ID: 1982-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/23/82

FROM: MIKE SMITH -- PRESIDENT, FLEET TIRE SERVICE

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-30-82, NOA-30, TO MIKE SMITH, FROM FRANK BERNDT - NHTSA

TEXT: We are a tire retreader located in southwest Arkancas and are in the process of importing 220 tires from Brussels for the explicite purpose of retreading. Our paper work on the acquisition of these casings lists them as rubber tires in error.

We will list all the serial numbers on the tires at time of receipt and keep a permanent shop record of such, which is our normal procedure. At this point the tires will be buffed and we will have a local police authority examine each tire and ascertain each tire has been buffed for retreading.

We have visited with Mr. Buckley of the Department of Transportation and he was unable to give us a definite ruling on this procedure for meeting proof of conformity.

Will you please advise if this method will be acceptable to you. If not, please furnish us with an alternative method for proof of conformity.

These tires have already arrived in New Orleans and we are proceeding with our plans for receiving and retreading.

ID: 1982-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Sidecar Association, Inc. -- H. A. Kendall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D. United Sidecar Association, Inc. 1621 Palomino Lane Kingwood, Texas 77339

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1982, with respect to pulsating headlamps.

You have interpreted my letter of February 9, 1982 as stating that "for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another." On the contrary, I stated that "a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output...would be prohibited." However, I also said that, if complete deactivation occurs (i.e., from a higher output to no output), then that mode of operation is permissible.

With respect to your latest letter and the problems of headlighting in older motorcycles, there would be no need to have the smaller bulb illuminated, and the "definite on/off/on/off sequence" you mention is sufficient for compliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 20, 1982

Dear Mr Berndt:

My interpretation of your response of February 9, 1982 is that, for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another.

Many of the older motorcycles with only marginal charging systems simply cannot cope with continuous lights on operation without frequent battery charging, externally, or without operating the engine at a very high speed in lower gears to keep the battery charged. However, almost all of the earlier machines have a nonsealed beam headlight containing a minor running (or parking) light in addition to the main twin filament.

As far as NHTSA is concerned, it would appear that as long as the smaller bulb was left on at all times (to provide the lower light output) that the main beam could be operated at some fractionally lower duty cycle, say, about 25%, at say 1.5 to 4 Hz, and still comply with NHTSA's ruling. If this is so, then it would be possible to allow older motorcycles to operate with a relatively simple inexpensive mechanical device to reduce headlight daytime consumption instead of using the very expensive solid state circuitry now available.

The main headlight would have a definite on/off/on/off sequence, however, the small continuous light would prevent the lamp from being extinguished at any time.

Please advise a ruling on this type of device for motorcycle headlights for daytime operation only.

Sincerely,

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D.

HAK/lk

ID: 1982-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 25, 1982

Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridan Street Wichita, KA 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1982, concerning compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular compliance with Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.

You are correct that section 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(2)) defines; in part, a motor vehicle safety standard as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance...." Thus, each of the agency's safety standards sets a minimum level of performance which must be met by every manufacturer. Manufacturers are free to utilize designs that exceeds the minimum level of performance set by a standard as long as their products still comply with the standard. Thus, in the case of schoolbus rearview mirrors, a manufacturer must at least comply with the requirements of section 9.1 of Standard No. 111 regarding mirror size, and may voluntarily provide a mirror of a larger size. As explained in the enclosed letter, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the agency to regulate aspect of design, such as mirror size.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 8, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to direct your attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the State of Texas.

It is my opinion and belief standards established by the NHTSA are minimum and should not probibit the use of an item that is Superior in Safety Performance.

This Design Standard requires 50 square inches of flat glass mounted firmly on each side of a Van Type vehicle in such a manner that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA.

In the interest of Safety, the mirror system should minimize the obstruction of the forward view to the driver--NO more than you need and NO less than you need. The driver and children riding scbool buses should not be subjected to the hazards involved with separately adjustable flat and convex mirrors and/or mirrors reflection rearward that may reflect false and/or mis-leading information to the driver.

I cannot agree this Design Standard is in accord with the intent of The Congress. I believe it was the intent of The Congress to make a contribution to the Prevention of Accidents as clearly defined in Section 102(2) of the Transportation Act.

Please advise the position of the NHTSA as to permitting the use of items Superior in Safety Performance when a Design Standard of this type has been issued.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEW, INC.

M. W. Urban

MWU/h1 Encl.

cc: Congressman Dan Glickman 1507 Longworth Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515

February 4, 1982

Reference: 070-36-1D

M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 North Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Gentlemen:

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1982 about rearview mirrors and Your sample mirror model number 3004.

We are familiar with the revision of section 393.80 issued on April 13, 1979 and published in the Federal Register May 1, 1979. This revision amends the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and not FMVSS 111. In addition, this revision speaks to the number of rearview mirrors required and not their dimensions. The language in section 393.80 clearly requires conformance with FMVSS 111.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors on both sides of all school buses and these mirrors must contain 50 square inches of flat reflective surface.

He are therefore required to withdraw approval of your 3000 series mirrors for use on Texas buses.

Please advise what disposition you wish made of the sample mirror you sent.

Yours truly,

Don Miller, Specification Technician Specification Section (512)475-2231

DM/dh cc: Max Walton

ID: 1982-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

TWO VERSIONS OF NHTSA LETTER:

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc. 1730 Walton Road P.O. Box 1102 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

On the top of the switch is the fan symbol specified by Table 1 of the standard and an arrow pointed upward. When the top of the switch is depressed, the heater fan is activated to recirculate cab air without heating it. On the bottom of the switch is a flame symbol and an arrow pointing downward. When the bottom of the switch is depressed, the heater, including the heater fan, is activated. As explained below, use of the flame symbol for the heater does not meet the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of ...any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold - [NO FURTHER TEXT AVAILABLE]

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pt be identified by words or color coding. I will separately discuss the identification required for the two functions of the auxiliary heater toggle switch.

Depressing the top of the switch activates the fan in order to recirculate air without heating it. This function may be characterized either as recirculation of air or as an on-off switch for the fan. Under the latter characterization, the fan symbol should be used since Table 1 specifies that symbol for a heating and/or air conditioning fan. Thus, the identification on the top of the toggle switch meets the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Depressing the bottom of the toggle switch activates both the fan and the heater in order to circulate and heat air. Since neither Table 1 nor Table 2 specify identification for the heating function, it must be in word form. (As explained below, color coding is not appropriate in this instance.) Use of the fan symbol in addition to words identifying the heating function is not necessary, even though the fan operates as part of the heating function, since there is no separate control for the fan. Since the bottom of the toggle switch does not identify the heating function by using words, it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you desire to use the flame symbol for purposes of international harmonization, noting that is the symbol specified by ISO for heat. While Standard No. 101-80 specifies a number of other ISO symbols, it does not specify that symbol. Section S5.2.1(a) of the standard does permit the use of additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity, so long as the words or symbols specified by the standard are used. Thus, you may use the ISO flame symbol if you also identify the bottom of the toggle switch by using words. Since you indicated that you are already producing the vehicles in question, we suggest that you consider simply adding a label with the words "AUX. HEAT" (or other identifying words) adjacent to the bottom of the toggle switch.

In the above-mentioned telephone conversation, you asked whether coloring the bottom of the toggle switch "red" would be considered color coding as that phrase is used in S5.2.2. The answer is no, since the use of any one color by itself does not constitute color coding. We interpret section S5.2.2 (quoted above) to require that color coding must be readily understandable. Although there may be other appropriate uses of color coding, the standard's example of using red and blue to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control is the only one that comes to mind. The use of red for the hot extreme is readily understood only when used in conjunction with blue for the cold extreme.

As you may know, it is the policy of this agency to both promote international harmonization and avoid unnecessary design restrictions. If you wish to produce vehicles using ISO symbols not specified by Standard No. 101-80, you may wish to consider filing a petition for rulemaking on that issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 8, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Frank Berndt

Subject: 49 CFR 571.101-80 Controls and Displays File: S.203.101

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is installing an auxiliary heating system, which is completely independant of the standard heater, in some units of our vehicle line. Please find enclosed a drawing of the control switch that is used to activate the different auxiliary heater functions. The control button, when depressed in the upper mode, operates the fan only for recirculation of in cab air when the control button is depressed in the lower mode, the fan and heater are both activated.

Per FMVSS101-S5.21 (Identification) "Any hand operated control listed in column 1 of table that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol."

Per S5.2.2 "Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed control and any heating and air conditioning system control...."

We believe the control button shown on the attached drawing meets both of the requirements as stated above, since the fan symbol applies to par. S.5.2.1 and the flame symbol applies to par. S.5.2.2.

Our only question relates to the "heat and fan" condition where only the ISO symbol for flame (the auxiliary heater is a flame burner type) is shown. We believe that since this is one multi-function switch, (off, fan on only, fan and heater on) another fan symbol in the lower section would be redundant although the fan must be operating when the flame is on.

Would you please confirm our opinion in this matter.

Respectfully yours,

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer

EGP:smt

Attachment

Eberspacker Auxiliary Heater Toggle Switch

Depress top of toggle switch to activate heater fan only to recirculate in cab air.

Depress bottom of toggle switch to activate both the heater and the heater fan.

ID: 1982-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grancor, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1981, with respect to "a non-substantive disagreement" of your Safety Alert Device "with a strict interpretation of (FMVSS No. 108)". Your system is wired into and operated through a vehicle's back-up lamp system which you have modified by adding "a yellow sleeve over half of the back-up light bulb". You state that the light cast is "essentially the same as the white light". You further say that any deviation from Standard No. 108's requirement that back-up lamps emit white light is "nonsubstantive".

I assume that your letter to me is in response to the one that George Parker, Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, sent you on September 2, 1981. In that letter he explained that S4.1.3 prohibits the addition of equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by Standard No. 108, and stated that any activation of your system while the back-up lamps are in operation would be covered by this prohibition. As for color, you were informed that S4.1.3 imposed an absolute prohibition if the color of the light emitted by the deceleration warning system were green or white.

We cannot concur that the deviation from Standard No. 108 is "non-substantive". Standard No. 108 requires back-up lamps to be installed in motor vehicles and to emit a white light. We view S4.1.3 as precluding any device that would operate lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 for a purpose other than that for which it is originally installed. Further, even if your system did not operate through the back-up lamp system but through separate and additional lamps, we would view use of color other than red or amber as an impairment of the equipment originally installed to indicate the deceleration through braking of the vehicle (i.e., stop lamps).

ID: 1982-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Baily Ford, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 26, 1982

Mr. Lloyd L. Bailey President Bailey Ford, Inc. West Main Street Road Malone, NY 12953

Dear Mr. Bailey:

This responds to your letter of December 4, 1981, requesting current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis. Your letter also asked about regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, and transmission changes. We apparently did not receive your letter of October 16 and regret the delay in responding.

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, is the agency's regulation on glider kits. It states that when a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for the purpose of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. We have enclosed a copy of Part 571.7 for your convenience.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you plan to add a new cab and other components to an existing vehicle's engine and axles. Unless you also use a transmission that is not new, the truck would be considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e). If the truck is newly manufactured under that Part, you must certify compliance with all applicable current Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If the truck is not considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e), the changes would be considered in the nature of repairs and certification would not be required. However, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you as a repairer of a vehicle other than your own must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would mean that the reassembled truck with the glider kit installed must continue to meet the standards that it met before the alteration.

The agency does not have specific regulations concerning repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, or transmission changes. In making such changes, however, a person other than the vehicle's owner must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (except temporarily during the course of repairs).

The changes you refer to could affect compliance with a number of safety standards. For example, repowering a truck from gas to diesel could affect compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. Changing axles could affect compliance wit standards in such areas as braking and tires.

We suggest that you examine the various Federal motor vehicle safety standards before making such changes. Due to the volume of requests, the agency does not provide copies directly. We have, however, enclosed an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Glancy, you asked what model year designation should be given when a glider kit is used. This agency is interested in the compliance of motor vehicles with safety standards and does not regulate the model year designation of vehicles. However, it is our belief that a vehicle considered to be newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e) would receive a new registration, while other vehicles would continue to carry their original registration. State laws may cover the question. Further, you should consult with the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the legality of calling such vehicles new, since that agency is concerned with any consumer fraud that might arise when a vehicle with used parts is sold as a new vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

December 4, 1981

Dept. of Transportation Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen: Would you please send us current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis; also regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles and transmission changes.

We asked for this information back on October 16th, and never received a reply.

Very truly yours,

Lloyd L. Bailey President

LLB:rm

ID: 1982-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki, Engineering Office of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Engineering Office of North America Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

This responds to your letter asking whether your new wiping system design meets the frequency requirements of Safety Standard No. 104. Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

The system described in your letter operates on two settings. One of the settings provides continuous operation at a speed of about 75 cycles per minute. The wipers operate at the same speed for the second setting, but there is intermittence between each cycle. Because of the intermittence, the wipers operate only about 45 cycles per minute. As explained below, it is our opinion that such a system meets the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104.

Section S4.1.1 reads as follows:

S4.1.1 Frequency.

S4.1.1.1 Each windshield wiping system shall have at least two frequencies or speeds.

S4.1.1.2 One frequency or speed shall be at least 45 cycles per minute regardless of engine load and engine speed.

S4.1.1.3 Regardless of engine speed and engine load, the highest and one lower frequency or speed shall differ by at least 15 cycles per minute. Such lower frequency or speed shall be at least 20 cycles per minute regardless of engine speed and engine load.

S9.1.1.4 Compliance with subparagraphs S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 may be demonstrated by testing under the conditions specified in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

The primary issue for this interpretation is whether the system meets the requirement in section S4.1.1.1 for "at least two frequencies or speeds." This issue arises because the wipers operate at the same speed for the two settings, using intermittence to achieve a different number of cycles per minute. It is our opinion that the system does meet this requirement, since the language of the standard speaks of frequencies or speeds. While the speed may be the same for the two settings, the frequencies are different.

The system satisfies the requirements in sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 that one cycle or speed be at least 45 cycles per minute, that the highest and lowest frequency or speed differ by at least 15 cycles per minute, and that the lower cycle be at least 20 cycles per minute (assuming that the requirements are met regardless of engine load and engine speed).

While your wiping system design appears to meet the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104, we do have a possible concern about its safety. On its lower setting, between the periods of intermittence, the speed of the wiper blades would still be at a rate of about 75 cycles per minute. It is possible that operation at such a fast speed might cause chattering of the wipers when used during light precipitation. If that happened, drivers might be less likely to use their wipers during light precipitation. We suggest that you consider that possibility before going forward with your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1981 Ref: 81-106-S

Mr. Raymond A. Peck, Jr., Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5220 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Peck:

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation concerning the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of FMSS 104.

Our questions can be found on the attached page.

Your interpretations will be appreciated very much.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:rk

Attachment

cc: Mr. C. H. Raehn Head, Lighting & Visibility Group

QUESTION CONCERNING WIPING SPEED FOR MVSS 104

Please let us know if the following new wiping system meets the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of MVSS 104.

New System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle (T) is all the same between low speed and high speed cycles.

*Insert figure here

Ordinary System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle is different from each other

*Insert figure here

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: 1982-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Norton Motors Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 5, 1982, asking whether a proposed motorcycle taillamp assembly would comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you point out, the standard requires a minimum distance of 4 inches edge to edge between turn signal lamps and stop/tail lamps. Since you state that you cannot achieve this with your design, the lamp as currently designed would not be permitted by our standard. This will confirm the oral interpretation provided by Taylor Vinson of this office when you telephoned on March 22.

You will be interested to know that we are presently studying side and rear conspicuity of motorcycles. This research is being conducted by Ketron in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, and the final report is expected in July 1982 should you wish to obtain a copy of it from us.

As you requested confidential treatment of your engineering drawing, we are returning it to you.

ENC.

CONFIDENTIAL DRAWING

NORTON MOTORS (1978) LIMITED

MARCH 5, 1982

Frank Berndt Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dept of Transportation

Dear Sir,

NORTON REAR LAMP UNITS 92-1068

1. We have designed a new rear lamp unit, and enclose a print of the drawing, which we would ask you to regard as confidential.

2. As you will see, the rear lamp unit comprises a very wide stop/ tail light assembly, with three separate lenses.

3. Your regulation (MVSS 108 issue 1, March 79) calls for minimum horizontal separation centre line to centre line, of 9 inches between turn signal lamps. Ours are 12.2 inches apart.

4. However, you also call for a minimum distance of 4 inches, edge to edge between turn signal lamps and stop/tail lamps. This we cannot achieve because of our very wide rear light.

5. We feel the wide rear light makes a positive contribution to road safety. We need your assistance to determine whether or not you consider this rear lamp unit satifies the spirit of your legislation, if not the letter.

We shall await your reply with great interest, and thank you for your assistance.

G.K. BLAIR SALES MANAGER

ID: 1982-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).

My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement of what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 5, 1982

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sir

With reference to your letter to us of June 1 1981, I assume that where you have referred to Clause 5.2(d) in your letter you mean 5.1(d).

You state in your letter that Clause 5.1(d) will be amended and that strength after abrasion will be compared to the breaking strength specified in Clause 4.2(b). For consistency, Clause 5.1(e) and 5.1(f) would also need to be altered.

I would suggest that it is not Clause 5.1(d) that needs changing, it is 4.1(d) to bring it into line with 4.1 (e) and (f). Clauses 5.1(d)(e) and (f) need no change. Additionally I feel sure that the minimum breaking strengths listed in 4.2(b) should remain, even after abrasion, light or micro-organisms test and that clause 4.2(d) might finish . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the strength before abrasion and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(e) might read . . . . have a breaking strength of not less than 60% of the strength before exposure to the carbon arc and greater than the appropriate strength listed in Clause 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(f) might finish . . . . have a breaking strength not less than 85% of the strength before subjected to micro-organisms and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b).

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION