, asking for a confirmation of the appropriateness of your proposed test procedures for plastic materials, as you wish to "continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C."

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires, with certain exceptions, that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE J576C. It has been the agency's position over the years that 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 ( formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) does not establish a requirement that a manufacturer actually conduct compliance testing, but requires only that a vehicle or equipment item conform to any applicable Federal motor vehicle safet y standard if tested in the manner set forth in the standard. We have advised that a manufacturer may exercise due care in certifying compliance of its product on bases other than the test procedures that are set forth in the Federal motor vehicle safet y standards, whether the procedures are incorporated by reference, as with J576c, or directly expressed in the standards themselves, although NHTSA itself will conduct its tests according to the procedures set forth in the standards. For this reason, we have no comment on the merits of your suggested approach.

Because the agency has proposed amending Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for J576c, we are filing your letter in Docket No. 94-37 as a comment to be considered in this rulemaking. Enclosed is a copy of the proposal with which you are proba bly already familiar. Although the comment period closed on January 3, it is the agency's practice to consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

Sincerely,

ID: 0636

Messrs. Jim Cawse and Fred Diehl
Plastics Technology Division
General Electric Company
One Plastics Ave.
Pittsfield, MA 01201

Gentlemen:

We have received your letter of January 2, 1995, asking for a confirmation of the appropriateness of your proposed test procedures for plastic materials, as you wish to "continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C."

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires, with certain exceptions, that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE J576c. It has been the agency's position over the years that 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) does not establish a requirement that a manufacturer actually conduct compliance testing, but requires only that a vehicle or equipment item conform to any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard if tested in the manner set forth in the standard. We have advised that a manufacturer may exercise due care in certifying compliance of its product on bases other than the test procedures that are set forth in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether the procedures are incorporated by reference, as with J576c, or directly expressed in the standards themselves, although NHTSA itself will conduct its tests according to the procedures set forth in the standards. For this reason, we have no comment on the merits of your suggested approach.

Because the agency has proposed amending Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for J576c, we are filing your letter in Docket No. 94-37 as a comment to be considered in this rulemaking. Enclosed is a copy of the proposal with which you are probably already familiar. Although the comment period closed on January 3, it is the agency's practice to consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:2/6/95

ID: nht80-3.41

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: F. BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Borg-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 29, 1980, letter asking whether Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, would prohibit the use of a free-wheeling device.

Section S3.1.2 of that standard states that "[in] vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour." The purpose of this section is to provide a transmission braking effect as a supplemental braking system at speeds below 25 miles per hour. According to our understanding of your device, it may not provide the type of supplemental braking described in this paragraph. However, if the driver may activate some type of device to override the "free wheeling" aspect to provide some engine braking, then the requirement of Section S3.1.2 could be met.

SINCERELY,

Borg-Warner Corporation

July 29, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Opinion

Dear Sir:

We are interested in determining whether the provision of a free-wheeling device (such as a one-way clutch) in series with the drive train of a vehicle would violate any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, or any other law or statute.

Our engineers have proposed incorporating a one-way clutch in series with the prop shaft of a vehicle. The only standard which we found that appears related to this is No. 102, and particularly S3.1.2 "Transmission Braking Effect". We do not believe this would rule out incorporation of a free-wheeling device, as the driver could easily place the shift lever in neutral and preclude engine braking whether the transmission is manual or automatic.

Thank you in advance for considering this matter and providing us with your opinion.

James J. Jennings Assistant Patent Counsel BORG-WARNER CORPORATION

ID: aiam0409

Dear Mr. Humphreys: By letter of May 26, 1971, you requested our interpretation of S7.2. of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as it affects motor homes and campers that have a forward control configuration. The section provides that forward control vehicles under 10,000 pounds GVWR manufactured after August 15, 1977, may continue to use seat belt assemblies and need not provide passive protection, but that motor homes and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers must provide passive protection, at least in head-on impacts. Your question is whether a motor home or chassis-mount camper that is also a forward control vehicle must provide passive protection.; The exemption granted by S7.2.3 to forward control vehicles was base on the difficulties inherent in providing adequate passive protection for such vehicles, regardless of their anticipated use. If a forward control vehicle is manufactured in the form of a motor home or camper, the exemption continues to apply and such a vehicle would not be required to conform to the passive protection requirements of S4.1.2.2.; Please advise us if you have further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3472

Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which yo petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of 'moped' and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a 'moped' uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommende definition of 'moped', which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.; The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.; Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to th public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.; >>>'Moped' means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mil is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.<<<; Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definition of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).; We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the variou definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of 'moped' stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term 'moped' for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF (sic) 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term 'moped' in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.; Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of question relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act,; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Question 1: The present definition of 'motor-driven cycle' is 'motorcycle' with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR S571.3(1979). Does this mean that a 'motor-driven cycle' must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?; Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that appl to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.; Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('FMVSS') 123, 49 CF 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?; Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when th moped is being propelled by the engine.; Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems b operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?; Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they woul comply with the requirement.; Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR S571.127 at S.3 (1979) exclude motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR S571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motor- driven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?; Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.;

ID: aiam3471

Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which yo petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of 'moped' and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a 'moped' uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommende definition of 'moped', which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.; The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.; Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to th public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.; Question 1: The present definition of 'motor-driven cycle' is 'motorcycle' with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR S 571.3 (1979). Does this mean that a 'motor-driven cycle' must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?; Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that appl to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor- driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.; Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('FMVSS') 123, 49 CF 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?; Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when th moped is being propelled by the engine.; Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems b operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?; Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they woul comply with the requirement.; Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR S 571.127 at S.3 (1979) exclude motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR S 571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motor-driven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?; Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.; >>>'Moped' means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mil is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.<<<; Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definition of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).; We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the variou definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of 'moped' stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term 'moped' for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF (sic) 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term 'moped' in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.; Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of question relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel