ID: aiam3649

Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott o this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses 'U.S.A. DOT' and 'JAPAN DOT', rspectively (sic).; As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words 'Japan DOT' in your Japanese- manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word 'Japan' at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the 'DOT' symbol.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0739

Dear Mr. Rosner: This is in reply to your letter o May 25, 1972, asking whether you, a a selling dealer, may install steel-belted radial ply tires in an 8-passenger Checker taxicab. You state that the vehicle is normally delivered to you with tires having the 'O' load range.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110, cop enclosed) requires each passenger car to be equipped at the time of sale to a first purchaser with tires if certain minimum load carrying capacity, based on the weight of the vehicle. Any steel-belted radial ply tire that meets these load carrying requirements with respect to your vehicles may be installed by a selling dealer.; Radial tires of similar of Related sizes, but of different manufacture however, may have different load ratings. We suggest, therefore, that you contact Checker Motor Corporation for their recommendations as to which radial ply tires may be installs on these vehicles without adversely affecting the vehicle's conformity with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson

ID: aiam0097

Dear Mr. Yamada: Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning the requirements for turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers as specified by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; With certain exceptions, paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 permits th use of combination lamps, reflective devices and items of associated equipment, provided the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met. Therefore, a combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flasher may be used, provided the requirements for each signal (turn and hazard warning) are met.; You are correct in your understanding that Standard No. 108 an basically referenced SAE Standards J590 and J945 do not require operation of the flasher unit with only one signal bulb in the test circuit. The standard test circuit shown in Figure I of SAE Standard J823 indicates a minimum of two signal lamps and one pilot indicator lamp as the lamp load.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam1409

Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1974, asking for a interpretation as to whether a rear lamp assembly design that Ford demonstrated to NHTSA representatives conforms to the location requirements of Standard No. 108. The assembly consists of three units which, from outboard to inboard, as a rear lighting assembly, comprise the tail lamp/stop lamp, backup lamp, and turn signal lamp.; Standard No. 108 specifies that stop lamps, tail lamps, and turn signa lamps be 'as far apart as practicable.' The standard does not specify a minimum separation distance of lamps, a maximum permissible location inboard, or location of one system relative to another. The determination of practicability in lamp spacing is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, and the agency has generally afforded manufacturers some latitude in this interpretation.; Therefore, the configuration you have described and demonstrated woul not violate Standard No. 108. It should be noted, however, that it would be in conflict with the requirements for rear turn signals and stop lamps as proposed in Docket 69-19, Notice 3.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam1928

Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about th existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has th responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids* (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR Part 571.121)).; There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by state law.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0315

Dear Mr. Barnett: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1971, requesting advic on the acceptability of your regrooving pattern for regrooved tires.; Enclosed is a copy of the Rules and Regulations on regrooved an regroovable tires as it appears in the *Federal Register* published January 24, 1969, under Section 369.7(a)(3) Requirements, 'After regrooving, the new grooves generated into the tread material and any residual original molded tread groove which is at or below the new regrooved groove depth, shall have a minimum of 90 linear inches of tread edges per linear foot of tire circumference.'; There are no measurements on your drawings to assist us in determinin if your zig-zag grooves and the three circumferencial grooves measure 90 linear inches. Three *straight* circumferential grooves would only provide approximately 72 linear inches.; The use of lateral cuts should substantially increase the tread edg measurements, providing the lateral cuts are from shoulder to shoulder to allow unobstructed fluid escape passages as required in Section 369.7(a)(5); Thank you for your interest in tire safety. Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0163

Dear Mr. Hilgendorf: Mr. Frank Coy, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary o Transportation, has asked that I respond to your letter of April 16, 1969, in which you ask whether a station wagon purchased in March of 1968, equipped with two ply tires, violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; The vehicle you purchased was apparently manufactured prior to April 1 1968, and therefore, it was not required to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 109. However, even if the standard were applicable, because a tire is labeled '2-ply' it is not necessarily a non-conforming tire. Standard No. 109 does not specifically require tires to have a given number of plies. It does require that irrespective of any ply rating tires pass minimum performance tests. As to passenger cars, Standard No. 110 requires that passenger car manufactured after April 1, 1968, (1) must be equipped with tires that comply with Standard No. 109, and (2) the vehicle must not place a load on any of the tires greater than the load capacity of the tire specified in Standard No. 109.; Very truly yours, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0620

Dear Mr. Danker: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, in which you lis information you wish to label on child seats you will manufacture, and ask whether the information as presented will comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. You state that a label containing the model number, date of manufacture, and the company's name and place of business will be permanently affixed to the product, while a separate legend, containing other information, will be molded on the bottom of the seat in raised letters at least 3/32 inches high.; The labeling scheme you with to use would conform to paragraph S4. ('Labeling') of Standard No. 213, providing, of course, the blank spaces for model number and date of manufacture are appropriately filled in. We would suggest, however, that that part of the molded legend beginning '. . . and there is a minimum of 19 inches vertical clearance between this seating . . .', to the end of that provision be simplified to be more understandable to an ordinary consumer.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 27, 1989

FROM: LARRY S. SNOWHITE -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 25, 1990 TO LARRY S. SNOWHITE, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; REDBOOK A35; VSA 1397 (A)(2)(A); STD. 108

TEXT: On behalf of our clients, ATAT Technology Ltd. ("ATAT") and CTS Corporation, we respectfully request that you determine that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ("ABLD") manufactured by ATAT (or of any other device performing as does the ABLD) would not violate the statutes administered by, or regulations of, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Specifically, we are requesting this determination for a device, the ABLD or a similar device demonstrating comparable performance, that consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the acceler ator pedal. This signal is transmitted to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the b rake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation, which based on experimentation and observation provides sufficient time for the brake pedal activation of the stop lights while avoiding misleading signals (if NHTSA considers that a different i nterval is consistent with applicable law and regulations, ATAT is prepared to modify the interval to meet an alternative NHTSA performance standard.)

It is our belief that the ABLD, and any similar device, holds out the promise of avoiding significant numbers of rear-end accidents and of reducing the seriousness of rear-end accidents that do occur. As the ABLD does not compromise,

render inoperative, in whole or in part, or impair the effectiveness of the mandated brake light system, we believe that on neither legal nor public policy grounds should NHTSA object to aftermarket sales of the ABLD.

This question was previously considered in a Memorandum dated March 7, 1988 addressed by Erika Jones to the Associate Administrator for Research and Development. In our view, that Memorandum was based on inadequate information concerning the mandated brake and brake light systems, the ABLD's performance and ABLD's potential contribution to safety -- inadequacies for which ATAT was responsible and which it now seeks to correct. In the intervening months, additional studies have been conducted and AT AT has marshaled relevant research materials. This new information is presented in the enclosed submissions.

The March Memorandum expressed concern that installation of the ABLD could create a noncompliance with Standard 108 and thereby presumptively run afoul of the anti-tampering provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397. In this regard, w e understand that the threshold question is, does the ABLD render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device or element of design installed in compliance with Standard 108. A related determination is whether, under S4.1.3, it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard 108.

This is a factual determination. And we believe that as a matter of fact the ABLD does not render the brake light system inoperative or impair its effectiveness.

First, the ABLD does not prevent the brake light system (the stoplamp and the CHMSL) from being activated and operating when the brake is applied. The ABLD is consistent with the operation of the brake light system, and arguably enhances it. The ABL D clearly and unambiguously indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." SAE Standard J586d,2.1. Stop Lamps. The brake light is illuminated if the driver releases the accelerator at a rate greater than a predetermined minimum -- a minimum which reflects a very high probability that the release will be followed by an "emergency" brake application. If the brake is applied within one second, the brake light remains illuminated. Certainly this is consisten t with the definition of a Stop Lamp and with the operation of the brake light system.

There will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated. In this case, the brake light will remain illuminated only for one second. As the enclosed material documents, this is not a phenomenon unique to, or agg ravated by, the ABLD. Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during

normal driving without the ABLD. As is described in the enclosed submissions, in everyday driving it is not uncommon for the brake lights to be illuminated briefly even though the service brakes are not activated. The performance of the ABLD adds margi nally to the total number of illuminations of the brake lights for less than one second. Thus, ABLD-caused short-duration illuminations do not convey an intent or signal that is inconsistent or contradictory of the signal sent by the standard brake ligh t system. And they do signal an at least momentary "intention of the operator to stop or diminish speed by braking"

Activation of the ABLD does illuminate the stoplamps by means other than the application of the service brakes. While S4.5.4 prohibits the CHMSL being activated by means other than the application of the service brake, there is no comparable prohibit ion on the stoplamps themselves being activated by means other than the application of the service brakes. The ABLD would activate the stoplamp and CHMSL simultaneously. And it is our understanding that the CHMSL provision is an inadvertent hold-over f rom a rule, S4.5.11(b), that allowed the CHMSL to be activated by the hazard warning system for passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984 until September 1, 1986. Accordingly, while the installation of the ABLD as OEM technically would be i nconsistent with a literal reading of S4.5.4, this should not be considered an "impairment" such as to bar aftermarket sales and installation of the ABLD.

As previously noted, both the trigger point for the activation of the ABLD and the interval during which the ABLD illuminates the brake lights are subject to adjustment. The trigger and interval chosen reflect ATAT's studied judgment as to what will succeed in order to send a signal in those cases in which a signal is appropriate and minimize the incidence of misleading signals. Part of the basis for this judgment is set out in the attached submissions.

ATAT would appreciate an opportunity to meet with appropriate NHTSA staff in order to discuss this request so as to assure that you are in a position to respond to the request based on the fullest available information. As you will immediately see, t he enclosed submissions are the result of considerable work and ATAT would also welcome the opportunity to respond to questions about them.

As you know, ATAT is an Israeli company. This creates special logistical difficulties in communicating with NHTSA. A representative of ATAT will be in the United States on

August 1-4. We believe that it would be in the mutual interest of ATAT and NHTSA to meet during these dates.

Thank you for your consideration.

Enclosure

ID: 09-000724 fortin.draft.dj.aug20