ID: nht79-2.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 1, 1979

Mr. William G. Finn Operations Manager Continental Products Corp. 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of September 7, 1979, asking whether tire sidewall molding, required by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), may be accomplished using characters with a height of 6.5 millimeters, rather than 5/32nds of an inch as stated in the regulation (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1). You also ask whether UTQG sidewall moldings must appear on both sides of the tire.

The specification of 5/32-inch tire sidewall characters was intended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, e.g., 6.5 millimeters, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height. UTQG information need be molded on only one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 7, 1979

Mr. Hipolit - Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Per our telephone conversation of September 5, please let us know the answers to the following questions regarding the UTQG law which goes into effect for radial tires on March 1, 1980.

1. Can the lettering molded into the side-wall of the tire be 6.5 mm high?

2. Must these markings be molded on both sides of the tire, or is one side sufficient?

Your prompt reply would be most appreciated, and we thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

William G. Finn Operations Manager

WGF:jld

ID: nht79-3.48

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 18, 1979, letter asking to what extent the parallelepiped device required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must fit inside a school bus in order to provide the mandated "unobstructed passage."

The agency responded to a request similar to yours in 1976. A copy of that interpretation is included for your information. The essence of that interpretation is that while conducting the test in accordance with S5.4.2.1(a) of the standard, the parallelepiped device must, at a minimum, fit inside a bus so that the device's outside edge is flush with the lower outside edge of the bus body. If your bus complies with this interpretation of the standard, it would be in compliance.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

May 18, 1979

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

Dear Mr. Levin:

Section S5.4.2.1(a) of FMVSS 217, Bus Retention and Release, requires that the rear emergency door opening of a school bus be large enough to provide the unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped.

Will the condition illustrated on the enclosed sketch satisfy this requirement? The following applies to this sketch: The rectangular parallelepiped is of the prescribed dimensions, surface "A" is totally within the outline of the body except for the top portion where the body contour slopes forward. The forward side of the rectangular parallelepiped (the side opposite surface "A") is totally inside of the body and contacts the rearmost surface of the passenger seats.

An early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

SURFACE 'A'

Wayne Corporation An Indian Head Company Wayne Transportation Division Richmond, Indiana

DATE: 5-11-79

SCHOOL BUS REAR EMERGENCY DOOR OPENING PASSAGE (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst; Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.

The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe it consists of two additional parts: "the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two "component adhesive", and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier...." In your words, "The two parts are held together by three screws", and you believe that "the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded".

Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly. . . ." In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp" that is permissible for use on motor vehicles sold and used in the Unite States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical aimability is that the beam and aiming pads are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.

ID: nht87-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen R. Tank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud, MN 56301

Dear Mr. Tank:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect to the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.

The definition of a motorcycle is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." This is technically inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say "tires" rather than "wheels." Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehi cle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have communicated with George Shifflett in the Department regarding our three wheel vehicle. According to your standards, we are governed by the laws specifically addressed to motorcycles. The question was raised, if the three wheel vehicle had two whe els in the front with one in the rear, the rear rim having two tires mounted on it, would it still be regarded as a motorcycle.. I have enclosed three photos that will visually explain our proposed application.

I would appreciate your opinion on the additional tire effect on our motorcycle classification.

Sincerely,

Allen R. Tank President

cc: George Shifflett

ID: nht92-1.34

DATE: December 8, 1992

FROM: George D. James, Jr. -- Safety Chairman, Unit 169 WBCCI

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA; Attention: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: RE Tekonsha Electronic Brake Control ("Control")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to George D. James, Jr. (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Thank you for your 12/4/92 reply to my 10/24/92 letter objecting to your "approval" of this brake controller. Because your agency does not "approve", "endorse" or offer assurance of compliance of any M.V, equipment, I err in thinking you have "approved" these controllers.

I still believe that using trailer brakes without activating the STOP LIGHTS is an unsafe procedure AND you imply approval.

You state that "at this time we do not have any data indicating a real-world safety problem created by the use of the Tekonsha brake control".

What data do you need to realize that a rear end collision (or a following vehicle choosing to leave the road to avoid one) or chain-reaction collisions caused by a slowing or stopping vehicle WITHOUT STOP LIGHTS BEING ACTIVATED is not a "real world" safety problem?

How many thousands of such accidents have already been recorded? How many violation citations with or without penalties have been made because of inoperating stop lights?

Mr. Wood, I've just talked with the Macon County Sheriff's Department and the State Highway Patrol (North Carolina) and they both confirm that:

1. There'll be a lot more collisions on the highways if vehicles are permitted to run with non-operating stop lights, and

2. Don't get caught here with stop lights not working or you'll for sure be ticketed.

Now by George, you KNOW this is right. YOU DON'T NEED "MORE DATA"! HOW CAN YOU SAY YOUR AGENCY'S GOAL IS MINIMIZING DEATHS AND INJURIES ON THE HIGHWAYS, and still defend your decision re these new brake controllers? HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU NEED MORE DATA INDICATING A POTENTIAL PROBLEM?

ID: nht93-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Durin B. Rogers -- Legal Assistant, Saperston & Day

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Durin B. Rogers (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d); Redbook 4); Also attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11/29/84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance with regard to a legal matter within our office at this time.

According to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations S571.205 (otherwise known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials), certain motor vehicles operating on land highways are required to use windows made of treated "safety glass" or tempered glass to reduce the likelihood of shattering, as well as to minimize the possibility of vehicle occupants being thrown through a window during a collision. More specifically, I am interested in the glazing material requirements for side windows in what are known as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." Although Section 5.1.1 of Standard #205 designates that such requirements should conform to the American National Standard Safety Code for safety glazing materials for motor vehicles operating on land highways (Z-26.1, 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1(a), July 3, 1980), it fails to specify what grade or specification of glass is required for each window's location. For your information, the replacement side window was allegedly purchased from a manufacturer in Indiana in June 1987, and installed within a fifth wheel camper registered in the State of New York. Enclosed, for your reference, are copies of photographs of the subject camper.

Would you please research this issue and confirm what specific glazing requirements, if any, are applicable to side windows within fifth wheel vehicles, and whether any federal or industrial regulations exist which would require future window replacements and/or repairs to be made of such glass?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

(Photos omitted)

ID: nht74-4.19

DATE: 07/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 19, 1974, question whether required hose labeling under Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, permits placing some required labeling on each of several hose sections which are joined together in one vacuum brake line to form the required label. You ask how a 2 3/8-inch section could otherwise be labeled.

It is not permitted under S9.1 to label a vacuum brake hose with only part of the required information, whether or not it appears with all other required labeling in the same brake line.

You state that 5 inches is required to place all labeling on vacuum nose. We do not understand why the legend could not be shortened to 2 3/8-inches or less. There is no width requirement for lettering and Notice 11 now permits labeling information to appear in any order on the hose to simplify cutting.

Please write again if we have misunderstood the problem you have posed.

Yours Truly,

Volvo of America Corporation

June 19, 1974

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volvo hereby requests an interpretation on FMVSS 106. We are planning to use one type of vacuum brake hose of several different lengths jointed together. The shortest piece will have a length of two and three eights inches. The minimum length necessary to provide room for all required FMVSS 106 markings is five inches. My question is can we use a vacuum brake hose, which consists of different lengths of the same hose jointed together, where the marking on the shortest piece is incomplete? If not, what marking would be acceptable for a hose two and three eights inch long?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and we request your reply as soon as practicable.

Sincerely,

Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer

ID: nht91-6.2

DATE: September 18, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Calow -- Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Chassis Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from John E. Calow to Taylor Vincon (OCC 6358)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 12, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a verification of your understanding of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you ask:

"If the Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights are optically combined and both are activated (per federal regulations) which of the following will occur?

A) The brake lights will over-ride causing a steady light emission.

B) The hazard lights will over-ride causing a flashing light emission.

The answer to your first question is either "A" or "B" depending on how the manufacturer decided to wire the vehicle. The vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is required to operate sufficient turn signal lamps to meet, as a minimum, the turn signal lamp photometric requirements of the standard (see S5.5.5) and function (see Table I or III) in accordance with SAE J910, January 1966. Since the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit causes turn signal lamps to operate simultaneously, the turn signal lamps become hazard warning lamps that are optically combined with turn signal lamps. Should these hazard warning lamps also be optically combined with the brake lamps, as in your question, the standard does not provide any requirement for which, brake or hazard, should override.

You also ask:

"If the vehicle has a Center High Mounted Stop Lamp 'CHMSL' is it acceptable to have the Hazard Warning Lights over-ride the Brake Lights if the CHMSL has a steady light emitance (sic) upon brake application?"

The answer to this question is the same as the first. However, the CHMSL may not be combined, optically or otherwise, with any other lamp, and therefore it must remain operative upon brake application, even if the remaining stop lamps have been overridden.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 9123

Mr. Jack McIntyre
Vice President
Tie Tech Inc.
Post Office Box 5226
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:209#222#571 d:11/23/93

ID: nht70-1.4

DATE: 08/03/70

FROM: JOSEPH R. O'GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Evans, Gentither and Meermans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol "DOT" into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a "second" would not negate the certification.

The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many brand/size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.

The test results do not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter. Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard; similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.

Copies of individual test reports can be obtained, for a fee of $ 3.00 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification, you may wish to avail yourself of this service.

There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the name of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is; American Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated, 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.

I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance.