ID: nht95-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: Doug Russell -- Design Engineer, Advance Engineered Products

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 121 Paragraph S5.4.2.2 Brake Power

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DOUG RUSSELL (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Sir

Recently, I have been reviewing test data used to certify brake components to FMVSS - 121. Could you please answer two questions which arose as a result of this review:

1. Paragraph S5.4.2.2. of FMVSS - 121 requires that a deceleration be made from 20 mi/hr to a stop at an average rate of 14 ft/s<2>. A maximum service line brake pressure is not specified for this deceleration. Thus, in order to meet the deceleration requirement, a service line pressure exceeding 100 lbs/in<2> could be used despite the fact that tractor - trailer brakes are usually configured to operate at a maximum nominal brake pressure of 100 psi. Are there any limitations on the pressure which c an be used to achieve the required deceleration rates?

2. Test results from one of Advance's suppliers show that the actual deceleration rate was approximately 15% below the 14 ft/s<2> specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2. I have discussed these results with NHTSA's Richard Carter, and according to him the mini mum requirements of FMVSS-121 have not been met. However, according to the supplier, this stop must be done as part of the whole dynamometer test procedure but not meeting the deceleration requirements for this particular stop does not constitute a fall. Have any interpretations been made which allow a reduced deceleration rate?

Please call if you have any questions. Thank-you

ID: Takata_lrd_5014

Mr. Kazuo Higuchi
TK Holdings, Inc.
601 13^th Street, NW, Suite 350 South
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that under the low risk deployment test procedures for the 12-month-old child specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, the compliance test is performed with the passenger seat in the full forward position only. As explained below, your understanding is correct.

On May 12, 2000, we established the advanced air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208 to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for children and small adults (65 FR 30680; May 12, 2000). Under S19 of FMVSS No. 208, vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements must comply with one of two options in order to provide protection for infants in rear facing child restraint systems: (1) air bag suppression, or (2) low risk deployment.

In a response to petitions for reconsideration of the advanced air bag requirements we specifically addressed and clarified the test procedure for the low risk deployment option. We explained that testing with a rear facing child restraint system under S20.4.1 is only conducted with the vehicle seat in the full forward position (see 68 FR 65179, 65182; November 19, 2003). We also noted that the associated indicant testing specified in S20.4.9 is conducted with the passenger seat in the full forward, middle, and full rearward position.

We recognize that the test procedure data sheet (Data sheet 22, TP-208-12) for the low risk deployment test has entries under S20.4.1 for all three seat positions. However, it is the regulatory text in FMVSS No. 208 that is controlling, not the test data sheet.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/27/05

ID: 002023cmc

Mr. John K. Stipancich
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Stipancich:

This is in response to your October 29, 2002, letter requesting clarification of the registration provisions under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask if Evenflo may provide information to consumers allowing for registration of their child restraints through the Internet, in addition to providing the post card required under S5.8 of FMVSS No. 213. You state that a majority of registration cards are not returned and of those that are many are received incomplete, or become illegible while in transit. As explained below, your company may not add any information concerning Internet registration to the required registration form, but you may provide supplemental information that explains how to register via the Internet.

FMVSS No. 213 establishes an owner registration program for child restraint systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) implemented the program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall child restraints that contain a safety-related defect or that fail to conform to FMVSS No. 213. By increasing the number of identified child restraint purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers ability to inform owners of restraints about defects or noncompliances in those restraints.

S5.8 of FMVSS No. 213 requires child restraint manufacturers to provide a registration form attached to each child restraint. S5.8(b)(2) requires that the registration form conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard. (See figures 9a and 9b of the standard.) Each form must include a detachable postage-paid postcard, which provides a space for the consumer to record his or her name and address, and must be preprinted with the restraints model name or number and its date of manufacture. Under S5.8 no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard, except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system. ^[1]

We have previously determined that a child restraint manufacturer may include a supplemental form that encourages electronic registration, subject to certain considerations. See our April 19, 2001, letter to Mr. Rosenbaum which permitted the attachment of a supplemental form to the child restraint along with the required registration card. As stated in that letter, we have permitted this when:

1. the registration card required by S5.8 does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, and
2. the additional information is presented in a manner not likely to confuse consumers about the purpose of the required form or to obscure the importance of owner registration.

The agency is discussing possible amendments to accommodate electronic registration of child restraint systems. We will keep the information you provided in mind while we consider the possibility of rulemaking on this subject.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/3/03





---




^[1] We have permitted minor variations for the purpose of clarifying the registration instructions. In an October 20, 1993 letter to Evenflo, we permitted the addition of the words "please print" to the form. We determined that "please print" was a minor variation to the wording that clarified the instructions and did not substantially change them.

ID: 10-001831 106

ID: nht80-2.19

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corp

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr J. W. Lawrence Manager, Reliability & Government Standards White Motor Corporation 35129 Curtis Boulevard Eastlake, Ohio 44094

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter of January 15, 1980, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You described a control to be included in heavy duty truck tractors which would operate the cab marker lights and some of the trailer lamps and asked whether Safety Standard 101 would permit labeling of the control with the words "marker lamps."

We have concluded, for the reasons stated below, that Safety Standard 101 would not permit the control to be labeled in the fashion you suggest. However, it would permit labeling of the control with the symbol for clearance lamps designated therein accompanied by the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviation "C1 Lps" and by the words "marker lamps."

With respect to vehicles including trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings exceeding 10,000 pounds manufactured before September 1, 1980, S4 of Safety Standard 101 permits manufacturers to comply with its requirements or with those of Safety Standard 101-80. S4.2.1 of Safety Standard 101 requires that a control which operates clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps be identified with the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviations "C1 Lps" as shown in Table I Column 2 of the standard. In addition, S4.2.1 provides that such a control may also be identified by one of the symbols for clearance lamps shown in Columns 3 and 4 of Table I. (See Table I, Footnote 3. S5.2.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 requires that such a control be labeled with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3 of Table I of the standard. However, this symbol may be accompanied by the word or abbreviation shown in Column 2 (i.e., Clearance Lamps or C1 Lps) and additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. (See Table I, Footnote 3.) The requirements of Safety Standard No. 101-80 will become mandatory and will supercede those of Safety Standard 101 for all vehicles to which it applies which are manufactured on or after September 1, 1980.

According to your product description, the control which you propose to label with the words "marker lamps" would operate some of the trailer lamps and the cab marker lamps which also serve as clearance lamps. Thus, the control would be considered to operate clearance lamps and marker lamps and would be subject to the provisions of Safety Standard 101, Table I, Footnote 3. Accordingly, on vehicles manufactured before to September 1, 1980, the control you propose either must be identified in one of the following methods:

1. with the words "CLEARANCE LAMPS" or the abbreviations "CL LPS", or

2. with the words or abbreviations shown in method number 1 above accompanied by the symbol shown in Column 3 of Table I or by the symbol shown in Column 4, Table I, of Safety Standard No. 101, or

3. with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3, Table I, of Safety Standard 101-80, or

4. with the symbol noted in method number 3 above accompanied by the words "clearance lamps" or the abbreviations "Cl Lps" as shown in Column 2 of Table I of Safety Standard 101-80, or

5. with the symbol and the words or abbreviations noted in method number 4 above accompanied by any additional clarifying words or symbols the manufacturer may choose.

If the control you have proposed is included in vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1980, it must be identified as indicated in method number 3 above and may be identified as indicated in method number 4 or 5 above. Use of method number 5 above would permit use of the words "marker lamps" in addition to the required symbol and the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviation "C1 Lps."

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1980

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S. W.

Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-101 Control Location Identifcation and Illumination

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

White Motor Corporation requests an interpretation of FMVSS 101 Table I relative to the identification of the controls for clearance lamps, marker lamps, identification lamps and combinations thereof. This request is limited to the application of these controls to heavy duty truck tractors such as those manufactured by White.

Product Description

"Cab Over Engine" (COE) vehicles have five lamps spaced across the top of the cab. The outboard lamps are the clearance lamps when viewed from the front of the vehicle and the side marker lamps when viewed from the side of the vehicle.

"Cab Behind Engine" (CBE) vehicles have five lamps spaced across the top of the cab. The outboard lamps usually are the clearance lamps when viewed from the front of the vehicle and may be considered intermediate side marker lamps (optional, not required by MVSS-108) when viewed from the side of the vehicle. There are also side marker lamps installed near the front of the hood or fenders.

Background

Tractor manufacturers, in addition to providing the required lights on the power units, also provide the circuitry for the trailer lights. Many operators use additional trailer lamps for conspicuity and in recent years double bulb lamps for reliability have become popular. Also, many operators use an interrupter switch allowing the driver to flash some of the trailer lights for signaling purposes. These switches are not covered by FMVSS-101 and are often labeled "trailer lights" or "trailer marker lights", the latter being the more popular nomenclature. In order to increase the reliability of the lighting switches and provide for interchangability between trailers owned by various companies some tractors are being manufactured with split lighting circuits and separate switches which are identified and illuminated as required by FMVSS-101. One switch operates the tractor head lamps and tail lamps as well as the trailer taillamps. This switch may also be wired to some of the trailer clearance, identification and marker lamps. Second and third switches may activate combinations of tractor/trailer clearance, identification or marker lamps.

Interpretation Request

MVSS-101 provides labeling nomenclature for "Clearance lamps" and "Identification lamps" but none for marker lamps. It also mentions that clearance lamps combined with identification and/or marker lamps should use the labeling nomenclature clearance lamps. Relative to the five cab mounted lights (see "Product Description" section above) White considers the term "marker lamps" appropriate for a control operating the cab marker lamps and some of the trailer lamps on the basis that it is consistant with the identification of the nonregulated interrupter control (see Background section) and readily recognizable and decipherable by the average truck driver. White requests an interpretation that such a control and labeling does fall within the ambit of FMVSS-101 and is in conformance.

Sincerely,

J. W. Lawrence Manager, Reliability & Government Standards

JWL/ek

ID: nht87-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/87

FROM: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DIETMAR K HAENCHEN; REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The design of passenger cars has changed in recent years to reduce aerodynamic drag and increase fuel efficiency. Volkswagen is planning to improve interior comfort and reduce energy consumption in future car models by introducing selected areas with re duced energy transmission via ceramic dots on the car's glazing. The reduced energy radiation into the interior increases driver's and passenger's comfort and results in increased active safety. We believe that the application of shaded areas on the wi ndows complies with the applicable safety standards. Different methods exist for shading those areas; the glass may be tinted like shade bands applied to windshields, or small ceramic dots can be applied on the glass surface having the same effect on th e reduction of energy transmission. The sections of glass selected for the application of the ceramic paint could, if not for styling aesthetics, be covered with sheet metal in order to avoid questions of interpretation of FMVSS 205. However, the styli ng incentive is compelling and driver visibility with the proposed configuration is better than total blockage with sheet metal, which would clearly be allowable. We are, therefore, seeking the agency's opinion of this concept which we are considering fo r the next new model line. While the agency does not give advance approval of specific product designs, the agency's opinion of whether the configuration proposed herein appears to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will a id manufacturers in determining whether the numerous variations of the concept applied to various vehicles will comply with the standards.

Volkswagen has reviewed Standard 205 which in turn refers to ANS z26.1 (1980) which establishes requirements for safety glazing material for use in passenger cars. In Section 4.2 of ANS z26.1, specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which VW intends to apply to the windshield and side/rear glass respectively refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "leve ls required for driving visibility".

The term "levels requisite for driving visibility" has been used by the agency in interpretations and on several occasions has been addressed more precisely such as the interpretation to Mr. G. Nield on 15 February, 1974 as follows: "We (the agency) cons ider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to driver's eyes." To our knowledge the agency has not gone beyond the above interpretation in further defining "levels requisite for driving visibility".

In order to comply with FMVSS 205 Volkswagen deems it appropriate to use engineering judgement, applicable standards and technical recommendations to define these "levels" so that driving visibility is properly maintained with the installation of glazing material having areas within a single sheet of less than 70% light transmittance.

Footnote 1 of ANS z26.1 - 1980, although not expressively stated, refers mainly to shade bands and has been so construed and treated by the industry. The automobile industry so far has determined which areas are "requisite for driving visibility" and ha s marked the shaded areas as required. In these cases the industry determined how far shade bands can extend donward from the upper edge of the window and still be in compliance with FMVSS 205.

SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands) also refers to ANS z26.1 when defining "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by USAS z26.1". The SAE recommends shade bands above the 95th eyellipse only, but acknowledged at that time that substantial research to establish the driver's field of view did not exist. Volkswagen also believes that these data do not exist currently.

Guidelines for a determination of "levels" which extend upward from the bottom edge of the vehicle glazing are addressed in Directive 77/649 as amended in 81/643 of the European Economic Community (EEC). The directive specifies levels requisite for driv ing visibility in the driver's 180 degrees forward direct field of vision. Section 5.1.3 specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision by a horizontal plane through V[1] (upper boundary) and by three planes at downward angles of 4 degrees through V[2] (lower boundary). The latter describes the minimum field of view for small persons through the lower portion of the glazing.

The EEC in its effort to set angular limits for the driver's forward direct field of vision used anthropometric data of horizontal head and eye movement to arrive at the 180 degrees limit. The SAE in its information report J985 arrives at the same figur e when the angles of "maximum head movement (is) 60 degrees left and 60 degrees right" and "the eyes can turn 30 degrees to the right in one rapid, smooth movement", are combined.

For the rear visibility in the U.S., the "levels requisite for driving visibility" are not specified if a passenger side rearview mirror is used according to FMVSS 111. Technically, the complete rear glazing can be blocked by a vehicle manufacturer if a passenger side rearview mirror is installed as standard equipment. Volkswagen intends to install a passenger side outside mirror as standard equipment in conjunction with the subject shading configuration and also to provide an area in the rear glazing with transmissability of greater than 70%.

With this background, Volkswagen is planning to include either tinted bands or ceramic dots on glazing as described in Attachments I and II. Volkswagen believes that this concept clearly allows light transmittance in excess of 70% in the areas requisite for driving visibility and consequently should adequately satisfy the safety needs for overall driving visibility.

Volkswagen has tested these boundaries according to the specifications of 77/649/EEC and concluded that ceramic dots in the area defined in 5.1.3 very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small driver's eyes, which are "requisite for drivi ng visibility". In addition we have designated the area adjacent to the right and left hand outside mirrors as requisite for driving visibility.

This proposal has been approved by the German government (KBA) as recommended by the Technical Service Hannover. This approval was based on the fact that it complies with the driver's direct field of view (forward 180 degrees) and that unobstructed outs ide rearview mirrors are used on both sides to supplement the inside rearview mirror for the driver's indirect field of view. This approval is based on compliance with the applicable EEC Directive and therefore will likely be acceptable to all Common Ma rket countries.

Volkswagen requests the agency's opinion of this proposal and an interpretation of whether the markings described in Section 6 of ANS z26.1 would be required to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with the 70% transmittance requirement . If required, Section 6 states that the glazing "shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test No. 2" (70% transmissability). Interpretation is requested of where these markings should be placed for the configurations shown in Attachments I and II if they are required. Since this is under consideration for the next model year, a timely response is requested.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT I

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% and 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% , 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ATTACHMENT II

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ID: nht76-2.20

DATE: 07/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 20, 1976 N40-30

Mr. David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activites Staff General Motors Corporation Warren, Michigan 48093

Dear Mr. Martin:

It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that General Motors Corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity:

Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not subtantially determined by the design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.

The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W. J. Owen of the Cadillac Motor Car Division to Mr. R. B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to the ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.

I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fuel system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body, and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.

The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to include a--

listing by number of each standard...followed in each case by one of the following three types of statement, as applicable:

(i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle....

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard.

(iii) A statement that conformity with the standard. is not substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may not be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicle, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard N0.301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, add designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.

The above discussion also applies to any other commmercial chassis manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.

Yours truly,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 8, 1976

Mr. R. B. Kurre Wayne Corporation Industrial Road Richmond, Indiana Dear Mr. Kurre:

Confirming our phone conversation, the following statement will be used relating to FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity in the 1977 Cadillac Document for Incomplete Vehicle as required by Part 568-Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages:

Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by the design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.

Please let us know if we can help you further.

Very truly yours,

W. J. Owen Safety and Legal

-ajj

cc: Messrs. E. W. Anderson A. MacDonald

ID: nht79-3.1

DATE: 01/24/79

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

TO: Volkswagen of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1979, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a braking system that Volkswagen proposes to use on its 1980 Dasher model.

Specifically, the Dasher will employ a single "pressure switch on each vehicle, meaning that the stop lamp will be activated by only one of the [two, split] service brake systems." You asked whether this is consistent with S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 which requires that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You argued that it meets the standard because:

"Neither FMVSS 571.105-75 nor 575.108 (sic) clearly specify the conditions under which the stop lights have to operate. Specifically the regulations do not specify that the stop lamps must illuminate upon application of the service brake control if one of the circuits of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system failed."

We do not concur with your interpretation. S4.5.4 quite clearly specifies the conditions under which the stop lamps must operate--"upon application of the service brakes," and it is immaterial which circuit of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system is braking the vehicle. Therefore, your proposed system would constitute an apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JANUARY 3, 1979

Joseph J. Levin -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Subject: Stop Lamp Switch Requirements - FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 specifies that a vehicle stop lamp shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. Volkswagen is currently considering a manufacturing decision regarding brake light switches, and because this would fall under the spectrum of the standard, we are requesting NHTSA's opinion of our contemplated course of action as it relates to the standard.

Volkswagen's current product line uses two pressure sensing switches in the master cylinder to activate both the stop lamps and the brake failure warning light. For the 1980 model year, Volkswagen is replacing these switches in the master cylinder with a float-type fluid level indicator switch to activate the brake failure warning light, and a pedal-activated switch to activate the stop lights. Together these changes will result in a cost saving. However, because of certain manufacturing considerations we are unable to employ the brake pedal switch on Dasher models. For these models we will need an alternate method to activate the stop lamps, specifically an in-line pressure sensing switch.

The proposed system uses only one pressure switch on each vehicle, meaning that the stop lamps will be activated by only one of the service brake subsystems. Our question is then whether the NHTSA believes that this strategy (the single switch) is consistent with the standard.

It is Volkswagen's position that our proposal meets the requirements of all applicable standards. Neither FMVSS 571.105-75 nor 575.108 clearly specify the conditions under which the stop lights have to operate. Specifically, the regulations do not specify that the stop lamps must illuminate upon application of the service brake control if one of the circuits of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system failed.

Volkswagen recognizes that the NHTSA may be concerned about the situation in which, with one hydraulic circuit inoperative, service brake operation is possible (at a reduced level) without stop lamp activation. However, this is a situation which has a small likelihood for occurrence, and a smaller likelihood for sustained existence.

The alternative to our proposal is the installation of a second pressure sensing switch on each vehicle such that one switch is employed in each service brake subsystem. This system would insure that, unless the switches themselves failed, stop lamp activation would continue as long as hydraulic pressure is maintained in any one of the two subsystems. However, the in-plant cost of the second switch is substantial, DM 1.80 per vehicle.

Your prompt consideration of the request for interpretation would be greatly appreciated. If you need any further information, or if you would like to discuss this topic, please contact Mr. Preuss of my staff. He can be reached at (313) 574-3784.

Sincerely

D. K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht78-3.18

DATE: 02/16/78

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

TO: Volvo of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 20, 1977, enclosing a previous letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. I am sorry that your earlier letter was misplaced.

Volvo is correct in its interpretation that the requirements for emergency locking retractors in S4.3(j)(2) and (3) were promulgated for reasons of comfort and convenience, although this in turn is directed toward a safety objective. As you know, the more comfortable and convenient belts are, the more likely they will be worn by motorists. Further, the requirements in these paragraphs assure that the driver can make necessary movements in the occupant compartment safely.

Paragraph S4.3(j)(2) specifies that an emergency locking retractor

"shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less."

Volvo interprets this to require that the retractor not lock before the webbing extends 2 inches when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g. This is incorrect. The requirement specifically states that the retractor is to be accelerated. The agency does not agree that keeping the belt stationary and accelerating the retractor is equivalent to keeping the retractor stationary and accelerating the belt. This is due to the fact that inertial forces react upon the retractor during its acceleration that are not present when the webbing alone is accelerated. Therefore, results from the two methods of testing could differ significantly.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry, and if we can be of any further assistance please let us know.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 20, 1977

Hugh Oates -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oates:

As per our telephone conversation, enclosed is one copy of Volvo's Request for Interpretation FMVSS #209 dated April 4, 1977.

We are looking forward to your response to this request for interpretation.

If additional information is required on this subject, don't hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely yours, William Shapiro PE -- Regulatory Analysis Engineer

ENC.

April 4, 1977

Frank Berndt -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #209

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Volvo requests interpretation of certain provisions in Section 4.3(j) of FMVSS #209.

S4.3 (j) Emergency-locking retractor

An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seatbelt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j) -

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g;

(2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less;

(3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15 degrees or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

It is our interpretation that the requirements in Section 4.3(j)(1) were promulgated for safety reasons, while the requirements in Section 4.3(j)(2) & (3) were promulgated for comfort requirements for webbing acceleration sensitive retractors and vehicle acceleration sensitive retractors respectively.

Because we believe that the requirements in Section 4.3 (j)(2) were promulgated to prevent premature locking of the retractor when the webbing is being withdrawn, we interpret this to require that the retractor shall not lock before the webbing extends 2 inches when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3 g or less. Is this interpretation correct? Also, we would like to point out that in our opinion testing the emergency-locking retractor system in the following two manners gives the same results.

1) Keeping the belt stationary and accelerating the retractor and

2) Keeping the retractor stationary and accelerating the belt.

If there are any questions pertaining to this issue, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

In advance, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, William Shapiro, P.E. -- Regulatory Analysis Engineer

ID: nht79-1.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leo Bachynsky -- Laboratory Manager, R.E. Dietz Co.

TITLE: Emergency Warning Lamp - Use of Relfex

ATTACHMT: 8/21/79 letter from Leo Bachynsky to NHTSA

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Bachynsky:

This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it may apply to a proposed new product of your company.

This product, as you have described it, is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp, with one lens facing to the front of the vehicle, and one to the rear. Each lens contains a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around its periphery. The lamp would be supplied in a variety of colors (red, blue, yellow) and a similar device, less the reflex reflector area, is currently in production.

You have asked whether the inclusion of the reflex reflector in the device, "impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment" within the prohibition of S4.1.3. You have also asked whether the equipment and location tables of Standard No. 108 restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear.

The determination of whether installation of additional lighting devices impairs the effectiveness of required equipment may be made either by the vehicle manufacturer or by NHTSA. Since your company already markets an emergency vehicle warning lamp we shall assume for purposes of discussion that vehicle manufacturers have determined that the lamp as currently manufactured does not impair other lighting equipment. Nor does it appear to us that the addition of the limited reflex reflector area would contribute to a degradation of the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, although a definitive judgment could not be made until the lamps were actually installed on a vehicle. The tables do not apply to supplementary lighting equipment such as your emergency lamp though the agency believes there is less likelihood of confusion if the public associates amber lighting devices with the front part of a vehicle, and red ones with the rear.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 21, 1979

Chief Council NHTSA 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Our company is presently developing a new product and is in need of a clarification concerning the legality of the proposed product as it pertains to FMVSS 108.

Briefly, the device is a bi-directional Emergency Vehicle Warning Lamp consisting of two 7-1/2 inch diameter lenses. The lenses contain a 5/8 inch wide band of reflex reflector around their periphery. The two lenses are locked to a mounting flange by a special locking feature and two screws. When mounted, the device will have one lens facing to the front of the vehicle and the other to the rear. The device is to be supplied in a variety of colors, red, yellow, blue, and can be used in either a steady or flashing state.

We manufacture a similar device less the reflex reflector area and previous sales data indicates the majority of the market for this type of device is for tow trucks and utility company vehicles.

We are aware of the fact that Emergency Warning Lamps are not regulated by FMVSS 108 or any other Federal standard, but rather our questions concern the reflex reflector area in the device.

The areas that need clarification with respect to our application are the following:

1. Paragraph S.4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 - "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by this standard."

Does this Paragraph S.4.1.3. restrict the use of the reflex reflector in our proposed device as imparing effectiveness of required equipment?

2. Do Tables 1-4 of FMVSS 108 "Required Equipment for Motor Vehicles" and "Locations of Required Equipment" restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear of the vehicle?

An early reply will be appreciated.

Enclosed is our blueprint of the subject device and an advertising poster showing exact application of the intended device.

Sincerely,

Leo Bachynsky Laboratory Manager

LB/sg Enclosure (2)