ID: GF009254

Mr. Richard Keller
Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
1780 Executive Drive, PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066




Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As explained below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers changed the vehicles such that the information of the tire placard is no longer accurate, but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard).Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for purposes other than resale, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard)indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

I note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

Finally, we note that with respect to modifications of vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities, 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) requires modifiers to provide the vehicle owner with a document that indicates a reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are completed.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Ms. Dana Roeling
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
3327 W. Bearss Avenue
Tampa, FL 33618

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: Tunick telltale 001515

ID: 1984-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 3, 1984

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Schnader; Harrison; Segal & Lewis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to an emergency locking retractor designed by one of your clients. The following discussion addresses the application of those standards to the retractor.

You explained that the purpose of the new emergency locking retractor (ELR) is to facilitate the securing of a child restraint in a vehicle. The ELR would only be installed in forward-facing passenger seating positions. The new ELR is designed so if the belt is pulled all the way out of the retractor, the ELR will convert into an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor will revert automatically to the ELR mode.

You further explained that the continuous loop lap and upper torso belt used with this retractor is 380 mm longer than the belt system provided for the driver's seating position. You explained that the extra 380 mm of belt webbing is meant "to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child restraint use."

You specifically asked whether the retractor designed by your client would be considered an ELR for the purposes of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you asked about the retractor durability tests of S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209. As a part of that test, a retractor is subjected to "45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." You asked whether, for the purposes of the section 5.2(k) test, the length of the driver's belt, which is 380 mm shorter than the passenger's belt, could be used to determine what constitutes 100 percent extension of the belt. You alternatively asked whether the test could be stopped before complete extension of the passenger belt.

As we understand your client's seat belt assembly, the amount of webbing in the driver's side assembly complies to the adjustment requirements of section 4.1(g) of Standard No. 209. The 380 mm's of extra webbing that is included in the passenger's seat belt assembly has been voluntarily added as a precaution to reduce the possibility of an occupant inadvertently actuating the ALR mode of the retractor. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that in normal operation by occupants covered by the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 209 the retractor functions exclusively as an ELR and thus can be used to meet the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. The agency views the 380 mm's of extra webbing as a voluntary addition not required by the standard. Therefore, for the purpose of section 5.2(k) of Standard No. 209, the agency will use the length of the driver's belt to determine what constitutes full extension of the webbing.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1984

Diane Steed -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Interpretation of FMVSS 208 & 209 re: Emergency Locking Retractors

Dear Ms. Steed: On March 19, 1984, I met with Messrs. Hitchcock, Hunter, Smith and Nelson from the Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Gilkey from the Office of Enforcement to demonstrate a new design of emergency locking retractor that one of our clients will soon introduce on a new car in the United States. This innovative design addresses the problem of fitting a child seat to a seated position fitted with a seat belt equipped with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) rather than an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Many owners (and NHTSA) have expressed concern that a child seat may not be securely restrained by an ELR, or at least the vehicle operator may be unsure of the ELR's ability to secure the seat during normal vehicle operation, such as sudden stops or quick turns.

Our client has designed a unique ELR that automatically temporarily converts to an ALR mode to facilitate the fitting of a child seat. This is accomplished by merely pulling the belt all the way out of the retractor, at which point a click is heard, and the ELR converts to an ALR mode until the belt is again retracted back into the retractor. Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor reverts automatically to the normal ELR mode. This seat belt assembly, consisting of a slightly longer running loop combination lap and upper torso belt and the new ELR, will be installed only in forward-facing passenger seat positions -- not the driver's seat.

Paragraph S4.1.2.3.1(a) of FMVSS 208 requires the applicable vehicle to "have a seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2." S7.1.1 requires an upper torso restraint furnished in accordance with S4.1.2.3.1(a) to "adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209." We believe that the retractor described herein and demonstrated to NHTSA on March 19, 1984 meets that requirement. That is to say that an ELR that is temporarily convertible to an ALR mode is still an ELR for the purpose of FMVSS 208.

Paragraph S5.2(k) of FMVSS 209 specifies requirements for retractor performance. As part of the durability requirements, an ELR "attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." The subject ELR cannot be tested to exactly 100 percent extension without engaging the ALR mode. This would, of course, lock the belt when it is stopped at the 50 percent point and prevent its re-extension without retraction to within 255-355 mm of being completely retracted. An additional 380 mm of webbing is provided in this installation. This amount was selected as the optimum to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child seat use. We feel it appropriate that this retractor be tested to the applicable portions of S5.2(k) using 50 to 100 percent of the belt length of the driver's belt, which is 38) mm shorter. Alternatively, if the 100 percent requirement is a nominal value only, the test could be stopped just before full extension to preclude unwanted conversion to the ALR mode during the retractor test.

We would appreciate your early confirmation of our understanding that this unique emergency locking retractor design complies with these paragraphs of FMVSS 208 and 209. Should for some reason you disagree with our interpretation, please treat this as a Petition for Rulemaking to amend such portions of the applicable standards as necessary to permit the use of what we believe to be an important and desirable safety innovation.

Sincerely, Donald M. Schwentker -- SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS

ID: 135cmc

Mr. David Spurgess
Director Systems Engineering
TRW Automotive
12000 Tech Center Drive
Livonia, MI 48150

Dear Mr. Spurgess:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of S7.8 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135.You requested the Agencys concurrence with, or guidance regarding a suggested interpretation.You suggest that S7.8 is intended to require the testing of only a single antilock brake system (ABS) inoperative condition and that it is up to the discretion of the representative conducting the test to ensure that this has been accomplished appropriately.The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

FMVSS No. 135 specifies requirements for service brake and associated parking brake systems for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 7716 pounds or less.The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency driving conditions.Included in FMVSS No. 135 is S7.8, Antilock functional failure, which is part of a series of individual system functional failure tests.The series also includes: S7.7, Stops with engine off; S7.9 Variable brake proportioning system functional failure; S7.10, hydraulic circuit failure; and S7.11, Brake power unit or brake power assist unit inoperative.

S7.8 is a performance test conducted with an ABS functional failure simulation.In order to simulate a functional failure S7.8.2(g)(1) includes the following test specification: "Disconnect the functional power source, or any other electrical connector that creates a functional failure."

In your letter you state:

If a complex electrical control system is the basis for the ABS, it is feasible . . . that there are more then [sic] one electrical inputs into the module that may or may not directly apply to the performance of the ABS.

You state further:

[T]he purpose of S7.8 is to provide a performance requirement for a single condition of ABS inoperative. . . . [I]t is up to the discretion of the representative conducting the test to ensure that the selection [of which electric connector to disconnect] has been accomplished appropriately to ensure that only the ABS has been disabled and tested.

You are correct that S7.8 of FMVSS No. 135 is intended to be performed with a single function failure in the ABS only.In fact, each individual system functional failure test referenced above is intended to verify only the performance of the single failure type to which it directly applies.In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 135 (60 FR 6411) the Agency clarified that in the antilock functional failure performance test only a single ABS failure is covered.Under S7.8, if the Agency were to test a complex system, such as your letter describes, the Agency would simulate ABS functional failure by disconnecting any electrical connector that creates only an ABS functional failure.The Agency may contact the manufacturer for assistance in determining how to perform this failure and for a procedure that does not impact or has limited impact on other systems.

However, when FMVSS No. 135 was established, the Agency recognized the increasing integration of ABS into the service brake system.The Agency noted "if a functional failure of the ABS also affects or degrades the service brake system, no artificial means are [employed] to keep the service brake system intact when that failure is introduced." Therefore, if the electric control system for the ABS is designed such that an ABS failure cannot be isolated and simulated under S7.8 without also affecting some other braking function, then the antilock functional failure requirements must be met with both the ABS failure and the additional braking function failure.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my office at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:135
d.11/18/02

ID: nht73-6.9

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition, dated May 18, 1973, for amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). You request that the standard be amended to except tires having an "unusual configuration and construction," from that part of S4.3 which requires safety information to be labeled between each tire's safety information to be labeled between each tire's maximum section width and bead. You request a similar exception in Part 574 for the tire identification number. Goodrich has experienced difficulties in placing this information in the proper location in tire molds used to manufacture Goodrich's Space Saver Spare tire. You indicate this is caused by the thinness of the mold, which is apparently necessitated by the folding sidewall characteristics of the tire.

