ID: nht87-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: LEO CAREY, DIRECTOR, OSHA DIRECTORATE OF FIELD OPERATIONS

TO: BETH WHITMAN -- KEN-TOOL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BETH WHITMAN; REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 110, 120; SA 19AR; STEELHAMMERS 2J; SA 29AR STEELHAMMERS 2J; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM SL LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; UNDATED LETTER FROM SL LEPOSKY TO AL L DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN RE NON USE OF DUCK BILLED STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Whitman:

This is in response to your letter of May 28, 1987, concerning the use of "steel duck billed hammers" for farm and truck tire repair and service, and confirms the telephone discussion with Mr. Bode of our staff.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.177(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR 1910.177(f)(8), th e regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

If we may be of further assistance, please contact us.

ID: nht89-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/89

FROM: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT

TO: ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASINER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT, OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter, co-signed by other members of the Senate Commerce Committee, concerning the issuance of certain safety standards for light trucks and vans ("LTV's"), including sport utility vehicles. I share your interest in ensuring that occ upants of these vehicles are well protected. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I place a high priority on the safety of all our transportation systems including motor vehicles used for personal travel. I wish to assure you that the Department is moving expeditiously to improve vehicle safety, including rulemaking for additional LTV safety standards.

The Department has carefully reviewed those passenger-car safety standards which do not currently apply to LTV's, as evidenced by our reports to Congress in May 1987 and April 1988. As noted in those reports, we are committed to prompt rulemaking action s and decisions. Specifically, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has already issued Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require both head restraints and rear-seat lap/should belts in LTV's, and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to require side-impact protection in LTV's. In addition, NHTSA is currently preparing an NPRM to establish a minimum roof-crush resisance standard for LTV's.

In each of these four areas -- head restraints, side-impact protection, roof-crush resistance, and rear-seat lap/shoulder belts -- I expect to begin discussions within the Administration during the next 90 days on our recommendations for the next rulemak ing actions to be taken. These discussions will also address an NPRM to require automatic occupant protection for LTV's. I will advise you of the conclusion of these discussions.

NHTSA is also analyzing the research on how to enhance brake light performance on these vehicles, and expects to make a decision on requiring additional stop lamps by the end of the summer. Lastly, NHTSA has already granted a petition for rulemaking to d evelop a rollover protection standard and has a comprehensive data collection and research program under way to provide the basis for an effective regulation. Most of that research should be completed by year's end, and I assure you that we will not tol erate delays in the research schedule.

We note that the Department has initiated these and other vehicle safety rulemaking proceedings under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which provides a solid, effective, legal framework for these activities. Therefore, we do not believe that specific legislative mandates and timetables for LTV rulemaking projects are necessary or appropriate.

In closing, I appreciate your concern for improving the safety of vehicles and highway travel. Please be assured that this Department will continue to take whatever actions are needed to assure further progress in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-1.47

DATE: 03/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 1973, requesting several interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", as it applies to motor homes and campers.

We find the interpretations as to the use of item 3 glazing contained in your letter to be correct. Your interpretation of "levels not requisite for driving visibility" as meaning that other windows are available and more suited for driving visibility is reasonable, and acceptable for purposes of Standard No. 205.

We also find your interpretations on the use of items 4, 5, 8, and 9 glazing materials to be correct. We do not agree, however, with your suggestion of allowing items 5 and 9 glazing to be used in camper windows adjacent to the truck cab rear window without regard to driving visibility. We agree it is unlikely with respect to most vehicles that such windows will be requisite for driving visibility, and will accept a good-faith, reasonable judgment decision on the question by a camper manufacturer. Consequently we do not believe that the remaining "degree of uncertainty" will result in compliance problems for camper manufacturers.

Your conclusions regarding the application of items 6 and 7 glazing are correct. We do not agree, however, that it is necessary or desirable to use such materials in any forward-facing windows, including those adjacent to the rear window of the truck cab. We believe the possibility of impact into these windows precludes the safe use in them of these glazing items, and item 13 glazing as well.

Your conclusions regarding the application of item 12 and item 13 glazing are correct. We appreciate your pointing out the lack of continuity in subparagraph designations for items 6, 7, 8, and 9. This was unintentional on our part, and your conclusion that the added subparagraphs should be read as following immediately those existing, regardless of letter designation, is correct. Finally, you are correct in your conclusion that the amendments to Standard No. 205 should be seen as overriding the headings for the various glazing items in the ANS Z26 standard.

Yours truly,

January 31, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider--

Chief Counsel,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Larry:

This letter seeks your confirmation of our interpretation of certain aspects of Standard No. 205, as amended on June 21, 1972 and November 11, 1972, or your advice as to proper interpretation if we are incorrect.

The language of the cited amendments leaves as a qualification on the use of various item of glazing materials the phrase "at levels not requisite for driving visibility" or a similar qualification slightly varied depending upon the item of glazing involved. Insofar as we are aware, there has not been an interpretation of this qualification and we have had member inquiries on its application to certain windows of our units. Our subsequent comments will refer to the questionable items of glazing as they are listed in ANSI Z.26.

Item 3. Paragraph S5.1.1.5 of the November 11 amendment prescribes that motor homes, as multipurpose passenger vehicles, will be treated as trucks where not otherwise specifically provided for in the standard. Thus we conclude that:

(1) Item 3 cannot be usedfor windows to the immediate right or left of the driver of a motor home unless such windows are at levels not requisite for driving visibility which we would take to mean windows not required for visibility to the right and left of the driver because other windows are available and more suited for that purpose.

(2) The rear window of a motor home, where so equipped, may utilize Item 3 where it is not in fact used for or designed for driving visibility because of the impracticability for doing so and where outside side view mirrors are provided in accordance with Standard No. 111. In this connection, we have reference also to the opinion by Mr. Francis Armstrong of April 16, 1971, advising that rearview mirrors are not required in motor homes of configurations which obstruct the view to the rear to such an extent it could not meet the requirements of the Standard No. 111; and the interpretation incorporated with Standard No. 111.

Items 4, 5, 8, 9:

(a) These items cannot be usedin windshields or windows of motor homes to the immediate rigth or left of the driver.

(b) These items can be usedIn all other windows and doors of motor homes including over-the-cab forward-facing windows in those configurations which have space over the vehicle cab and a forward-facing window therein; and including those relatively few configurations where there may be a window in the motor home and/or a window in the cab just behind the driving compartment. Some few configurations may use a truck chassis and cab without a passageway directly from the driving compartment into the living quarters.

(c) These items can be used in all windows and doors of slide-in-campers and pickup covers, including any over-the-cab forward-facing window and any window in the slide-in-camper or pickup cover immediately behind the driving compartment.

In connection with both (b) and (c) above, we note that Items 5 and 9 carry the qualification of use only "at levels not requisite for driving visibility". Items 4 and 8 are not so limited. Over-the-cab forward-facing windows in motor homes, slide-in-campers and pickup covers (these units are unlikely to have such windows) clearly are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Windows in the slide-in-camper or pickup cover just behind the driving compartment of the pickup truck on which such units are temporarily mounted are not generally used for driving visibility since pickup trucks customarily carry outside side-view mirrors to provide requisite rearview capability in the light of their property carrying function when used separately from a slide-in-camper or pickup cover. Although pickup trucks are not required by a current standard to have side-view mirrors, it seems appropriate and consistent with the actual practice to recognize that, in fact, they do and thus the windows described are not "requisite to driving visibility", rather than leave a degree of uncertainty on the part of the manufacturer of slide-in-campers and pickup covers as to whether Items 5 and 9 can be used in such windows.

The conclusion with respect to motor homes is predicated on the same reasoning as applied under Item 3 above. These conclusions also seem consistent with the opinion rendered to Mr. Robert T. Sanders on July 5, 1972 by Mr. Dyson.

Items 6 and 7:

These items cannot be usedin windshields, forward-facing windows (including over-the-cab forward-facing windows), and windows to the immediate right or left of the driver in motor homes; similarly, they cannot be usedin forward-facing windows, including over-the-cab forward-facing windows of slide-in-campers and pickup covers.

We note that Item 6 is not limited by the qualification that the locations not be requisite for driving visibility but Item 7 is so qualified. For the same practical reasons as set forth in regard to Items 4, 5, 8 and 9, above, we would conclude that the small windows in slide-in-campers, pickup covers, and a few configurations of motor homes just behind the driving compartment of the pickup truck can use Items 6 and 7, except for the fact they are "forward-facing" in the directional sense; neither item requires compliance with a test related to penetration resistance; and the cited opinion of July 5, 1972 by Mr. Dyson. RVI still feels that safety does not require penetration resistance characteristics in these behind-the-cab windows and requests your reconsideration as to whether such windows must be considered as "forward-facing" windows in connection with the possible use of Items 6 and 7 in such behind-the-cab windows.

Items 12 and 13, Rigid and Flexible Plastics:

Both of these items, as authorized by the amendment of June 21, 1972 contain the limitation of use only at "specific locations at levels not requisite to driving visibility". Based on the reasoning and opinions above cited, we conclude that:

(1) Item 12 can be usedin over-the-cab forward-facing windows of motor homes, slide-in-campers, and pickup covers, and in all such units in the windows behind the cabs of motor homes which have such configurations and behind the cabs of pickup trucks on which slide-in-campers and pickup covers are mounted.

(2) Item 13 cannot be usedin over-the cab forward-facing windows of such units including windows behind cabs. However, for the same reasons as expressed in connection with Items 6 and 7, we request your reconsideration as to whether such behind the cab windows must be considered "forward-facing" windows.

Other matters of interpretation:

(1) We note that, in the process of the amendment of November 1, 1972, subparagraphs "j" and "k" were added to Items 6, 7, 8 and 9 of ANSI - Z.26 although the subparagraphs in those items do not go beyond "(d)", "(c)", "(e)" and "(c)", respectively. We interpret the amendments as adding paragraphs falling immediately after the numbering of the appropriate subparagraph.

(2) We note that the headings in the same items are generally descriptive of other units than motor homes, slide-in-campers, and pickup covers. We interpret the amendments as overriding the headings and as controlling in the case of these recreational units.

Very truly yours,

David J. Humphreys --

RVI Washington Counsel

ID: GF005930

Mr. Greg Hayes
Benson International
PO Box 970
Mineral Wells, WV 26150

Dear Mr. Hayes:

This letter is in response to your e-mail asking whether a previous interpretation letter from this agency to Mr. Larry Strawhorn is still valid. Specifically, you ask whether it is permissible to take power from the antilock brake system (ABS) power circuit of a semi-trailer in order to power other semi-trailer devices. You also ask whether it is permissible to take power directly from the ABS module.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to ABS systems in trucks and trailers with air brakes is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems.

In a November 17, 1995, letter of interpretation addressed to Mr. Larry Strawhorn of the American Trucking Associations, the agency stated that under S5.1.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121, the ABS power circuits sole function must be to provide ABS powering, and other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit.

Subsequently, the agency published a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration of the rule that required medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with ABS (61 FR 5949, February 15, 1996). In response to the petitions, the 1996 document changed the requirements from dedicated power for trailer ABS systems to continuous power for trailer ABS systems. The relevant section of that standard now reads as follows:

S5.1.6.3  Antilock power circuit for towed vehicles.Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more electrical circuits that provide continuous power to the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position. Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable. [emphasis added]

Accordingly, the February 1996 response to the petitions for reconsideration supersedes our November 17, 1995, letter of interpretation because FMVSS No. 121 no longer requires that the ABS power circuits sole function is to provide ABS powering.

To answer your specific question, S5.1.6.3 does not prohibit taking power from the ABS power circuit or the ABS module of a semi-trailer in order to power other semi-trailer devices. We note, however,that in our February 1996 response to petitions, we recognized that powering electrical devices other than the trailer ABS from the ABS power circuit has the potential to compromise the circuits ability to power the trailer ABS. We included a lengthy discussion of this issue in our notice, including a discussion of the types of devices that would not be likely to create problems. A copy of this portion of the notice (61 FR 5949 at p. 5952) is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.10/21/04

ID: nht91-2.51

DATE: March 27, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Earl C. Lempke -- President, Delavan Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Earl C. Lempke to Taylor Vinson (OCC 5720)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked whether there is "any Federal ruling stating that Trailer Clearance Lights are considered as Safety Equipment and as such are not be be included as part of the overall width of the vehicle." You have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 323.20, the clearance lamp regulation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the observation that this section does not answer the question.

I am pleased to clarify this situation for you. As the FHWA regulation states, "Clearance lamps shall be mounted so as to indicate the extreme width of the motor vehicle . . . ." This requirement is virtually identical to that in Table II of this agency's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." In 1976, NHTSA issued an interpretation that was published in the Federal Register on August 23 of that year stating that "The term 'overall width' refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . marker lamps" such as clearance lamps. I enclose a copy for your information.

The FHWA concurs with this interpretation, and has provided us with some additional comments. Federal width limits apply only on the National Network highways (23 CFR 658, Section A). The width of commercial trailers operated on these highways is to be measured across the sidemost load carrying structures, support members, and structural fasteners, as stated in an interpretation published on March 13, 1987, a copy of which I enclose. That proceeding also determined that side marker lamps and any other "non load-carrying safety appurtenance" which extended beyond these limits were excluded from width measurements. This would include clearance lamps, and thus exclude them also from width measurements. In December 1989, FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to consider if a new approach should be adopted to determine which devices to exclude from measurements of vehicle length and width. I also enclose a copy of that notice. FHWA advises that its next notice on the subject should be issued soon.

Although under FHWA regulations, the States determine whether safety equipment is to be excluded from the measurement of vehicle width, we believe that the State determination must be identical to the NHTSA position. Federal law (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibits a State from enacting or maintaining in effect any regulation covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal requirement. We believe that a State must also interpret an identical regulation in a manner identical to NHTSA's

interpretation.

Attachment

Copy of a portion of the Federal Register dated 8-23-76 regarding "overall width". (Text omitted)

Copy of FHWA interpretation dated 3-13-87, regarding 23 CFR Part 658, truck length and width exclusive devices. (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: aiam5054

Dear Mr. Lawrence: This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to th Administrator on the subject 'Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements.' In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned 'for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . .' However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of 'on the rear' as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself. Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments. The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395: 'Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp. * * * To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters. NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was: 'Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters.' You state that the term 'simultaneously visible' does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA). First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members. Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear. As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across-the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is 'from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp.' (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left 'for' the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: 'signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right.' For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one. The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, 'signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle', which is specified as 'of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right' (J586), 'of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right' (J1398), and 'from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right' (J585e). TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility. Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle. NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the existing level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic. This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph. Finally, you comment that Table II 'does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers'. We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Ford Motor Company Freightliner Corp.;

ID: aiam2749

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter of December 20, 1977, enclosing a previou letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. I am sorry that your earlier letter was misplaced.; Volvo is correct in its interpretation that the requirements fo emergency locking retractors in S4.3(j) (2) and (3) were promulgated for reasons of comfort and convenience, although this in turn is directed toward a safety objective. As you know, the more comfortable and convenient belts are, the more likely they will be worn by motorists. Further, the requirements in these paragraphs assure that the driver can make necessary movements in the occupant compartment safely.; Paragraph S4.3(j) (2) specifies that an emergency locking retractor >>>'shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbin withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less.'<<<; Volvo interprets this to require that the retractor not lock before th webbing extends 2 inches when the *webbing* is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g. This is incorrect. The requirement specifically states that the *retractor* is to be accelerated. The agency does not agree that keeping the belt stationary and accelerating the retractor is equivalent to keeping the retractor stationary and accelerating the belt. This is due to the fact that inertial forces react upon the retractor during its acceleration that are not present when the webbing alone is accelerated. Therefore, results from the two methods of testing could differ significantly.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry, and if we can be o any further assistance please let us know.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.33

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1981, asking for an 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 the 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 with 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.

ENC.

MAY 27, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

In order to further improve fuel economy, Volkswagen is investigating the possibility of using an engine stop/start system. This system would automatically switch the engine off within a few seconds after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. When the accelerator is depressed the engine will start again automatically (or, on vehicles with manual transmission, it will start when the gear shift lever is put into first gear). We estimate a fuel savings of 6 to 10 percent, a significant reduction in exhaust emissions and noise pollution with the stop/start system in city driving conditions.

In order not to excessively burden the battery capacity, the stop/start system will have to use a switch mechanism which turns the headlamps off together with the engine. The parking lights will remain on. Once the engine is restarted, the headlamps will be switched on automatically.

When reviewing FMVSS 103, Volkswagen concluded that the standard would not preclude an automatic headlamp switching system as described above. We request your interpretation as to whether Volkswagen's conclusion concerning automatic headlamp switching systems is correct. Your early response to this will be greatly appreciated.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

ID: 19518.wkm

Mr. Roger C. Anderson
Production Engineering Manager
GT Development Corporation
14601 Interurban Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98168

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This refers to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and to your telephone conversations with Jim Gilkey of this agency. You asked whether a dash-mounted pneumatic valve attached to the vehicle's air brake circuit to control various non-brake related chassis functions would be subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses. The answer is a qualified yes.

You enclosed schematics of the valve in question with your letter and sent a further drawing to Mr. Gilkey by telefax on May 24, 1999. You stated that the valve is to be used in an unprotected accessory air brake circuit to control various non-brake-related chassis functions. You stated that the plastic-bodied toggle valves incorporate Legris push-to-connect (PTC) 1/4-inch cartridges for connection to the B reservoir in the vehicle's air system. The B reservoir and lines supply air to the vehicle's front brakes. You stated that the PTC cartridges are assembled as an integral element to the dash valve in the manufacturing process, and that original equipment manufacturers insert their accessory lines into these cartridges. You stated that it is your understanding that application of the Legris cartridge integral to your dash valve does not constitute a brake hose end fitting and therefore is not subject to Standard No. 106. You asked us to confirm that understanding.

Brake hose end fitting is defined in S4 of Standard No. 106 as "[A] coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." "Brake hose" is defined, also in S4, as:

[A] flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes (emphasis added).

Although your dash valve does not directly supply air to the vehicle's brake system, if the hoses attached to the dash valve transmit or contain brake air pressure from the vehicle's air system, that is, if failure of any such hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system, then such hoses must comply with Standard No. 106. Moreover, your dash valve to which such hoses were attached would also be required to comply with Standard No. 106. However, if you added a check valve to the non-brake-related circuit so that loss of pressure in the circuit did not affect air brake system pressure, the hose would not be considered brake hose subject to Standard No. 106.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers or Mr. Gilkey at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or (202) 366-5295.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.7/27/99

ID: 2983yy

Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Bridgeport Office
100 Center Square Road
P.O. Box 464
Bridgeport, NJ 08014

Dear Mr. Wakamatsu:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/29/9l