ID: nht71-3.26

DATE: 07/08/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Gator Trailers Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your correspondence of June 3, 1971, requesting information on how you can receive copies of agency proposed and final regulations, and requesting clarification of certain provisions of an amendment to the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) that was published April 14, 1971.

With reference to your request to receive copies of agency rulemaking publications, we are in the process of establishing a procedure whereby members of the public will be able to receive copies of such publications on a continuing basis for a nominal charge. Until this procedure is implemented, however, upon return of the enclosed mailing list questionnaire your name will be placed on a mailing list to receive copies of relevant materials.

With reference to the amendment to the Certification regulations, you ask whether section 567.4(g)(1)(iii)(3) requires all options to be shown with their respective gross vehicle weight ratings, pointing out that various tire size options are available with your vehicles, each of which may change the GVWR. You also ask whether the requirements of section 567.4(f)(1)(iii)(4), "Gross Axle Weight Rating", apply to trailers.

The gross vehicle weight rating is a value specified by the manufacturer. While the manufacturer may list for it the precise weight of a fully loaded vehicle, considering all options, he is free to set the weight more arbitrarily if he so chooses. The manufacturer should establish the weight rating, however, with the understanding that his vehicle will be loaded to it in determining compliance with certain motor vehicle safety standards.

With reference to your second question, the gross axle weight rating is applicable to trailers. Many trailers are designed so that only a portion of the vehicle's weight is carried on the axle, with the remainder carried by the towing vehicle. In such cases the gross axle weight rating will be different from the gross vehicle weight rating.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: nht93-4.1

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: George D. James, Jr. -- Safety Chairman, Unit 169 WBCCI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-8-92 from George D. James, Jr. to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8094)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 8, 1992, to Paul Jackson Rice, former Chief Counsel of this agency, with respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. After having reviewed Mr. Rice's letter of December 4, 1992, you "still believe that using trailer brakes without activating the STOP LIGHTS is an unsafe procedure . . . ."

The purpose of the Tekonsha device is to control sway of the trailer by light application of the trailer brakes, and not to indicate that the trailer is slowing or stopping. Thus, activation of the trailer stop lamps when the Tekonsha device in use would be inappropriate. However, when the operator does intend to slow or stop, (s)he depresses the brake pedal (foot) which applies the brakes to both the trailer vehicle and the one that is towing it. At this point, the stop lamps are properly activated.

I hope that this explains the matter to you.

ID: 1985-03.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Fernando Benabbi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 25, 1985 Mr. Fernando Benabbi Ditta Alice Via Trieste 1B Italy Dear Mr. Benabbi: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1985, asking about compliance of the child seat, "Titti," manufactured by Bizzi in Milan, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state in your letter that you plan to export these child seats to the United Stated. This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Unlike the type-approved or homologation process used in Europe, we have a self-certification process in the United States. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, which are made by them, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. For this reason, the agency does not approve equipment items prior to their sale. Each child restraint system, such as the "Titti" child seat, must be labeled and certified according to the requirements of S5.5 of Standard No. 213. The label which you enclosed does not state, as required by S5.5, that "THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS." The label should be changed to meet the requirements of S5.5. If the manufacturer chooses, he may, but is not required to, certify that the child restraint also complies with the provisions of section S8 and state on the label: "THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT." In your letter and on the label you enclosed there is the following reference: "ATG CALSPAN No. 7174-1." This may refer to a contract between the manufacturer, Bizzi, and Calspan to test the child restraint for compliance with Standard No. 213. You can write to Calspan to inquire about any testing at the following address: Ms. Barbara Kelleher Arvin-Calspan, Inc. Advanced Technology Center 4455 Genesee Street Buffalo, New York 14225 Please note that Calspan's test may not cover requirements of Standard No. 213 regarding webbing abrasion, flammability, or hardware corrosion, for example. Testing by Calspan or any other testing laboratory does not relieve the manufacturer from its responsibility of certifying the equipment item. Under the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (VSA 151-159). The Vehicle Safety Act defines a manufacturer as any person engaging in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. In addition, there are two other regulations which affect manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551). A copy of Standard No. 213, the Vehicle Safety Act, Part 566, Part 551, and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: nht81-3.49

DATE: 12/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Lowenstein Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter asking whether children's car seats must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, specifically states that each material used in a child restraint system shall comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302.

SINCERELY,

M. LOWENSTEIN CORPORATION

November 25, 1981

Steve Oesch Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

One of the divisions within the M. Lowenstein Corporation is considering selling fabric to a manufacturer of infants' or children's car seats for use in upholstering these seats. We would appreciate your advisory opinion as to whether or not fabrics intended or promoted for this end use must comply with the DOTMVS 302 Fabric Flammability Standard.

Dr. John R. Holsten Director Of Regulatory Affairs

ID: 1982-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION NOA-30

Mr. Dick Premo Superior Division Sheller-Globe Corporation 1200 East Kibby Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your telephone call of March 10, 1981, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked two questions about the requirements applicable to a vehicle which is completed as a school bus: (1) What symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a heater which is placed in a vehicle, either next to a door or in the rear of the vehicle, for the purpose of providing heating capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary heating system, and (2) what symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a fan which is mounted along a vehicle is instrument panel for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. You stated that the controls for both the additional heaters and the fan are located on a panel mounted on the vehicle 's engine cover, next to the driver, and that the controls are illuminated.

Both the heaters and the fan must be identified as provided in Standard No. 101. Section S5 of Standard No. 101 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of the standard regarding the location, identification and illumination of such controls. Controls for both heating systems and defrosting/defogging systems are listed in column 1 of Table 1. Since the additional heaters" comprise part of the completed vehicle's heating system and the fan comprises part of the completed vehicle 's defogging system, the controls for those devices are subject to Standard No. 101's requirements.

I will first discuss the requirements for the heater controls. If the heater has a fan for which there is a control, it must be identified by the symbol specified in Table 1 of the standard. Identification must be provided for each function of any heating system control and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. The standard does not specify the means of such identification other than to require that it be in word form unless color coding is used. Also, if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the standard specifies that the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

Section S5.2.1 states:

. . .any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. . . Neither a symbol nor identifying words are listed in Table 1 for the controls of a heating system, with the exception of the control for a heating fan.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of . . .any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

The requirements for the defogging fan are simpler. Table 1 does specify a symbol for a defrosting/defogging system. Since the fan constitutes a part of the completed vehicle' s defogging system, that symbol must be used to identify the control.

While it is not required by the standard, we suggest that you use words in addition to the symbol to indicate that the fan is for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. For example, you might use the words "Auxilliary Defog" or "Aux. Defog." The use of such words in addition to the symbol would help prevent a driver seeing the control identification from incorrectly concluding that the control operated the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 22690.ztv

Mr. James Haydn
Koito Europe Ltd.
Kingswood Road
Hampton Lovett Industrial Estate
Droitwich Spa
Worcestershire WR9 0QH
England





Dear Mr. Haydn:

This is in reply to your e-mail of February 13, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You have asked whether a new headlamp design complies with the specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

The headlamp has a "Bi-xenon unit that produces the low and high beams together with a separate high beam in the same assembly." You understand that you "can only have the Bi-xenon unit for the photometric performance, therefore my questions are, for the separate high beam." You have asked whether you are correct in assuming that the separate upper beam cannot be used under Standard No. 108.

No, your assumption is incorrect. Standard No. 108 permits the upper beam of a headlamp to be provided by two light sources and thus does not prohibit use of your design. However, regardless whether the upper beam is provided by one or two light sources, the maximum intensity limits for upper beams at test points H-V and 4D-V must not be exceeded. These values appear in the photometric Figures that Standard No. 108 has adopted for various types of headlighting systems.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/10/01

ID: 9424

Mr. Joe Miller
Product Support Manager
Load King
Box 427
Elk Point, SD 57025

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your FAX of December 10, 1993.

You have informed us that Load King manufactures trailers, selling them to a dealer in Minneapolis who, in turn, sells these trailers to customers/users. You would like the dealer "to do some finish manufacturing for us." Specifically, you would like the dealer "to paint the trailers, install operational decals and place the conspicuity striping." You ask whether "primed trailers can be moved without conspicuity striping in this case."

The answer is no. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations, when a completed motor vehicle is delivered to its dealer, it must be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and it must, in fact, comply with all such standards at the time of delivery. Thus, your trailers are required to be equipped with the conspicuity treatment at the time of shipment since the treatment is a requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The Minneapolis dealer, however, may apply paint and decals since this is not required under Standard No. 108 or any other regulation.

