ID: nht90-4.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-28-90 from L.W. Rusk to P.J. Rice (OCC 5264)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent inquiry concerning adjustment procedures for hydraulic brakes during testing in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105; Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether, following the revisions effective Sep tember 1, 1991, the Standard will authorize manual brake adjustment on a vehicle equipped with duo-servo brakes and automatic brake adjusters following the initial burnish and three subsequent reburnishes. Although your letter did not specify that the f ocus of your inquiry is vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, based on the context of your letter, I am assuming that this is the case. The answer to your question is yes, if manual adjustment is the published procedure recommended by the vehic le manufacturer.

Standard 105 currently provides that where automatic brake adjusters have been locked out during testing, the brakes may be manually adjusted following the initial burnish and each subsequent reburnish. Where the automatic adjusters have not been locked out, the Standard requires that the brakes be adjusted at these points by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. See, S7.4.1.2, S7.6, S7.12 and S7.14.

On September 29, 1989, NHTSA published a final rule (54 FR 40080) which requires that as of September 1, 1991, for all vehicles equipped with automatic brake adjusters being tested to Standard No. 105, that the automatic adjusters be operational during t he test. In addition, the rule revises the provisions in S7.4 governing brake adjustment after burnish to delete language requiring that vehicles equipped with automatic adjusters be adjusted by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recomme ndations. These provisions are revised to state that following each specified burnishing, the brakes are to be adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's published recommendations (e.g. recommendations set forth in service literature). Thus, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted manually, notwithstanding the automatic adjusters, they are to be manually adjusted. Alternatively, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted by completing a series of specified stops , that procedure must be followed.

In conclusion, under the new provisions in Standard No. 105, brakes on a vehicle with automatic brake adjusters and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less should be manually adjusted at the end of the initial and subsequent burnishes if the manufacturer's publi shed recommendations call for manual adjustment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1990

FROM: Earl W. Dahl -- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company., Vice President

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-2-90 To Earl W. Dahl and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Part 574); Also attached to letter dated 5-31-89 To Garry Gallagher and From Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

This letter is related to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574. Section 574.5 defines the tire identification number, the fourth grouping of which consists of three numerals which identif y the date of manufacture. The first two numerals identify the week of the year, and the third numeral identifies the year. For example, date code "439" identifies the 43rd week of 1989. But that same date code also identifies the 43rd week of 1979. And therein lies the reason for this letter.

For various reasons, the European tire industry, including the European operations of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, believes it is necessary to be able to distinguish the date of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To that end, it is the intent of the European manufacturers to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify tires produced in the decade from 1990 through 1999. The predominant symbol will be an isosceles right trian gle, with the right angle pointed toward the tire identification number.

NHTSA has been consistent in allowing information to be stamped on tires, in addition to that required by the regulations, so long as the additional information did not obstruct or confuse the meaning of the information required by the regulations. Attac hed is an example serial number showing the proposed "decade symbol." In this case, the symbol is about 3/4 inch away from the last character of the date code. However, in some cases the symbol will directly follow the date code, with no more than 1/8 in ch spacing between the date code and the symbol.

We request an opinion that the addition of such a symbol is permissible. Encl. 1 (Graphics not included)

ID: aiam3414

Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1981, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company is considering, for fuel economy purposes, use of an engine stop/start system by which the engine would be switched off within a few seconds after a vehicle has come to a complete stop, and, to save battery capacity, the headlamps would also be deactivated. The parking lamps, however, will remain on. You believe that Standard No. 108 would not preclude such a system.; Although your letter does not mention it, we assume that when th parking lights are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps would also be on, as required by S4.5.7(a) of Standard No. 108. The question then arises whether the system described is prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 which states that 'No...motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required' by Standard No. 108. Although the primary function of headlamps is to illuminate the roadway in front of the driver at night or under conditions of reduced visibility, they also serve to indicate the presence of the vehicle to traffic approaching from the opposite direction. In a situation where, on a two-lane road, a car has pulled to the shoulder temporarily, a headlamp will be perceived at a greater distance than a parking lamp to oncoming traffic. Headlamps also serve an illuminating function when people have paused in unfamiliar neighborhoods in an effort to discern their whereabouts. We believe, therefore, that your device could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of headlamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.; This, however, is not a view dispositive of the issue. Compliance wit Standard No. 102 would also appear to be affected as that standard requires that the engine starter be inoperable when the transmission shift lever is in the forward or reverse position. Last year the agency granted a rulemaking petition with respect to an engine stop/start system such as you have discussed. I enclose a copy for your information. Although no notice has yet been published on this question, we shall endeavor to include a reference to headlamp switching devices in any future rulemaking activity on this subject.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ron Marion -- Specification Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, N.C. 27261

This responds to your October 1, 1985 letter to this office asking whether each state has the discretion to determine whether vehicles purchased for Head Start programs should be school buses. While the memorandum you intended to enclose from Commissioner Hodges was excluded from your letter, we are able to answer your questions directly. Your first question asked, "Are Head Start Programs considered schools or school related events for preprimary students?" This agency has consistently stated that a Head Start facility is considered a preprimary school for the purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your second question asked, "Are Head Start Agencies required to provide school buses when transporting 10 or more students?: As you know, the requirements under the Vehicle Safety Act apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and not to motor vehicle use. The Vehicle Safety Act does not require schools to use school buses that comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Instead, given that Head Start facilities are "schools" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act, each person selling a new bus (i.e., a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons) to such a facility is required to sell a bus that complies with NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Your final question asked about state discretion to determine whether Head Start centers must provide complying school buses. The requirements governing the use of a motor vehicle after it is sold is a matter of state law. While NHTSA has issued recommendations to states regarding school bus operation in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), this agency has no requirement that Head Start centers must use complying school buses. On the other hand, the responsibility of school bus sellers to comply with the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, and to sell a vehicle that complies with all applicable safety standards, including the school bus safety standards, is a Federal requirement. Accordingly, the states have no discretion to permit persons to sell new buses to Head Start centers if those buses do not comply with the motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. For your future reference, Mr. Tilton is no longer with this agency. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: nht93-9.20

DATE: December 21, 1993

FROM: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council of NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from John Womack to Carl Haywood (A42; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Emergency Response Specialists (ERS) would like to request an interpretation of the statutes regulating a piece of equipment that we are designing. ERS's primary business is emergency response to chemical spills. We are implementing a nationwide service that will provide quality response, in 7 hours or less, for the contiguous United States (lower 48). Our plan is to provide the logistics of this service using a C-130 Hercules aircraft to transport our response units and a crew of 6 response team members. The Hercules' ramp type loading system will allow us to drive our response unit, a tractor trailer combination, in and out of the cargo bay eliminating the need for ground handling equipment at the airport (a logistics nightmare).

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

Our intent is to abide by all pertinent federal and state regulations. The problem we are having is finding out who regulates crew member seating. This seating is approved according to the FAA under the restricted FAR 91 permit that we will be operating under. DOT stated that they have no regulations regarding this matter, (their regulations only addressed "Transportation for air") and suggested that I contact National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Board (FMCSB). FMCSB had no jurisdiction over this matter and also suggested that I contact NHTSA. According to NHTSA Vehicle Safety Compliance (Mr. Levine) they have no guidelines for crew seating and suggested that I write you requesting written confirmation of this.

We are trying to get the system operational by August 1994 and appreciate any help you could lend in this matter. Due to the long lead times in construction we would appreciate a response as soon as possible. If you have any questions or know of any other agencies we need to contact please call or write at the number listed at the bottom of the preceding page.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht90-3.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Procedure of Re-calibration for Replaceable Bulb Headlamp with VHAD

ATTACHMT: Attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M. Iwase (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

FMVSS No. 108 specifies in S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) that the horizontal indicator of VHAD shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +-2.5 degrees.

We would like to confirm your interpretation concerning the method and procedures of re-calibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage.

Enclosed please find a copy of Federal Register dated February 8, 1990 (Page 4425 and 4426), in which NHTSA interprets, as follows;

If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.

However, we don't believe that the method mentioned in the NHTSA's interpretation is practicable, with the following reasons;

(1) There may be some case that linear measurement of distance will be unable to be taken between reference points on vehicle body and headlamp units, owing to interruption of some other parts in engine room.

(2) Even if possible to measure linearly, we are afraid that it will be difficult to measure it precisely.

Therefore we are going to adopt a method of addressing for re-calibration in which headlamp with it's lens being masked partially are lit and visually aimed with the help of photometric beam pattern on the screen. (see Fig. 1 and the enclosed pictures). Our experiment proved that the visually aiming by photometric beam pattern be practicable.

We are fully aware that this method needs some space of 3 meters or so between illuminated headlamps and the scren (see Fig. 2) for clear image of beam pattern, which is not necessarily possible to accomodate in every case.

Therefore we are preparing Shop Manual in which both methods of NHTSA's dimensional data and our proposing visual aiming by photometric beam pattern are prescribed, and presenting the optional alternative of the above two methods. We intend to provide a masking sheet for the visual aiming, with Shop Manual.

We would be greatly appreciate it if you would kindly advise us whether our proposal could go along with NHTSA's intention.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply, in advance, we remain, with best regard, yours very truly.

Attachment is entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted).

ID: nht70-1.26

DATE: 10/20/70

FROM: R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: L. C. Lundstrom; GM

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT: The Director has asked me to reply to your letter of September 29, 1970, concerning the compliance of certain motor vehicles, which General Motors intends to import, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

Each rear door of these vehicles has, in addition to a "conventional" locking mechanism, a special locking mechanism which is described in your letter as:

"an additional lever located on the rear edge of each door which, when placed in its 'lock position', will only allow the door to be opened from outside the vehicle even if the conventional locking knob on the upper portion of the door inside the vehicle is in the unlocked position. The additional lever is covered when the door is closed."

You ask whether the rear doors on these vehicles comply with @4.1.3 of Standard No. 206, which requires that each door "shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle."

A somewhat similar problem was discussed in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the Standard. As stated there, @4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be able to be engaged or disengaged regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism on the doors in question, therefore, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: aiam0080

Dear Mr. Moynihan: This is in further reply to your letter to Mr. Slagle dated March 8 1968, in which you ask for information as to your company's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act.; As I understand the description of the modification your company make to trucks the only standard now in effect that is applicable is Standard No. 205, the glazing standard. Therefore, the glass that you install in place of the original glass in the truck cab would have to comply with this standard.; Your company might also be affected by the enclosed Advanced Notice o Proposed Rulemaking. Your particular attention is directed to Docket No. 2-12 which would, if finalized, make the standard concerning anchorage of seats (No. 207) applicable to trucks.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-5.55

DATE: 05/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971, requesting an additional interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.

If in fact, the vehicle manufactured is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416) (copy enclosed), then Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) will be inapplicable.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BLOW, VERRILL, BRAND & BOGGS

May 3, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Re: Your reference 40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 28th in response to my letter of April 12th which requested confirmation of my interpretation of certain requirements of MVSS Part 574. Your reply raises an additional question which I would appreciate having answered by your office.

Your letter states that "the regulation does not apply to tires manufactured exclusively for the [off-road vehicle]." The underscored words "manufactured exclusively" concern me inasmuch as I pointed out in my April 12 letter that Cushman frequently utilizes DOT coded tires on golf carts and other off-road vehicles -- that is, tires that could also be used on on-road vehicles. The question remains, therefore, whether the record-keeping requirements as well as the requirements of Section 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply in the case of tires that could be used for either on-road or off-road vehicles but are in fact utilized on off-road vehicles.

In light of the foregoing, I find it necessary to repeat my request for confirmation of the analysis made in my April 12 letter as follows:

"As I understand it, Cushman is not required to follow the Part 574 record keeping with respect to tires installed

2 on such vehicles [off-road], nor would the other requirements of 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply. Further, as I read Part 574, Cushman has no obligation to report to the tire manufacturer any information regarding tires purchased for installation on off-road vehicles."

In the event that you have any questions in connection with the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.

ID: nht71-5.8

DATE: 11/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1971, in which you expressed concern over the requirement in our Certification regulations (36 F.R. 19593, October 8, 1971) that all vehicles, including those manufactured in two or more stages, have a vehicle identification number on their certification label.

You stated that your major concern was that the manufacturers would be "confused", and "would further add to the problems of vehicle identification experienced by the Motor Vehicle Administrators." Your letter did not, however, specify how or why our regulations would "add to the problems." With reference to a telephone conversation of November 4 with Mr. Dyson of our Chief Counsel's Office, you declined a request that you supply specific suggestions for modification of the regulation, on grounds that "this could be ultimately viewed as presumptive on our part."

I would like to clarify some points concerning this requirement. The requirement of placing a vehicle identification number on each certification label has existed since our first Certification regulations went into effect on September 1, 1969, and the amended regulations that become effective January 1, 1972 (to which you refer) contain no change whatever in that requirement. The reason why the VIN came to your attention as a separate proposal was that our March 17, 1970 notice, in which we proposed changes in the way we regulate multistage vehicles, had omitted the requirement, largely through oversight. The legal requirements for public notice required us to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, in order to retain the VIN on the labels, where it has been since September 1969.

We have not attempted in this motor vehicle safety regulation to regulate the form of the vehicle identification numbers on vehicles other than passenger cars. We have, in effect, left the situation exactly as it has been since September 1, 1969, when the Certification regulations first went into effect: we require that each vehicle have on its permanent label a "vehicle identification number." We chose then (as we have since) to leave the form of the number to the manufacturer, in the first instance, subject to whatever State regulations might be in force, and in accordance with whatever guidelines he might choose to follow. While this policy has not solved the problems of the motor vehicle administrators, it is not at all clear to us how it could have added to them.

As you know, we are working closely with State officials on the problem of standardizing vehicle identification numbers, in connection with our highway safety program standard on motor vehicle registration. We would like very much to have your ideas on how we can deal with these problems through our Traffic Safety Programs.