In the case of the Space Saver Spare, Goodrich wants to be able to place the labeling information and the identification number in the shoulder area of the tire. Your request is supported with pictures of a Space Saver Spare that has been run to wear-out yet still retains legible labeling in this area. In your view it is unlikely that this tire will be retreaded. You argue that the location you desire to use, while not between the maximum section width and bead, has the advantage of making the information and identification number visible both when the tire is inflated and deflated. The latter condition is important in this case in that this tire is generally carried in a deflated, folded condition when it is not in use.

We do not believe the facts you present justify an amendment to the standard, and have therefore determined that your petition should be denied. The purposes of requiring safety information and the tire identification number to be placed between each tire's maximum section width and the bead is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that the information will remain or the tire throughout its useful life, including a retreading process if the tire is retreaded. In our view, it is not all clear that the alternative location you suggest will still meet this objective. The justification which you provide does not show that labeled information cannot be removed in service or that these tires will not, in fact, be retreaded. We certainly would not object if Goodrich were to place identifying information in separate location in addition to that required by the standard.

With respect to the difficulty you have encountered in placing the information in the specified area, we do not find on the basis of the information you have supplied that the alternative possibilities are impracticable. For example, your letter does not mention whether you have attempted to engrave the safety information and that part of the identification number that is constant into the tire molds. While we understand engraving is generally more expensive and somewhat more inconvenient than branding the mold or using metal plates, we do not believe the added expense and inconvenience, particularly as it is amortized over the life of the mold, to be unreasonable in terms of the safety benefit achieved. It also appears that this labeling, in letters 0.078 inches in height, can be placed just above the rim centering rib, which from the sample submitted with your petition, does not appear to have been damaged upon removal. This location would allow removal of the tire from the mold without deformation of the lettering and would place the required information between the tire's maximum section width and bead. With respect to date codes, for which engraving is unsuited, it appears that the code stamp could be recessed so as to be flush with the mold surface, thus eliminating or substantially reducing the destruction of the lettering during removal.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1973 . Wallace Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F. Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for. v.e are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case, this we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

I gathered from Mike Peskos concluding remarks after our meeting on our petition that he felt there was a good chance of us getting some relief from this multiple and unnecessary branding.

Any suggestions or ideas your office may have which can be accomplished by rewording and/or rewriting the petition to make acceptance more likely will be appreciated.

Please call any time you feel further discussion on the petition is necessary or might help solution of our problems in this area.

Yours very truly,

F. S. Vukan

May 18, 1973

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Administration

Dear Sir:

Ref: N40-30 (MPP)

With our letter of 7-30-71 which was in reply to your letter Ref. 40-30, Cir. 169 we submitted a petition for certain considerations and changes in FMVSS #109 and Part 574 "Tire Identification and Record Keeping". These were denied in your letter of 8-29-72, N40-30 (MPP), copies of our petition and your reply are attached as Attachments A and B respectively.

We have considered the recommendations contained in the last paragraph of your letter (Attachment B). We do not feel that a new size designation for the Space Saver Spare tire is desirable as it is used in conjunction with standard nomenclature tires and a different size designation would serve to confuse the tire users.

We are however still faced with a number of problems relating to location of branding and tire identification information as required by FMVSS #109 and Part 574. We investigated and tried many ways to meet these requirements but due to the mold design necessary to provide the unique folding capability of these tires we are unable to have the branding visible on both the inflated tire and the deflated tire in the area prescribed by FMVSS #109 and Part 574.

Although neither FMVSS #109 or Part 574 specifies the inflation conditions under which the required information must be visible we have strived to meet what we believe to be the intent of the regulations and the verbal guidance offered by the Office of the Counsel, NHTSA at our previous meetings which is to have the required branding visible to the user in event of a recall situation.

2

We can meet the intent of the regulations but not the letter of the regulations as written at present. We therefore petition that the regulations be changed as indicated for the reasons indicated:

Changes Necessary to FMVSS #109

NOTE: Underlining indicates wording added, wording to be omitted is stricken out (dashes).

A. 1. Change S4.3 "Labeling Requirements" as follows:

S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Except as provided for in S4.3.1, and S4.3.2 and S4.3.3 each tire etc. . . .

2. Change present S4.3.3 to S4.3.4

3. Add new S4.3.3 as follows:

S4.3.3 Tires of (i) unusual configuration or construction or (ii) which are used in a special or unusual service need not be labeled as specified in S4.3 (a) through (g) between the maximum section width and the bead provided the branding is so located as to remain on the tire and be visible throughout its normal service life. The selection of alternate locations is to be at the discretion of and the responsibility of the tire manufacturer.

4. The above changes are necessary and will adequately protect the public for the following reasons:

a. Our Space Saver Spare tire and possibly other such tires meeting performance requirements of FMVSS #109 are in a service such that the branding will stay on the tires for their entire service life when located above the widest part of the tire.

b. If branding can be positioned above the maximum section width and remain there for the service life of the tire, major requirements have been met.

c. We are at present putting our branding in the area designated as "A" on the attached Figure 1. Attached are photographs from worn out tires showing that the branding is not removed at the point of tire wear out Tire sections are available and will be furnished if desired. With the wording as proposed it would be the manufacturers' responsibility to see that branding remains on the tire and is visible throughout its normal service life.

3

d. We believe the need to position the branding for retreadability may not be applicable in the case of special tires for which we are asking the above variation (tires of unusual configuration or construction or which are used in a special or unusual service). In the case of our "Space Saver Spare" tire we believe retreading is unlikely.

B. 1. Change Part 574 Title 49 as follows:

S574.5 Tire Identification Requirements.

Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire he manufactures, except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage-contract purchasers, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. Tires of (i) unusual configuration or construction or (ii) made for a special service condition need not have the tire identification number in the location specified in Figure 1 provided the number is located so that it remains visible on the tire throughout its normal service life. Each tire retreader, except tire retreaders who retread tires for their own use, shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 2, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. In addition, the DOT symbol required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards shall be located as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

The DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable. The symbols to be used in the tire identification number for tire manufacturers and retreaders are "A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0". Tires manufactured or retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to contain the tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase "for mileage contract use only" permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall in lettering at least one quarter inch high. 2. The above change will protect the public for the following reasons:

4

a. A provision for unique and special tires should be included in the regulation to cover tires which otherwise meet FMVSS #109 and are subject to recall but which due to their unusual configuration, or construction, or special service cannot or, need not, have the serial in the lower sidewall region provided the serial can be located so that it is visible and not obliterated during its full service life. It would be the responsibility of a manufacturer marketing such tires to determine that the identification number remains on the tire throughout its service life and is visible in event recall or examination is necessary.

b. In the case of the "Space Saver Spare" tire, based on our road tests and on examination of tires returned from service, a serial number located in the Area "B" of Figure 1 remains legible, and is visible on both the inflated and the deflated tire throughout its service life.

SUMMARY

Figure 2 is a representation of a mold used for Space Saver Spare tires. The line around the Fin "F" from (1) to (3) through (2) designates the area normally called the tire sidewall. With (2) as the mid-sidewall, the portion from (1) to (2) is below the maximum section width and that from (2) to (3) is the maximum section width.

Because that portion of the mold shown as Fin "F" is very thin and unsupported it is virtually impossible to stamp any branding into the Fin without bending and/or breaking it during the stamping operation. We have tried putting both thin metal branding plates as well as the serial number in this area but due to the violent stripping action in disengaging the tire from the mold (Fin) all such "add on" plates are susceptible to bending and of being torn from their fastening screws.

Our previous practice of placing the serial number in the Area "C" as shown on Figure 1 makes it unreadable when the tire is inflated due to the normal rotation of the tire bead in the rim flange area as the tire is inflated and prepared for service. The serial location at "B" of Figure 1 is possible and would be permissible with the language changes and additions as outlined in our petition.

5

The consideration of unusual configuration or construction or service is also desirable to cover tires which may have a service life or configuration or construction which makes it possible to conform to the intent of the regulation with the serial and/or branding in areas of the tire excluded by the present regulations.

Your consideration and approval of this petition is respectfully requested to enable us to produce a product which is filling a growing need but which because of its unusual configuration cannot meet the wording of the current regulations. If the regulations are amended as requested we can meet the wording as well as the intent of the law.

We would like very much to discuss our petition with you and your staff in greater detail or to revise it, as you may consider necessary, to achieve our mutual goals of providing tires to the tire users within the scope and the intent of the NHTSA regulations.

Very truly yours,

Patrick C. Ross

Text Omitted

ID: 1982-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1982, letter asking whether the hose that connects the air pressure gauge to the service reservoir system must comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You also ask whether the air pressure gauge is part of the Standard No. 121, Air Brake System.

The air pressure gauge to which you refer is required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 121. Accordingly, it is considered as part of the air brake system. With respect to whether the tubing connecting that gauge to the air supply reservoir must comply with Standard No. 106, that standard defines brake hose 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."

The agency has previously determined that hoses connected to air pressure gauges need not comply with Standard No. 106 if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To determine whether your system transmits or contains the pressure, you must determine whether a failure of the hose to the gauge would result in a loss of air pressure in the system. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106. This answer would also apply to other air pressure gauges that you may install to monitor other portions of the brake system performance.

SINCERELY,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

January 19, 1982

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of General Council

Gentlemen:

Subject: Requirements for the Air Brake System Air Pressure Gauge and Supply Line Ref: FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 106

Mack Trucks, Inc., as a major producer of heavy duty vehicles, is in the process of releasing for production a new cab-over-engine vehicle designated as the MH model.

Section S5.1.4 of Standard 121 requires that we install in these vehicles a pressure gauge to monitor the service reservoir system air pressure. Since Standard 121 is entitled "Air Brake Systems", we have considered such a gauge to be part of the air brake system.

In light of the above facts, and since the supply line to the gauge does contain brake system air, we have assumed that the hose or tubing used for the supply line should comply with the requirements of Standard 106, Brake Hoses.

We are, therefore, requesting clarification on the following subjects:

(a) Is the air pressure gauge required by S5.1.4 of Standard 121 considered part of the air brake system?

(b) If the answer to part (a) is yes, must the supply line (hose or tubing) to this pressure gauge comply with the requirements of Standard 106, Brake Hoses?

In a related situation, we will be supplying, as an option, an air application gauge in these new models that will monitor the

Subject: Requirements for the Air Brake System Air Pressure Gauge and Supply Line Ref: FMVSS 121 and FMVSS 106 air being applied to specific parts of the brake system (e.g., front brakes, rear brakes, or trailer brakes). We would assume that if the answer to part (b) above is yes, then the supply line to these gauges would also be required to comply with Standard 106. Is our assumption correct?

We would appreciate a timely response to our questions since the manufacture of certain preproduction MH models is to take place in the very near future.

S. Robson Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations

ID: 1984-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche -- Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1984, asking about Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether it is permissible to limit activation of the brake system indicator lamp for purposes of checking the indicator lamp function to six seconds.

The answer to your question is yes. I have enclosed a copy of a letter addressed to Fiat, dated February 7, 1975, which discusses this issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock -- NHTSA

ESVG/My-re Weissach, June 19, 1984

Request for Clarification

Ref: FMVSS 571.105, S 5.3

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

The above-mentioned FMVSS also requires the possibility for the driver of a motor vehicle to check the brake system indicator lamp (S.5.3.2) before he or she starts the car.

The two alternatives mentioned are:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either

a) when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or

b) when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Point S 5.3.3 also requests:

Each indicator lamp activated due to a condition specified in S 5.3.1 shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position, whether or not the engine is running.

Assuming there is a defect in the brake system, as specified in S 5.3.1 a), b) or c), and the driver turns the ignition switch to the "on" position and the engine is not running, there will be no definite indication before starting the engine that there is a defect, since the indicator lamp is also activated to control the function of the lamp itself.

This means, the indicator lamp can be activated for two reasons, but without making the distinction between the dangerous situation as specified in S 5.3.3 and the more harmless situation specified in S 5.3.2.

We would now like to eliminate this uncertainty by limiting the activation of the lamp (specified in S 5.3.2) to 6 seconds, i.e. if the brake system is working properly the indicator lamp will dim after 6 seconds while it will remain activated if there is a malfunction in the brake system.

This improvement could be achieved by combining the brake system indicator lamps with the time-limit relay of the 'Fasten Seat Belts'-lamp which is activated for 4 - 8 seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or the "start" position (S 7.3 FMVSS 208).

We would now like to know if this method of controlling the function of the brake indicator lamp complies with the requirements in S 5.3.2 of FMVSS 105?