Were the trailer one that is manufactured in more than one stage, our regulations would permit the final stage manufacturer to apply the conspicuity treatment since that manufacturer is required to affix the necessary certification of compliance with all standards upon completion of the final stage of manufacture. However, painting and application of the conspicuity treatment are regarded as minor finishing operations that do not rise to the level of being a separate stage of manufacturing, and this exception is not available under the facts that have been presented to us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/22/94

ID: aiam4063

Dear Mr. Stephens: This responds to your letter of September 13, 1985, asking tw questions regarding the legality of an air brake system which proportions the amount of air brake pressure delivered to the drive axles of a tandem drive tractor. By 'proportions', you refer to the reduction of the applied air pressure at all treadle positions in rough proportion to the load carried by the tires. Your first question is whether an air brake system such as the one you described would be legal if it otherwise complies with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, (49 CFR S571.121). You also would like to know if it would be legal for you to remove the front axle limiting valve in the design you propose.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; In response to your first question, the NHTSA's regulations do no address the matter of proportioning. Standard No. 121 does not specify the design of brake system components, rather, it establishes a performance level. A brake system which proportions the amount of air brake pressure delivered to the drive axles of a tandem drive tractor is not prohibited if it otherwise meets Standard No. 121.; As to your second question, NHTSA regulations do not require nor d they prohibit a vehicle from having a front axle limiting valve. Therefore, vehicles need not have these valves in order to meet our standard and you are not prohibited from removing the front axle limiting valve in the design you propose. In fact, an interim technical report of the NHTSA Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program, published April, 1985, concluded that automatic front axle limiting valves in many vehicles significantly degrade straight line performance in the empty mode and on wet surfaces. However, if a vehicle does have an automatic pressure limiting valve, it must meet the requirements set out in S6.1.8.1 of Standard 121.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2242

Dear Mr. Werner: This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1975, concernin certification of your company's roof vents as being in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*.; In our correspondence to you of August 25, 1975, we stated that roo vent covers of the type your company manufactures are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, we also stated that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concurred in the view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process were not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Further, we informed you that the NHTSA intended to issue proposed rulemaking that would establish a surrogate testing procedure for these roof vent covers, and that until this was done the NHTSA would not take action against manufacturers who did not certify that their injection molded covers met the requirements of Standard No. 205.; Upon further consideration and review, however, the NHTSA ha determined that it must retract its earlier concurrence in the view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures specified in USAS Z26.1.; The earlier concern that the USAS Z26.1 test procedures wer inappropriate for testing the covers was based upon the fact that the USAS tests call for 'substantially flat specimens'. Manufacturers of the roof vents contended that covers manufactured by the injection molding process were not 'substantially flat' in their finished condition or at any time during their manufacture, and hence could not be tested for compliance with USAS Z26.1 requirements.; The NHTSA has since concluded that manufacturers can test their roo vent product under the procedures specified in USAS Z26.1, and thereby certify compliance with Standard No. 205. The USAS tests do not require the test specimens to be cut from the actual product--in this case the roof vent covers. Therefore, although the vent covers themselves are not 'substantially flat,' it is possible to mold flat specimens of the same material for purposes of the USAS tests. Consequently, it is not necessary that the NHTSA issue new surrogate testing procedures.; Since this is a reversal of our previous position, the NHTSA will no consider this interpretation to take effect with respect to glazing manufactured before September 1, 1976.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 13951.wkm

Richard D. Teeple, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
Findley, OH 45840

Dear Mr. Teeple:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to me of January 17, 1997, in which you asked whether you would be permitted to add "CAN REPLACE LT235/75R15 (C)" to the size markings on the sidewalls of your 30x9.50R15LT size of Mickey Thompson Baja Radial MTX light truck tires. The answer is no, the addition would not comply with Standard No. 119.

We addressed the issue of dual size markings on tires in a letter to Mr. Earl Dahl, Vice President, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, dated January 7, 1988, in which we quoted extensively from an interpretive letter to Michelin dated July 9, 1987 (copies enclosed). In both letters we stated that although dual-size markings were once a common practice in the industry, it confused many consumers as to the size of the tires on their vehicles. We pointed out that the purpose of Federally-required markings was to provide consumers with straightforward information for the safe use and operation of their tires. Thus, we concluded that it was "inappropriate" to permit a marketing technique that was confusing to many consumers, thereby defeating the purpose of the required tire markings.

The agency continues to adhere to those interpretations, and still believes that dual size markings on tires are inappropriate. Accordingly, your proposed markings would not comply with Standard No. 119.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by FAX at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:119
d:5/29/97