ID: nht93-5.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Davis -- Quality Control Manager, Horton Emergency Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/13/93 from Bob Davis to David Elias

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., "Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.") refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-7.32

DATE: October 21, 1993

FROM: James "Bubba" Schaub -- Midas Muffler and Brake

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/94 from John Womack to James Schaub (A42; Std. 105; Part 570)

TEXT:

First allow me to introduce myself. My name is James "Bubba" Schaub. I manage a Midas Muffler and Brake Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, located at 180 Gause Blvd., and have for 9 years now. My concern is in the area of ethical and sound business practice. I'm taught by Midas to replace brake rotors and/or brake drums when they exceed the minimum thickness (on disc rotors) or maximum diameter (on drums), published by Original Equipment Manufacturers. My questions are as follows:

1. Please interpret F.M.V.S.S. 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS.

2. Is there any basis for fraud in following this policy? (Of disc rotor and/or drum replacement when out of manf. safety tolerances).

Please understand that my concern lies only with doing the right thing - the safe way, for our costumers. Let it be known that the local auto dealership service dept.'s are not following their own recommendations, for safety in this matter, which causes my costumers to believe that we (Midas) are fraudulently selling and installing parts on their vehicles when they're not needed. But, if I can present an established standard to our (Midas) costumers, I can prevent them from feeling they've been taken advantage of.

ID: nht93-7.33

DATE: October 21, 1993

FROM: Schaub, James (Bubba) -- Midas Muffler And Brake Shop

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 5/18/94 Letter From John Womack To James Schaub (A42; PART 570)

TEXT: First allow me to introduce myself. My name is James "Bubba" Schaub. I manage a Midas Muffler and Brake Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, located at 180 Gause Blvd., and have for 9 years now. My concern is in the area of ethical and sound business practice. I'm taught by Midas to replace Brake rotors and/or Brake Drums when they exceed the minimum thickness (on disc rotors) or maximum Diameter (on Drums), published by original Equipment manufacturers. My questions are as follows -

1. Please [ILLEGIBLE WORD] F.M.V.S.S. 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

2. Is there any basis for [ILLEGIBLE WORD] in following this policy? (of disc rotor and/or Drum replacement when out of manf. safety [ILLEGIBLE WORD]).

Please understand that my concern lier only with doing the right thing - the safe way, for our customer. Let it be known that the [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] are not following their own recommendations, for safety in this matter, which causes my customers to believe that we (midas) are fraudulently, selling and installing parts on thier vehicles when [ILLEGIBLE WORD] not needed. But, if I can present on established standard to our (midas) Customers, I can prevent them from feeling they've been taken advantage of.

(ARTICLE FROM UNDERCAR DIGEST IS OMITTED.)

ID: LW007646

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in response to your letter of October 7, 2004, in which you requested "confirmation that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 presents no obstacle to the inclusion of a label identifier for the Tire and Loading Information label required in the standard. " Your letter appears to seek clarification of the June 3, 2004, final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less (69 FR 31306). Paragraph S4.3(h) of that standard allows a vehicle manufacturer to place an optional bar code or vehicle identification number (VIN) on the righthand edge of the vehicle placard and tire information label. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible under paragraph S4.3(h) to place an alphanumeric identifier other than the VIN "outside the box" of the label in order to ensure that the correct label is placed on a specific configuration during the assembly process.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004, final rule, and we expect to issue our response shortly. We will address the issue raised in your letter in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.11/16/04

ID: nht88-3.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

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

TO: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC.

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION-FMVSS 108; LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT-AUXILIARY LAMPS; MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 14, 1988, with respect to an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and a request for confidential treatment of it. We understand that you orally withdrew this request during a telephone conversa tion with this Office on August 23, 1988.

You have asked whether Standard No. 108 permits the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors, or the use of such lamps as fog and/or cornering lamps. Although Standard No. 108 defines a replaceable bulb headlamps as one with a bonded lens-reflector assembly, this definition does not preclude a design with an adjustable reflector, as the bond may be applied to a portion of the reflector assembly that is not adjustable. However, a headlamp with an adjustable reflector must be designe d to conform with all applicable photometric requirements with the reflector in all positions in which it may be adjusted.

As for its use as a fog or cornering lamp, you are correct that it is acceptable provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Whether the device impairs the effectiveness is determined by the vehicle manufacturer before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The decision, however, may be questioned by this agency if it appears erroneous.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht90-3.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI CORPORATION

TO: To whom it may concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to Dean J. Long from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 105; Std. 101)

TEXT:

I have two automotive instrument panel telltale warnings I wish to confirm are legal in the views of the NHTSA Legal Council and FMVSS. The attached sheet shows my two proposals.

The first is a 4 wheel antilock brake application. Techically, I believe this telltale is legal due to the approved abbreviation "ABS" being present. I have seen the antilock brake ISO symbol which is similar to the one I have shown except the car and "skid marks" are replaced with the "ABS" abbreviation. My question here is, Will this telltale fullfil the requirements or do I need to replace the car and "skid marks" ISO symbol with the "ABS" ISO symbol?

The second telltale is used for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. I have seen numerous telltales relating to this application. A few you may be familar with "SERVICE ENGINE SOON", "SERV ENG SOON", "CHECK ENGINE" or simply "CHECK". I would like to know two things concerning this application. One, is the word "CHECK" necessary with the engine outline? Two, is the engine outline an approved ISO symbol and if not yet will it be concidered at a later date?

Please respond on or before August 27 1990 as I must begin a production run with these telltales. Thank you for your assistance and if you need to contact us please call Mike Benoit at (313) 853-2266.

Attachment

Picture of two telltale warnings. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-2.34

DATE: November 12, 1992

FROM: P.R. Smorra -- Group Vice President, Chrysler Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/9/93 from John Womack to Patrick R. Smorra (A40; Part 555)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation is considering a program in which a foreign national could purchase a Chrysler vehicle through a dealer in their country but take delivery of it in the United States so they could use it while on vacation in the States. At the conclusion of their vacation the vehicle would be shipped to them in their home country.

In order to implement this program and export a Chrysler product which is certified in our customer's home market the vehicle would not comply with all U.S. regulations (including EPA and FMVSS). Chrysler International is requesting a variance to these vehicle requirements for the purpose of temporary use by our vacationing customers.

Chrysler has been very aggressive in relaunching our international efforts over the past five years. In 1993 we expect to sell over 100,000 vehicles overseas. We are confident that this program will further contribute to our international growth.

Please advise me if you require additional information in order to grant this variance. Relative to this variance, please clarity two issues: If, upon the expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S., who is responsible for the delinquency? In the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht94-8.34

DATE: February 2, 1994

FROM: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Marv Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Scott Slaughter (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

Pitts Trailers, Inc. is a trailer manufacturer that specializes in trailers for the logging industry. One particular model we manufacture is called a knuckle boom loader trailer. I have enclosed copies of brochures as well as some advertisements, so that you might better understand the use of this model. This trailer stays in the woods (off the highway) the majority of its lifetime. The knuckle boom operation must be moved from time to time to different site locations, at which times it will be on highways and may cross state lines. The gross vehicle weight of this trailer is 24,000 lbs.

I am writing this letter to request an official interpretation to determine if my trailer (the knuckle boom model only) is subject to the safety standards (FMVSS Standards) with particular attention to include such questions as conspicuity, auto slacks, brakes on all wheels and marker lights. We are particularly interested in your opinion as to whether brakes are required on all wheels. Also, please advise us if our trailers are defined as motor vehicles or are they merely mobile equipment which see very limited highway use, solely for the purpose of moving to a new job site.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient information for an official interpretation. If not, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1994

FROM: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Marv Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Scott Slaughter (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

Pitts Trailers, Inc. is a trailer manufacturer that specializes in trailers for the logging industry. One particular model we manufacture is called a knuckle boom loader trailer. I have enclosed copies of brochures as well as some advertisements, so th at you might better understand the use of this model. This trailer stays in the woods (off the highway) the majority of its lifetime. The knuckle boom operation must be moved from time to time to different site locations, at which times it will be on hig hways and may cross state lines. The gross vehicle weight of this trailer is 24,000 lbs.

I am writing this letter to request an official interpretation to determine if my trailer (the knuckle boom model only) is subject to the safety standards (FMVSS Standards) with particular attention to include such questions as conspicuity, auto slacks, brakes on all wheels and marker lights. We are particularly interested in your opinion as to whether brakes are required on all wheels. Also, please advise us if our trailers are defined as motor vehicles or are they merely mobile equipment which see v ery limited highway use, solely for the purpose of moving to a new job site.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient information for an official interpretation. If not, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: CORRECTN.PJA

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This follows up on our March 20, 1996, interpretation letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. That letter contained an error, which was explained to you by Paul Atelsek of my staff in a telephone conversation.

In response to your first question, we stated that the voluntarily installed side exit doors would still be subject to prohibitions and requirements that apply to side exit doors generally. That is true. However, we went on to give two examples of prohibitions and requirements in section S5.2.3.2. As the enclosed letter to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses explains, that section has an introductory sentence that, contrary to the agency's intent, restricts the scope of the requirements to required exit doors.

We would also like to correct any possible implication that voluntarily installed exits are not subject to some requirements. The sentence at the top of page 2 of the March 20 letter stated "[t]o avoid confusion, the force and motion needed to open the [voluntarily installed] exit should be consistent with the other emergency exits (emphasis added)." In fact, the force and motion requirements of S5.3.3 apply to "each" exit, which includes voluntarily installed exits.

We apologize for the error. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:217
d:8/1/96