An early favorable answer would be greatly appreciated as we intend to use this method in a 1985-model in connection with the introduction of a modified instrument panel.

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40

7251 Weissach

WEST GERMANY

ID: nht87-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John B. Walsh -- Corporate Attorney, Manager, Legal Affairs Dept., U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/21/84 letter from Frank Berndt to U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Std. 108)

TEXT:

John B. Walsh, Esq. Corporate Attorney Manager, Legal Affairs Dept. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, CA 92621

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite Table IV's requirement that the minimum edge to edge distance from a motorcycle's front turn signal to the headlamp be a minimum of inches. Referring to a similar requirement for rear lamp spacing and previous agency interpretations stating that this applies only when there are single rear lamps mounted on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and tail lamps are mounted on either side of the centerline, you have asked for an interpretation that an exception from the minimum turn signa l spacing requirement is also permissible when a motorcycle has two headlamps rather than one.

We are unable to provide the requested interpretation because of SAE J588e, September 1970. SAE J588e is incorporated by Standard No. 108 and applies to turn signal lamps in use on passenger cars, motorcycles, and all other motor vehicles. Paragraph 4.2 of SAE J588e establishes the requirement that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." This requirement applies reg ardless of the number or location of motor vehicle headlamps. SAE J588e did not prevent the issuance of the earlier interpretations regarding rear lamp spacing since that SAE standard does not establish requirements for minimum separation between turn si gnals and rear lamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

15 August 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel. NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

On November 21, 1984, the Chief Counsel confirmed a 1972 agency interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (copy of 1972 interpretation, 1984 request, and your office's 1984 response enclosed). The 1972 interpretatio n was for a motorcycle rear lighting configuration. This letter is to request confirmation that the July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 could apply to a motorcycle front lighting configuration as well as the addressed rear lighting configuration.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 required that motorcycle front turn signals be separated by 16 inches or more (centerline to centerline). and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the headlamp be 4 inches or more.

We are exploring the possibility of using a front lighting configuration essentially comparable to current practice in passenger car front lighting configurations. This proposed front lighting configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located nea r the outer edge of each side of the front of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp unit would be the headlamp and the outboard part of the lamp unit would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would be equal to or greater than the 16 inch minimum required (see sketch attached).

We would like you to confirm, as in the 1972 and 1984 interpretations, that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and headlamp applies when single headlamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when du el headlamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

(See 11/21/84 correspondence between Frank Berndt and Suzuki)

ID: nht76-4.13

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterbilt Motors Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Peterbilt Motor Company's June 9, 1976, questions whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, contains a permanent exclusion for "auto transporters" and whether "auto transporter" would include a truck-trailer vehicle combination that includes a dromedary forward of the fifth wheel to hold empty tin cans that are loaded by means of the trailer. I would like to note that I am unaware of "discussion and interpretive rulings suggested through telephone contact" with this office.

Your interpretation is not correct that the exclusion for "auto transporters" is permanent. Some confusion may arise from the words used in S3 to describe the exclusion until September 1, 1977. The phrase "or to any vehicle which" that appears at the end of the second sentence in S3 will shortly be modified to "or that" to improve the structure and clarity of the sentence.

Your question whether a "can hauler" qualifies as an "auto transporter" appears to be based on the proposed wording of this definition that was modified in final form. As defined in the standard, "auto transporter" means:

. . . a truck and a trailer designed for use in combination to transport motor vehicles, in that the towing vehicle is designed to carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel and to load this cargo only by means of the towed vehicle.

It is clear from this definition that a "can hauler" would not qualify as an "auto transporter" subject to the exclusion.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Peterbilt MOTORS COMPANY

June 9, 1976

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

Gentlemen:

Peterbilt Motors Company is the manufacturer of the custom built, heavy duty, Class 8 trucks and truck-tractors identified by the "Peterbilt" nameplate. As such, we have received inquiries regarding the constructing of specialized vehicles concerning which we find conflicting information stipulated in FMVSS 121.

This letter is to substantiate and record the substance of discussion and interpretive rulings suggested through telephone contact with your office.

As we interpret the wording of S3. Application, vehicles referred to as "auto transporter" are exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 121. However, S5.3 Service Brakes - Road Tests specifies that auto transporters manufactured after September 1, 1976 shall meet the requirements of S5.3.1.

Please clarify the total applicability of FMVSS 121 to vehicles defined as "auto transporter".

Additionally, we wish to have clarified the scope of vehicles to which the definition "auto transporter" can be applied.

Section S4. Definitions defines "auto transporter" as a truck and trailer designed for use in combination, in that the towing vehicle, with fifth wheel mounted, is designed to carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel and that this cargo is loaded by means of the towed vehicle.

This definition describes a vehicle combination which is commonly referred to as a "can hauler". This vehicle combination consists of a truck and trailer, which truck has a fifth wheel mounted at the end of the frame and has a van body (dromedary) mounted forward of the fifth wheel. This forward cargo area is loaded by means of the towed vehicle, which is a van body that opens at both ends. The truck and trailer remain connected in combination for both loading and unloading through the rear of the towed vehicle.

The application of the "can hauler" vehicle combination further parallels that of an "auto transporter" in that the cargo being carried is a low density, high bulk commodity (empty "tin cans").

We, therefore, respectfully request an interpretation from your office regarding the applicability of the definition of "auto transporter" for inclusion of the "can hauler" as a thereby controlled identity.

We will appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these questions.

Sincerely,

Arlen E. Riggs -- Executive Engineer

ID: nht73-2.1

DATE: 07/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning the procedure for testing seat belt attachment bolts specified in section S5.2(c)(1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

The attachment bolts that you describe have extremely long shoulders and are installed in the vehicle by being passed through a hat section before entering the floor pan. Your question is whether(Illegible Word) test procedure of S5.2(c)(1) permite the hat section to be used in conjunction with the test fixture shown in Figure 3. It is our opinion that section S5.2(c)(1) permits some discretion in the manner in which the Figure 3 test fixture is to be used and that a hat section duplicating the section used in the vehicle would be permitted as part of the test apparatus. We therefore confirm your impression that you may use the hat section in testing your bolts.

Sincerely,

May 24, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider-- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Jeep Corporation is requesting your concurrence with our interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" More specifically, we refer to paragraph S5.2(c)(1) which pertains to the demonstration procedure for verifying the strength of seat belt attachment bolts. This paragraph contains, by reference, a drawing (Figure 3) which shows a test fixture into which the seat belt attachment bolt is threaded. In addition, the angle of pull is specified with respect to the axis of the bolt as well as the number of threads that must remain exposed, etc. We would particularly like to point out that paragraph S5.2(c)(1) states that attachment bolts can be tested "in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. 3." We interpret this to mean that the geometry of the attachment bolt "environment" as it exists in an actual vehicle can be simulated on the strength testing machine when the tensile strength of the bolt is verified. The following information explains our problem in more detail.

In one of our future model Jeep vehicles the attachment bolt "environment" is considerably unlike that portrayed in Fig. 3 of FMVSS No. 209. Our Figure 1, attached to this letter, shows a side view of the installation in this Jeep vehicle. It should be noted that the long shank of the bolt goes through a sheet metal "hat section" before being threaded into the anchorage nut. This "hat section" supports the shank of the bolt and prevents an excessive amount of bending as would occur if the long shank were fully exposed without the "hat section" being there. The anchorage plate with its attached nut is on the underside surface of the floor pan of the vehicle.

In verifying the strength of the attachment bolt we will therefore mount a section of floor pan complete with the "hat section" on the test fixture which is shown in Fig. 3 of FMVSS No. 209. Our adaptation of the floor pan section to the text fixture is shown in our attached sdetch, Figure 2. Naturally, in our strength test the attachment bolt will be "backed out" so as to expose two full threads as required in FMVSS No. 209. Also, we will obviously delete the sound insulation material which is used in the actual vehicle since it offers no lateral support whatsoever. Thus, the bolt shank would be supported in exactly the same way it is in the actual vehicle since we would be using the same thickness of metal for the floor pan and "hat section" as used in production. Finally, the diameter of the hole(s) in the "hat section" through which the attachment bolt passes would be the same as in the actual vehicle.

Your confirmation of our interpretation would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

F.A. Stewart-- Vice President Safety & Reliability, JEEP CORPORATION

Att:2

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)