ID: nht78-2.48

DATE: 05/23/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Johnson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Johnson Manufacturing's May 4, 1978 request for confirmation that the requirement in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that reservoirs "withstand" specific pressure does not require testing of a multi-compartment reservoir compartment-by-compartment.

Your understanding of the "withstanding" requirement in S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 is correct. Although the agency sought to clarify that compartment-by-compartment testing was the proper interpretation of this requirement (42 FR 64630; December 27, 1977), problems with the interpretation resulted in its withdrawal (43 FR 9149; March 6, 1978) and adherence to the existing interpretation that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir. Under this interpretation only the circumference of the outer reservoir shell is measured, and internal baffles are not stressed by separate compartment-by-compartment testing.

ID: nht78-2.49

DATE: 01/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes' September 2, 1977, request to know whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, allows a burnish of the brake friction elements immediately prior to the parking brake tests of S5.6, and whether the service line air pressure limitation of 100 p.s.i. specified in S5.4.2.1 can be exceeded monentarily.

A burnish prior to the parking brake test is not permitted by Standard No. 121, except that S6.1.8 specifies burnish of the parking brake friction elements before testing in those cases where the parking brake system does not utilize the service brake friction elements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider a provision to deal with the condition of the brake linings prior to the parking brake test upon receipt of technical data showing justification for such an action.

Section S5.4.2.1 of the standard specifies a procedure that states "[the] service line air pressure shall not exceed 100 p.s.i. during any deceleration." You describe a condition in which the service line pressure exceeds 100 p.s.i. for a short period (typically 0.1 seconds), which might be traced to characteristics of the friction material, brake mechanism, dynamometer, or instrumentation.

The NHTSA recognizes that peak pressure may be momentarily increased by the initial rush of air pressure into the brake chamber, or by other anomolies. In the case of such momentary pressure increases, the NHTSA interprets S5.4.2.1 to mean that the source of air pressure for applying the brake must never exceed 100 p.s.i. Thus, it would be permissible to experience momentary pressures above 100 p.s.i. in the service line as long as the pressure source never exceeds that level. Sustained periods of pressure above 100 p.s.i. would not be permissible.

SINCERELY,

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

September 2, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-121, Air Brake Systems @ 5.3.1 Stopping Distance-Trucks and Buses

Kelsey-Hayes Company, a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including antilock systems, requests an interpretation of the above referenced section of Standard 121.

It is the nature of newly manufactured braking systems to have residual coatings of various materials deposited upon the brake components together with surface irregularities as a result of the manufacturing process.

FMVSS-121, as well as FMVSS-105, allow for this by providing burnish stops to remove foreign substances and to condition brake linings at the outset of the testing sequence. In addition to the initial burnish, some test procedures including FMVSS-105 specify burnishing at specific intervals during the test.

Reburnishes at specific intervals are provided in recognition of the fact that a rapid series of test stops will generate high temperatures and cause surface glazing on the brake lining material. To accurately gauge the effectiveness of the braking system, FMVSS-105 allows the brakes to be reburnished before the parking brake test. While perhaps not intended by FMVSS-105, the snub burnish procedure has the effect of paralleling actual vehicle use as it is normal to expect a driver to apply the service brakes in a routine fashion prior to parking the vehicle. No identical language appears in FMVSS-121, although Table 1-Stopping Sequence does provide for a burnish in its initial step.

The authors of FMVSS-105 recognized the abnormal conditions which develop during the harsh testing sequence. Further, they recognized that lining surface glazing will impair the holding characteristics of a braking system, perhaps to the extent that an otherwise completely adequate design will fail this standard for an unintended reason.

It is with these thoughts in mind that Kelsey-Hayes Company respectfully requests an interpretation by the NHTSA as to whether step 1 of Table 1 of FMVSS-121 will allow a burnish of the parking brakes immediately prior to step 5-parking brake test.

Thank you for your consideration.

David M. Thompson

ID: nht78-2.5

DATE: 11/28/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 28 1978

NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Service Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your August 3, 1978, letter asking how to compute the area of a sample of a body panel when testing for compliance with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

In your letter, you suggest that the net cross-sectional area of the sample is determined by multiplying the width of the sample by its thickness and then subtracting the area of each discreet fastener hole. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees that this procedure yields the correct area of the sample, and is the method used by the agency in its compliance testing.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 3, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of our interpretation regarding FMVSS 221, School Bus Joint Strength.

It is our understanding that in meeting the requirements of S5, that the area to be used for calculating purposes, when discreet fasteners are used, is the net area of the weakest joined body panel. We define the net area as the width of the sample multiplied by its thickness, less the projected area of each discreet fastener hole.

We look forward to receiving an early written confirmation of this interpretation.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

sw

ID: nht78-2.50

DATE: 01/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bendix Corporation's November 9, 1977, request for confirmation that S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not prohibit the use of a two-valve sequential means to release the parking brakes on a towed vehicle.

I have enclosed for your information two interpretations that address this question, stating that a two-valve sequential release is permissible under S5.6.4. I have also enclosed a copy of an outstanding rulemaking proposal that would standardize the parking brake control as specified in the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J680b. I am unable to advise you whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intends to make final this proposal.

I would also like to remind you of the requirement in S5.6.4 that "[the] control shall be identified in a manner that specifies the method of control operation." So long as different control arrangements are used, it is critical that the means of operation be clearly marked.

ID: nht78-2.6

DATE: 08/23/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether an aftermarket Class A reflex reflector can be installed in addition to the original Equipment Class A reflex reflector, that is, an existing part of the motorcycle's rear combination lamp assembly." You have stated that "both reflectors would be installed vertically on the motorcycles vertical centerline," and have commented that you understand "that two reflectors may be installed horizontally about the vertical centerline, but it is unclear to us whether they may both be installed one on top of the other, vertically, as this is not addressed in FMVSS #108."

You have misunderstood Standard No. 108. Table IV clearly states with respect to location of rear reflex reflectors on motorcycles that "if two are used on the rear, they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." This requirement precludes the use of two rear reflectors mounted above each other vertically on the vehicle's centerline if your fender extension is sold as an accessory on a motorcycle at the time of its first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Generally, however, Federal standards do not cover vehicles after their first purchase and an owner may modify his vehicle in any manner he chooses consistent with local law. Modification by dealers, distributors, and repair businesses are prohibited only if they "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal safety standard. Although aftermarket installation of the fender with reflector by a dealer after a vehicle's sale would not be consistent with the reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108, we cannot say that it would "render inoperative" the reflector installed as original equipment. We therefore have no objection to you offering this component as an aftermarket accessory to be added after a vehicle's initial sale.

SINCERELY,

U.S. SUZUKI Motor Corporation

August 10, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for interpretation

Dear Mr. Levin,

The U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation is considering the addition of a rear fender extension to its Suzuki aftermarket accessory line for one of its large motorcycles. The accessory fender extension in question has as a component a Class A reflex reflector. The motorcycle's existing Class A reflex reflector is part of the rear combination lamp assembly.

The problem we are encountering is with interpreting FMVSS #108, Table IV, Location of Required Equipment, as to whether an aftermarket Class A reflex reflector can be installed in addition to the original Equipment Class A reflex reflector, that is, an existing part of the motorcycles' rear combination lamp assembly.

Both reflectors would be installed vertically on the motorcycles vertical centerline. We understand that two reflectors may be installed horizontally about the vertical centerline, but it is unclear to us whether they may both be installed one on top of the other, vertically, as this is not addressed in FMVSS #108.

For demonstration purposes we are enclosing photographs that show one of our current motorcycles in its original state (#1) and two that show the aftermarket fender extension mounted on the motorcycle (#2, #3). We would appreciate your reply as to whether or not Suzuki can offer this fender extension with reflex reflector as an aftermarket accessory, and that if aftermarket installation of it would be permitted.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Dept.

ENCLS.

CURRENT MODEL MOTORCYCLE WITHOUT AND WITH ACCESSORY FENDER EXTENSION

Photograph #1 Motorcycle rear fender in original state "OEM"

Photograph #2 Motorcycle rear fender with accessory fender extension installed

Photograph #3 Motorcycle rear fender with accessory fender extension installed.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-2.7

DATE: 10/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect to Subaru's intention to offer "a retracting center auxiliary lamp" on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.

The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candle-power output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.

Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lighting requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1969 Dodge cars, named the "Super Lite", and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing the glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.

SINCERELY,

SUBARU OF AMERICA, Inc.

September 12, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

Subaru of America plans to offer as standard on our MPV, BRAT model, a retracting center auxiliary lamp. We request your office's comments to the following questions.

1. Can we call the center lamp an auxiliary driving lamp?

2. Can we use a single on/off switch for this lamp? Or must it be switched to be used only with bright beam headlamps?

3. What are the compliance problems, if any?

Paul Utans Assoc. Vice President Product Compliance

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-2.8

DATE: 06/19/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Highway Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 1, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking whether marker lamps on your new "bevel designed front Van Trailer" comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, instead of providing two amber clearance lamps, on the trailer front and two amber side marker lamps at the trailer's leading edge, you would install a combination clearance-side marker lamp at 45 degrees on the beveled leading edge of the trailer.

Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108 permits a side marker lamp to be combined with a clearance lamp "if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ." This means that the combination lamp in position on the vehicle must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972. This standard addresses specific photometric requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps and I enclose a copy for your information.

SINCERELY,

March 1, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Taylor Binson Chief Consul

Dear Sir:

We would like to have a ruling on location of marker lights on our new bevel designed front Van Trailer. At present we use four (4) amber lights; two (2) on front and two (2) on side at front. Would it be permissible to use two (2) amber lights on the 45 degree front bevel corner and eliminate two (2) lights?

Enclosed is a sketch showing front of trailer marked per above.

HIGHWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY A Division of MOTAC, INC.

LaVerne L. Kruckenberg -- Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-2.9

DATE: 06/30/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Christy Electronics, Inc.

COPYEE: AMER. ASSOC. OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Our regional office in White Plains has forwarded your letter of May 29, 1978, for reply.

You have requested "approval" of your vehicle lighting system which flashes the stop lamps at a rate three times per second when the brake pedal is depressed.

We do not "approve" lighting devices but we do provide interpretations whether such devices are permissible under Federal lighting requirements. As an item of original vehicle equipment your device would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This paragraph requires that all lamps be steady - burning in operation except for turn signal lamps, hazard warning, signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps, and it also allows headlamps and side marker lamps to be flashed for signalling purposes.

As an aftermarket device, however, it would be subject to regulation by the individual States. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion on this point.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

June 8, 1978

Frank B. Caristia Christy Electronics, Inc.

Dear Mr. Caristia:

We are forwarding your letter of May 31, 1978 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Crash Avoidance in Washington D.C. for their review and action.

Irving Rodness Motor Vehicle Program Specialist

CHRISTY ELECTRONICS, INC.

May 29, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We hereby request approval of our new product, for vehicular use, with function as described below:

1. When the brake pedal is depressed the stop lights will flash three times, at a rate of approximately three flashes per second, and then remain lit as long as the brake pedal is held depressed.

2. When the brake pedal is released, the stop lights go off and the circuit resets, ready to flash the stop lights when the brake pedal is again depressed.

This rapid flashing of the stop lights is intended as a means of "waking up" the driver of the vehicle behind you when making stops on highways.

In case of product failure, a by-pass switch can be thrown to restore the vehicles original stop light circuitry.

Please note that many drivers pump their brakes to cause the stop lights to flash, risking an accident because of increased stopping distance.

Frank B. Caristia President

ID: nht78-3.1

DATE: 04/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Transportation - L.A., CA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 10, 1978, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies to a device that automatically applies to vehicle's service brakes when a sensing bumper mounted at the rear of the vehicle is tripped by contact with an object during a backing maneuver. For purposes of your question, I assume that the vehicle, whether new or used, has been certified to comply with Standard No. 121 prior to installation of the device.

The answer to your question is no. Paragraph S3 (Applicability) of Standard No. 121 states that the standard applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems (with some specified exceptions). The standard therefore applies only to vehicles, and does not apply to motor vehicle equipment such as the braking actuator you describe. The vehicle must, of course, conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After the first retail sale, $ S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. $ S 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in satisfaction on a safety standard such as Standard No. 121.

ID: nht78-3.10

DATE: 09/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent question whether Mercedes may use a dynamic test to evaluate seat structure integrity instead of the static test specified in the testing procedures of Safety Standard No. 207.

The answer to your question is yes. A manufacturer is permitted to use whatever test procedures or methods of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) is that the manufacturer exercise due care to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards.

Therefore, you may use a dynamic test method to determine the integrity of your vehicle seats if this constitutes the exercise of due care to assure the seats meet the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 207. Of course, it cannot be determined whether a manufacturer in fact exercised due care in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance. Likewise, the agency will not approve a manufacturer's method of testing in advance of certification.

Please contact me if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

July 3, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 207

Dear Madam or Sir,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 specifies in Section S5. Test Procedures, loading techniques to evaluate seat structure integrity. All figures in this standard depict draw bars or other force controlling devices typical of static testing procedures.

Mercedes-Benz of North America believes that such a description of these tests restricts a manufacturer from using alternative test procedures. It is also believed that dynamic testing techniques are more realistic and within the intent of this standard when they produce forces equal to or exceeding those specified in this standard. We would appreciate receiving your confirmation of this opinion at your earliest convenience to enable the use of a dynamic test as an alternative to the current technique specified.

HEINZ W. GERTH