ID: nht80-2.39

DATE: 05/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John Evans Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 29 1980

Mr. Tom Spencer John Evans Mfg. Co. P.O. Box 669 Sumter, South Carolina 29150

Dear Mr. Spencer:

This responds to your May 6, 1980, telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked about the certification responsibilities for an incomplete trailer manufacturer. You indicated in your conversation that you manufacture chassis for trailers and supply them to finalstage manufacturers who complete them by the addition of a body. In particular, you asked whether you are required to comply with the provisions of Part 568.4, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Part 568 places certain certification responsibilities upon incomplete vehicle manufacturers. The term "incomplete vehicle" is defined in section 568.3, as an assemblage including, at a minimum, the frame, chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension and braking system to the extent that these systems are to be part of the completed vehicle. If a chassis that you manufacture is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle and would be required to comply with the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568. Please note that your incomplete trailer need not have all of the components listed above to be considered an incomplete vehicle subject to Part 558. It need only have those components in the list that will be found in the completed vehicle. Since your trailer is an incomplete vehicle but not a chassis-cab as that term is defined in Part 567, Certification, it would not be required to have a chassis-cab manufacturer's certification label attached to it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-2.4

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sholz Oldsmobile, John Galotti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. John B. Galotti Service Manager Sholz Oldsmobile 35 West Post Road White Plains, New York 10606

Dear Mr. Galotti:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the legal requirements applicable to the installation of fuel separators and auxiliary fuel tanks in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of a letter the agency issued last year which discusses the Federal requirements and implications that would be involved with such activities. That discussion should answer all of your questions. If, however, you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted here.]

March 10, 1980

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel NOA 30

Re; Installation of Diesel engine fuel and dirt separators and auxiliary Diesel fuel tanks in trunks of passenger cars.

Dear Sir;

We have received many requests and inquires from car owners concerning the installation of Fuel separators and Auxiliary fuel tanks in their vehicles.

Before we oblige them we would like to know officially what difficulties and liabilities we might run into as far as Federal Laws are concerned.

Any assistance you may give us pertaining to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John B. Galotti Service Manager

ID: nht80-2.40

DATE: 05/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hiroshi Abe Assistant General Manager Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civil Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Abe:

This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1980, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 to incomplete vehicles.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides that "(e)ach vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN and check digit assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer." Consequently, Isuzu Motors, Inc. would be the entity responsible for assigning the vehicle identification number (VIN) to incomplete vehicles which it ships to the United States.

You wish to know whether the manufacturer identifier in the VIN of each of these vehicles may designate the vehicle as a "truck" instead of as an "incomplete vehicle" if Isuzu knows that the completed vehicle will be a truck.

S4.5.1 of the standard provides that the first three characters of the VIN shall identify the manufacturer, make and type of vehicle. Table I of S4.5.2 delineates the different types of vehicles and includes a separate type designation for "incomplete vehicles." As explained in the preamble to Notice 8 (March 22, 1979, 44 FR 17489, at 17490), the "incomplete vehicle" category was added because "incomplete" vehicle manufacturers would have little way of knowing the final configuration of the vehicles they produce." It was never the intent of the agency, however, to preclude a manufacturer from indicating the precise types of completed vehicles if this is known.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 3, 1980 Mr. Frederick Schwarts, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Incomplete Vehicle Attributes --- FMVSS 115 VIN

Dear Mr. Schwarts:

This letter is intended to seek your advice on whether the use of VIN for our incomplete trucks meets the requirements of FMVSS 115 --- Vehicle Identification Number.

We currently manufacture and ship to the U.S. incomplete vehicles for which we assume "legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the Act, with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured" as specified in 49 CFR Part 567 ---Certification, 567.5(e). All the vehicles are completed into trucks by the final manufacturer in the U.S. Therefore, the vehicle type description shown in the certification label as set forth in 567.5(e) is "Truck."

In light of this situation, we are planning to use the VIN (the first three characters) assigned to our trucks rather than to incomplete vehicles. The same would apply to the VIN appearing on the above-mentioned certification label.

We believe this arrangement would not contradict the requirements of FMVSS Part 115, but would appreciate your confirmation. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

H. Abe Assistant General Manager 05/29/80

ID: nht80-2.41

DATE: 05/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria, Ohio 44035

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:

This responds to your April 8, 1980, letter asking for an interpretation of section 5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In particular, you ask whether your system complies with the provisions of that section which require that vehicles have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of an emergency failure of the service brake system. You indicate that your system is in compliance with the intent of this section but may not be in technical compliance with the actual requirements. Nonetheless, you believe that your system complies based upon a letter of interpretation made by the agency to Berg Manufacturing Company dated August 27, 1979.

The August letter to Berg to which you refer in your letter was conditioned upon our reading of the facts as stated by Berg in their letter. That letter as it applied to section 5.2.1.1 was not an interpretation of the standard, but rather an assessment by the agency as to whether we believed that time and based upon the given facts, we stated to Berg that we felt that their system would comply.

The agency has always been reluctant to issue such letters, because it is impossible to determine compliance based up a manufacturer's description of its vehicles or from vehicle drawings. It is necessary for the agency to conduct tests to be certain whether a vehicle will comply. Accordingly, the agency always indicates in its letters that any assessment of compliance is contingent upon the description made in the manufacturer's letter, and that our opinions only reflect our engineering expertise and in no way bind the agency should we test the vehicle and find a noncompliance. In fact, we have frequently indicated to manufacturers that these letters are of little or no value to them.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Berg letter, the agency has received a clearer picture of how the Berg system operates. We have notified that company that their system does not comply with the requirements of the standard. Berg has indicated to the agency that they consider their system to be as good as any that is in complete compliance with the standard and has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a way that would permit their system. The agency is now looking into the Berg request. We suggest that you closely follow that rulemaking action.

With respect to your system, it appears that it too would not comply with the technical requirements of the standard, because your system does not have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of service brake failure. Although the agency appreciates your argument that your system meets the intent of the standard for the release of parking brakes when the service brake system fails, nonetheless the standard is specific in its requirement that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the parking brakes. We cannot by interpretation remove the reservoir requirement. Our rulemaking effort with respect to the Berg petition will address the question of whether the reservoir requirement remains necessary in the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

April 8, 1980

Subject: Request for Confirmation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air Brake Systems; Section 5.2.1.1

Gentlemen:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix) respectfully requests from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmation of Bendix' conclusion that the trailer air brake reservoir system as set forth in Attachment A satisfies the intent and is in compliance with Section S5.2.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS 121). Bendix' conclusion of compliance is based upon the NHTSA August 27, 1979 interpretation issued to Berg Manufacturing Company (Berg) (Attachment B), and Laboratory Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; TP-121-02, Test Data, page 47 (Attachment C).

The Bendix' trailer reservoir system, shown and described herein; utilizes standard industry accepted components to provide trailer service, emergency and parking brake capabilities. The air applied emergency vapability of this Bendix system is equal to or better than that required by FMVSS 121. Service air for trailer parking is applied through the relay emergency valve. In the event of a reduction in pressure of the service reservoir, spring applied braking would be a secondary means of braking for parking and emergency. The emergency parking brake is applied when the trailer supply line pressure is vented to atmosphere, and released when this line is pressurized to approximately 55 psi. Supply line pressurization for release of the trailer parking brake is unaffected by any single failure in the trailer's service brake system.

The submitted Bendix trailer reservoir system has parking brake release capability as stated in Section S5.2.1.1 of the Standard. Bendix supports the intent of Section S5.2.1.1.1 which promotes highway safety by requiring the towed vehicles parking brakes to have the capability of being released from the towing vehicle in the event of a trailer service system loss of pressure.

A trailer reservoir for the storage of air pressure used to release the parking brakes in event of a service failure per section S5.2.1.1 is redundant, as utilization of the stored pressure requires pressurization of the trailer supply line. In the Bendix' system, if a failure occurs in the service air system, such as a failure of the reservoir, air pressure used for release of the spring applied brakes is provided by the trailer supply line which is pressurized by the air system of the towing vehicle when charging the trailer.

After reviewing the NHTSA interpretation of August 27, 1979 (Attachment B) and the Laboratory procedure TP-121-02 (Attachment C) Bendix has concluded that a trailer brake system which provides parking brake release when the trailer supply line is pressurized is in compliance with S5.2.1.1.

A similar Bendix' trailer reservoir system, having anti-lock capability was submitted to the NHTSA with our letter of September 14, 1977 (Attachment D) petitioning for a revision of Section S5.2.1.1.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests concurrence from with the NHTSA that the Bendix trailer air brake reservoir system, discussed herein, complies with S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS 121. We would be pleased to discuss these Bendix systems in more detail at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering

RWH:mnr

Attachments Omitted.

ID: nht80-2.42

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Donald Boyd & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that large commercial truck tractors do not have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. You also asked whether large trucks should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

You are correct in your assumption that large commercial trucks would not have to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 since that standard only applies to passenger cars. You are also correct in stating that trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds may meet the seat belt option of Safety Standard No. 208 found in paragraph S4.3.2. Under S4.3.1, manufacturers do have the option of meeting the crash protection requirements of S5 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (with current technology this means air cushion restraints or automatic seat belts). Further, vehicles manufactured prior to August 15, 1977, were permitted to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 in lieu of the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208, and for large trucks this would have been a simple test to meet. However, since the vehicle would also have been required to meet the "frontal" and "lateral" requirements by automatic means if option S4.3.1 were taken, no truck manufacturers chose to comply with the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208 via the Standard No. 216 option. Rather, seat belts were installed on all large trucks.

SINCERELY,

DONALD BOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers

April 22, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Roof Structure Crashworthiness Requirements for large commerciales vehicles

Dear Sir:

Based on my review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, I have concluded that it is not necessary for manufacturers of large commercial truck tractors to comply with FMVSS roof crash resistance performance standards. However, I would like to get your opinion.

FMVSS 216 relates to passenger cars and, because of the 5,000 pound test load limitation, cannot be expected to apply to large commercial truck tractors which should experience substantially higher forces in most rollovers. Standard number 208; S4.3 applies to "trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds" and provides two options for meeting crashworthiness requirements. Realistically, however, it would seem that truck manufacturers should select one of these (the "belt system" option) because the other option (which refers back to 216 and the 5,000-pound load limitation) would not be expected to provide adequate roof structure to resist a 30 mile per hour rollover of a large commercial truck.

Therefore, I have concluded that large commercial truck tractors should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option of FMVSS 208 to provide better occupant protection and, in meeting the requirements of this option, will satisy the occupant crash protection Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for trucks manufactured prior to August 15, 1977.

I would greatly appreciate a response from you indicating whether my interpretation of these requirements is consistent with that of the Office of the Chief Counsel.

Donald E. Boyd, Ph.D., P.E.

ID: nht80-2.43

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brown Motors Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Slagle Parts Manager Brown Motors Volkswagen 5 West 18th Street at National City Boulevard National City, California 92050

Dear Mr. Slagle:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the Federal requirements that would be applicable to the manufacture and installation of auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the general implications of such installations under Federal law.

Your letter asked whether it will be necessary for you to crash test vehicles that have the auxiliary tanks installed. As indicated in the enclosed interpretation, if the tank is added to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person making the alteration will have to certify that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer (including an alterer) to exercise due care to assure that a vehicle certifies is in fact in compliance with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the manufacturer to determine how he will establish due care and, in this case, whether he will crash test a vehicle or use some other method to ensure the compliance of the vehicle. The test procedures in Safety Standard No. 301-75 are not obligatory, only the performance requirements. The test procedures do, however, state how the agency will test a vehicle to determine compliance.

In answer to your question number 4, I can state that it will not be necessary for you to crash test each vehicle which has a tank installed in order to establish due care. If by your question you meant one car of each car "model," once again, it is up to the manufacturer how he establishes due care.

In answer to your question number 3, the information contained in the enclosed interpretation includes discussions of all the Federal safety requirements that would be applicable to your company's activities. There may, of course, be other general Federal laws regarding the conducting of a business which would be pertinent. For example, Federal Trade Commission regulations regarding advertising could affect your activities. You are probably aware of these general regulations, however, since you are already an established business enterprise.

Regarding your final question, all vehicle manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, have performed crash tests to determine compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. Since your company is a Volkswagen dealership, I suggest you contact Volkswagen regarding its compliance testing program for Safety Standard No. 301-75.

If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted]

April 24, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation National Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of having auxiliary diesel fuel tanks made of aluminum for us by a company who makes many items, such as ducting, vents, water tanks, fuel tanks, etc. These tanks are for automobiles that use diesel fuel only, not gasoline. We make up a kit including all necessary parts and installation instructions for this to be installed in diesel driven vehicles only.

These auxiliary diesel fuel tank kits will be sold to automobile dealers for sale over the counter or may install in their own shop; also sold to repair shops, auto parts stores, etc, We will install these auxiliary tanks in our agency also.

Our tanks are constructed of 12 gauge non-corrosive aluminum-Heliarc welded and each tank is pressure tested. Some are made to fit in to the spare tire well and some fit in the trunk of the car. Each tank is secured by (4) four or more bolts thru specially welded brackets on each tank.

We are prepared to notify customers if necessary, should we find a defect, also should a leak occur, we will replace the tank.

I would appreciate a response to the questions listed below:

1. Will federal motor vehicle safety standard FMVSS No. 301-75 apply to our company's activities?

2. Will it be necessary for us to crash test a car?

3. Will any other federal law apply to our company's activity?

4. Will it be necessary for us to crash test each car we make diesel tanks for?

5. Can you furnish any information to us on manufacture's that performed crash tests as to federal standards FMVSS 301-75?

Our desire and intent is to build a safe auxiliary diesel fuel tank and maintain fuel system integrity.

I would appreciate any response to this letter and any suggestions you might have for this project.

Sincerely,

Robert Slagle Parts Manager

ID: nht80-2.44

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meon, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Martin D. Davis Meon, Inc. 221-18 Merrick Boulevard Springfield Gardens, New York 11413

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1980, requesting interpretation of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S 575.104). That paragraph provides that to qualify as a limited production tire a tire cannot have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than 10,000 during the preceding calendar year. You ask whether a tire meets this requirement if its size is recommended for use on several new vehicles, none of which is produced in quantities greater than 10,000 yearly, but which in the aggregate account for annual production in excess of 10,000 vehicles.

Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) refers to "a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation (emphasis added)" and "a new motor vehicle (emphasis added)", indicating that the 10,000 vehicle limitation refers to the production or importation of a particular vehicle model, rather than the total of all models for which the tire size is recommended. Thus, if a tire's size is recommended for use on several vehicle models, none of which is produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, the tire would meet the criterion of paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

MAY 12, 1980

MR. RICHARD J. HIPOLIT OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. HIPOLIT:

PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF TODAY WE REQUEST THAT YOU CLARIFY A POINT.

SEE PAGE 23443 PARAGRAPH 575.04-(III) "A NEW MOTOR VEHICLE". THIS MEANS WHAT? ONE MODEL OR SEVERAL MODELS? MY LAWYER SAYS ONE MODEL. FOR EXAMPLE, SIZE 205/70HR14, NO CAR HAS A PRODUCTION OF 10,000 BUT IF YOU TAKE 5 OR 6 MODELS THEY ADD UP TO 15,000. WHAT DO WE DO?

SINCE YOU INDICATE NO CRITERIA FOR ANYTHING WE ARE USING THE ATTACHED AUTOMOTIVE NEWS LISTS AND THE 1979 TIRE GUIDE.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

MARTIN D. DAVIS MEON, INC.

MDD;AB ENC:

ID: nht80-2.45

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meon, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 6, 1980

Mr. Martin D. Davis Meon, Inc. 221-18 Merrick Boulevard Springfield Gardens, New York 11413

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of May 8, 1980, asking whether certain listed sizes of Phoenix brand tires, imported by Meon, Inc. fall within the coverage of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S 575.104). You state that Meon, Inc. is the sole United States importer of Phoenix tires, that the total number of Phoenix tires to be imported will not exceed 35,000 per year, and that no more than 15,000 tires of a particular type or size will be imported annually.

The UTQG Standards do not apply to "limited production tires" as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of the UTQG regulation. To qualify as a limited production tire, the annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner cannot exceed 15,000 tires (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(i) and (ii)). The tire's size cannot have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into this country in quantities exceeding 10,000 vehicles during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(iii)). In addition, the total annual domestic production or importation into the United States by the tire's manufacturer of tires otherwise meeting the limited production criteria cannot exceed 35,000 tires (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(iv)).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the first and third criteria would be satisfied with regard to Meon's contemplated importation of Phoenix tires. However, your letter provides no information on the production of vehicles for which the stated tire sizes may be recommended.

In order to ascertain whether the subject tires meet all of the criteria for limited production tires, Meon must determine the motor vehicles for which the stated sizes were designated as recommended tire sizes during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and the domestic production or importation of each of those vehicles for that calendar year.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

MAY 8, 1980

MR. RICHARD J. HIPOLIT OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. HIPOLIT: RE: PHOENIX IMPORTED TIRES FROM WEST GERMANY

PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF TODAY WE REQUEST WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM YOUR OFFICE THAT PHOENIX IMPORTED TIRES ARE EXEMPT FROM UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING.

THE FACTS ARE THESE:

1. WE ARE THE DESIGNATED AGENT OF PHOENIX A.G. OF WEST GERMANY, MANUFACTURERS OF PHOENIX BRAND TIRES. WE ARE ALSO THE SOLE IMPORTERS.

2. WE IMPORT THE FOLLOWING TYPES, SIZES, AND CONSTRUCTIONS:

SIZE TOTAL # # AND TYPES TREAD DESIGN TREAD COMPOUND OF PLIES OF PLIES

185/60HR13 5 1 RAYON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 185/60VR13 5 2 STEEL 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 175/70HR13 5 2 NYLON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED

185/70HR13 6 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60HR13 6 2 RAYON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60HR13 6 2 STEEL 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 195/60HR14 6 2 NYLON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 185/70HR14 6 4 RIB HIGH SPEED

195/70HR14 4 5 RIB HIGH SPEED 195/70VR14 4 2 RAYON 5 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 205/70HR14 4 2 STEEL 5 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/70VR14 4 5 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED

205/60HR15 6 2 RAYON, 2 STEEL 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60VR15 6 2 NYLON 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED

LATER THIS YEAR WILL BE ADDED THE FOLLOWING TIRES:

235/60HR13 235/60VR13 245/60HR14 245/60VR14 195/50HR15 195/50VR15

TOTAL TIRES TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT EXCEED 35,000 PER YEAR. NO SINGLE TYPE OR SIZE WILL EXCEED 15,000 IN QUANTITY FOR A YEAR.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT PHOENIX TIRES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS REGULATION. EACH OF THE 14 TIRE TYPES AND SIZES WE SELL NOW HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS AND WOULD ENTAIL SEPARATE TESTS, THE COSTS OF WHICH WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE, AND THE RESULTS LIMITED. WITH 6 SIZES AND TYPES MORE TO BE ADDED SOON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS REQUIRED WOULD BE 20. THIS WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AND SERVE NO GOOD.

WE WERE REFERRED TO YOU BY DR. F. CECIL BRENNER OF THE OFFICE OF AUTOMOTIVE RATINGS.

AWAITING YOUR CONFIRMATION, WE ARE

VERY TRULY YOURS,

MARTIN D. DAVIS, PRESIDENT MEON, INC.

MDD:AB

ID: nht80-2.46

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1980, asking whether a new electrical switch complies with S4.5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you have described it, the switch has three positions under two of which ("IGN/ACC" and "ACC") the hazard warning signals will operate. The third position, however, ("OFF") is a master switch which disconnects most electrical circuits on the vehicle including hazard warning signals. You have asked whether this design is permissible under S4.5.5 which requires the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit to "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch." You have cited as precedent a 1972 letter from this agency to Imperial Fire Apparatus approving a battery disconnect switch design. In the 1972 system the hazard signals would only be activated by turning both the master switch and the flasher to "on". This was acceptable to NHTSA under paragraph 3(e) of SAE J910, Hazard Warning Signal Switch:

". . . providing the master switch is separate from the ignition switch and the hazard warning signal lamps will flash with the master switch on and the ignition switch off."

The principal difference between the two systems is that your switch "is a part of the ignition switch assembly and not physically located elsewhere on the instrument panel."

The intent of S4.5.5. is that the hazard warning signals operate regardless whether the ignition switch is on or off.

This intent would not appear to be met by your system whose master switch is part of the ignition switch assembly. We suggest, therefore, that you modify your design so that the hazard warning signal circuit is added to that of the "CB" and clock which remain operable when the master switch is in the "off" position.

SINCERELY,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

April 30, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Ignition Switch with Master Off Position/FMVSS 108 S.4.5.5

Gentlemen: International Harvester Company (IH) is planning to introduce a new electrical switch on its new models. This switch incorporates a master "OFF" position which disconnects most electrical circuits on the vehicle. The OFF (master) switch performs essentially the same function as the one described in the attached interpretation #N41-34 dated August 11, 1972 except that it is a part of the ignition switch assembly and not physically located elsewhere on the instrument panel. This ignition switch has three positions "IGN/ACC", "ACC", and master "OFF". With the switch in the IGN/ACC position, the engine and accessories circuits are on. When the switch is turned to the "ACC" position, the engine is off and all accessories can be operated including the hazard warning flashers (key can be removed in this position). When the switch is turned to the master "OFF" position, all electrical circuits will be off except for the clock and "CB" circuits. These circuits must remain live so that the clock will continue running and the "CB" memory is maintained. Note that the switch can be turned from the "ACC" position to the "OFF" position or from the "OFF" position to the "ACC" position without a key. The key must be inserted to turn the ignition switch to engine run position ("IGN/ACC" position).

The purpose of this master "OFF" is to shut down most of the electrical circuits when the vehicle is not in use. This will protect the vehicle from power drains or fires due to electrical shorts when the vehicle is not in use. In addition, the vehicles electrical circuits can be shut off if a short is discovered by the driver while the vehicle is in use.

It is our opinion that this switch, which incorporates a master OFF is in compliance with FMVSS 108 S.4.5.5. We believe that it meets the intent of the standard of having the hazard flashers be operable when the engine is turned off and the key removed - (ACC position). We solicite the Agency's concurrence with this opinion.

This request is a follow-up to a telephone conversation of 4/21/80 between Mr. R. C. Hamilton and Mr. Z. Taylor Venson, who advised that we write this office for an interpretation. As mentioned by Mr. Hamilton, we are in dire need of a speedy reply as we are about to finalize this design for our new models.

Attached for your reference is a sketch illustrating the newly designed ignition switch assembly in question.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

F. L. Krall, Manager Technical Legislation

ATTACH.

cc: GEORGE L. PARKER

MASTER OFF SWITCH

OFF - (MASTER) - MOST SYSTEMS OFF (HAZARD FLASHERS WILL NOT OPERATE) ACC - ENG OFF & ACC ON (HAZARD FLASHERS AND ACCESSORIES WILL OPERATE)

IGN/ACC - ENG ON & ACC ON (HAZARD FLASHERS AND ACCESSORIES WILL OPERATE) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-2.47

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, in which" you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.

1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.

2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., foot operated controls or hand operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column or in the windshield header area) "the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated." Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.

3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:

(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,

(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,

(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,

(d) driver's side window defroster control,

(e) driver's fresh air vent control,

(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.

Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standand 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, "control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield." Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.

9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.

The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.

The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.

10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment. 11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.

12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.

13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.

14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.

15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.

16. With respect to air conditioning systems:

(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.

(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system;

(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.

17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 16, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 101-80

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of several issues related to FMVSS 101-80, discussed at a January 9, 1980 meeting of NHTSA. The issues are numbered below in the sequence discussed at the meeting:

1. In all cases where both symbols and wording are shown in Table I, the symbol is mandatory and the wording is optional.

2. In the case of optional wording accompanying mandatory symbols, which require illumination, only the symbol must be illuminated. It is mandatory for the optional wording to be illuminated.

3. There is no requirement relating to driver comfort fans. These fans are provided to direct air at the driver for his comfort as the name indicates. However, they can be adjusted to direct air on the windshield.

4. There is no requirement for hot water flow valves for heaters. Typically, these valves are opened in winter and left open; closed in summer and left closed. Heat in regulated be means of switch controls to operate air blowers.

5. There is " requirement for heater fresh air control valves. These valves are used to control the ratio of fresh/recirculated air entering the heater.

6. The fan control for an optional driver's heater must be identified but not illuminated.

7. There is no requirement for a driver's side window defroster control.

8. There is no requirement for a driver's fresh air vent control.

9. Confirmation is needed with respect to Table II that the next to last line is only applicable to vehicles with air brakes and the last line is only applicable to vehicles with hydraulic brakes.

10. The proportion of the symbols are those developed by the ISO, however, there is no requirement limiting the minimum or maximum sizes of the symbols.

11. None of the requirements of Table II apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. This is true even in the case where a display is required by another FMVSS; Example: the turn signal display required by FMVSS 108.

12. A hazard control mounted in the steering column does not require illumination.

13. Clearance lamps may be controlled by the headlamp switch. In this case, only the headlamp symbol should be used.

14. If necessary to accomodate a temporary inventory balance out, a slightly different wiper symbol may appear on the wiper knobs that is required by Table I, provided that the required symbol appears adjacent to the control and is properly illuminatted. It is also satisfactory to provide no symbol on the knob itself.

15. With respect to S5.2.2, a bank of switches which control multi-speed fans will comply if they are identified as shown in the enclosed print 0981233.

16. Air conditioning controls must be identified but not illuminated. The extreme positions of air conditioning controls must be identified. The fan symbol is required for air conditioning fan controls.

17. Any type tell tale may be used for a single display on vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR to indicate high engine coolant temperature and/or low engine oil pressure. We understand that Ford Motor Company has proposed an engine symbol for such a display. What is the status of this proposal?

We would like to go on record at this time to alert NHTSA that it may be necessary to revise the effective date of the subject standard as it applies to heavy duty vehicles to alleviate a temporary chassis shortage. This could be caused by a prolonged strike by a major chassis manufacturer which is still in effect. This may result in the mounting of bodies on chassis built after September 1, 1980, which were scheduled for chassis built prior to that date.

Your early response to these items will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, William G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Department

fvc

Enclosure

c: Wilbur Rumph Ben Newberry Jim Moorman Jim Swift Bob DuMond