ID: nht75-1.32

DATE: 11/06/75

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

TO: Mercer Machine & Hydraulics, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your October 17, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. I understand that your company manufactures, from hose and end fittings supplied by other manufacturers, hydraulic brake hose assemblies for use in motor vehicles.

For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the standard (including two recent Federal Register notices) and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

The standard specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. As an assembly manufacturer, you must certify that your assemblies comply with the standard by affixing a band as set out in S5.2.4. A designation of your choice should identify you as the assembler. You need register this designation with the NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies.

While the standard generally requires assemblies to be manufactured from conforming hose and end fittings, an exception (set out in S12.) permits the use of hose and fittings which meet the performance requirements but not the labeling requirements, until August 31, 1976. (The labeling requirements for hose and fittings became effective September 1, 1974; this exception is designed to facilitate the depletion of inventories of such components manufactured before that date.)

The standard does not specify the testing which you must do; it does specify the performance levels which assemblies must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires you to conduct a notification and remedy campaign with respect to noncomplying assemblies. You are also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying assembly (not to exceed $ 800,000 for each related series of noncompliances). The amount of testing which you perform has no effect on your notification and remedy obligations. If, however, you did exercise due care, you are not liable for the civil penalty. "Due care" is a flexible concept. It is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the size of your company, the amount of testing you perform, and other factors.

ID: nht73-5.21

DATE: 09/19/73

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

TO: Pundalik K. Kamath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of August 7 and August 23, 1973, concerning the conformity to Standard No. 121 of certain features in air brake systems submitted to you by suppliers.

Your first question is whether the volume of a supply reservoir that lacks a check valve is to be included in arriving at the required reservoir volume of 12 times the full-travel service brake chamber volume. Our reply is that S5.1.2.1 includes the volume of all service and supply reservoirs, regardless of valving, and that the volume of the supply reservoir in question would therefore be included in the combined reservoir volume.

You next ask whether a system that has no isolated emergency reservoir can rely on its service reservoirs to provide air for the two emergency stops proposed as S5.7.3 by Docket No. 73-13, Notice 1 (38 F.R. 14963). Under this proposal, the stops would have to be accomplished with a single failure of a part (other than a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing or brake chamber housing) designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid. If the system is designed so that no single failure, other than a valve, manifold, or housing failure, will cause a loss of air in both tanks, it would seem to be capable of meeting the proposed requirement even though it does not have an isolated emergency reservoir. However, if a single failure in a brake line would deplete the air in both service reservoirs, the system would be unable to meet S5.7.3 unless an emergency isolated reservoir were provided.

2

In answer to your last question, the emergency stops proposed in S5.7.3 would be conducted from an initial pressure in excess of the compressor cut-in pressure. The reservoirs would not be depleted by prior stops.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Lawrence Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed are schematic copies of air brake systems provided to OTC by Berg Manufacturing Company and Bendix-Westinghouse Air Brake Division which illustrate air brake systems incorporating provision for secondary brakes per the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 73-13, Notice 1.

Our concern is if these systems, which are essentially the same, will meet the proposed change to FMVSS 121 when effective, particularly paragraph S5.7.3 as proposed? While we see no reason they would not OTC would like an opinion from your office before we adopt either system.

We would like said opinion as soon as conveniently possible to assist in our brake program execution. Thank you.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Pundalik K. Kamath Senior Safety Engineer

Enclosures

August 23, 1973

Lawrence Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

With reference to my letter dated, August 7, 1973, regarding compliance of the air brake systems proposed by Berg Manufacturing Company and Bendix-Westinghouse Air Brake Division with FMVSS 121 per Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 73-13, Notice 1, particularly with respect to the following questions, I would like to receive clarification from you.

1. Is it correct to use the supply reservoir volume, which is not protected by a check valve, when calculating the total volume of twelve times full stroke chamber volume? Our assumption is that this is acceptable however, we would like confirmation.

2. These systems have no isolated emergency reservoir and rely on air pressure from one of the two service reservoir sources, assuming a failure in the other service reservoir source, for the minimum two stop capability in modulated emergency mode. This implies a single failure affecting only one service reservoir system, it is our understanding that this is acceptable practice per the proposed standard. Please confirm.

3. We understand that a modulated emergency stop condition implies a fully charged service reservoir, that is 100-110 psi in the functional reservoir, that no normal stops which temporarily drop this pressure to 80-90 psi immediately prior to the failure condition are considered. In the latter case two modulated emergency stops may not be obtainable due to the lowered pressure. Please confirm that the baseline condition assumes at least one service reservoir is normally charged to 100-110 psi before simulating failure.

We would appreciate your reply to these questions, as soon as conveniently possible.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

PUNDALIK K. KAMATH Senior Safety Engineer

ID: nht90-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LARRY F. WORT -- BUREAU OF SAFETY PROGRAMS DIVISION OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT; OCC 4613; FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE BY CLARKS GORTA -- FORD DATED 03/19/90

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses "the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements", and that they satisfy photometry and all oth er Federal requirements. You have asked whether "the top of the cab clearance light [may] be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles."

The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optic ally combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. 108, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, the re is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located "as far to the front as practicable", and the agency generally defers to t he manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford 's decision to locate the lamp there.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: suzuki

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Regulations Manager
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Highway
Brea, CA92821

Dear Mr. Bush:




This is in response to your letter of October 8, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that for the 2003 model year, Suzuki is planning to market two new motor scooter models in the United States.You note that for the purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), these vehicles are classified as motorcycles, but that they have certain physical attributes that differ from those of conventional motorcycles.In particular, you note that unlike motorcycles, motor scooters have a step-through design and body panels that completely cover the frame members.

You note that a provision of the certification regulations, at 49 CFR 567.4(e), requires the certification label for motorcycles to "be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." You state that on conventional motorcycles, the certification label "is usually affixed to the steering post, or if the motorcycle is equipped with a fairing that obscures the steering post location, to an exposed frame member."You observe that on most motor scooters, "there are no exposed frame members that allow placement of [the] certification label" in such a manner that it is "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." As a consequence, you have asked whether "a body panel that is not intended to be removed, and which is not readily removed" can be considered a "permanent member" of the vehicle for the purposes of section 567.4(e), and therefore an acceptable location for the placement of the certification label. To illustrate your question, you have included a photograph of a certification label affixed to what appears to be a molded panel between the foot rest and a storage compartment on the center line of the vehicle, which you describe as "a permanent body panel . . . reasonably close to the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars."

The term "permanent member" is not defined in the vehicle certification regulations. The intent of the regulations is that the certification label be affixed to an integral part of the vehicle, in a location where the label may be easily read. We are satisfied that these objectives will be met if the certification label on 2003 model year scooters you are planning to market in the United States is placed in the location you have proposed.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.10/24/02

ID: 12247.ztv

Mr. Shlomo Zadok
Zadok Research Laboratories
739 North Occidental Blvd., Suite #6
Los Angeles, CA 90026

Dear Mr. Zadok:

This replies to your letter of July 25, 1996, asking for an interpretation as to the applicability of Federal laws to a "third brake light" that you have designed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.108) is the Federal regulation that prescribes lighting equipment for new motor vehicles. Standard No. 108 refers to this item of equipment as a "center highmounted stop lamp" which is frequently abbreviated to "CHMSL." As Mr. Vinson explained to you in several phone talks on the subject, Standard No. 108 has required the CHMSL on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1986, and on light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993. Both original and replacement CHMSLs for these vehicles must meet the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Further, if you sell a CHMSL in the aftermarket for replacement of an original equipment CHMSL, you are required to certify that it meets the original equipment requirements, either by a DOT symbol on the lamp, or a statement on a label or tag attached to it or its container.

The unusual feature of your CHMSL is that it will carry a message in "big block letters" that don't flash or blink. Whether a "message" of this nature is permissible on original CHMSLs and their replacements depends on whether your CHMSL conforms to paragraph S5.1.1.27 of Standard No. 108. The most important of these requirements is that a CHMSL have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 square inches, that it have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the vehicle's longitudinal axis, and that it have the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 (the most difficult requirement to meet with a "message" imposed on the lens).

Your CHMSL as original equipment or its replacement is also subject to the prohibition of paragraph S5.1.3 that it not "impair the effectiveness" of any lighting equipment required by

Standard No. 108. This means that the message must not distract or confuse following drivers from reacting to the CHMSL and other stop signals exactly as they would were the message not there.

You also state that the CHMSL "is not so large as to block the driver's rear view." The Federal requirement is that, with the CHMSL in place, a vehicle must continue to conform to the rear field of view requirements of Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

If you sell your CHMSL in the aftermarket as a replacement only for use on older vehicles that did not carry a CHMSL as original equipment, there is no Federal requirement that it comply with Standard No. 108. The sole Federal restriction is that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the CHMSL if it " makes inoperative" any equipment originally installed to meet a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that your CHMSL must not detract from the stop signal provided by the two original equipment stop lamps, and that it must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 111. Nevertheless, even if it meets these tests, your aftermarket CHMSL is subject to the laws of each state in which it will be used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you consult state Departments of Motor Vehicles.

Taylor Vinson will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. You may call him at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/20/96

ID: 07-001834as

ID: nht94-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: R.H. Goble -- President, R.H. Goble Enterprises, inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/94 from John Womack to R.H. Goble (A42; STD 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(a))

TEXT: R.H. Goble Enterprises has developed a new lighting system to be added to motor vehicles. We are soliciting input from you as to the current rules and regulations and how they may apply to this new system. Specifically, can brake lights appear over the wheels and in the front of a vehicle?

Traffic and highway safety is a critical factor in our society. New ideas have evolved over the years to improve highway safety. The most recent innovation is the introduction of the eye-level rear view brake light. Rear-end collisions have been re duced by fifty two percent as a result.

This new concept worked because it introduced a change which was immediately apparent to drivers following a vehicle. We believe this same principle should be applied to the front and sides of a vehicle. The, other drivers could discern the braking intent of the operator from any direction. This is especially true in congested areas where one must watch for vehicles entering from side streets and on coming traffic. This can be accomplished by simply wiring the brake lights to the directional ligh ts with an ordinary bridging connector.

NOTE: When wiring the brake lights to the front directional and side marker lights the brake lights are over ridden by the directional lights.

Also, when the brake lights are applied both sides light up, with the directional light on one side flashing.

Brake lights will not interfere with the directional lights or hazard lights functions.

As seen in the enclosed packet we are introducing a further safety enhancement for vehicles. The Wheel Well lighting system provides indication of the drivers intent when viewing the vehicle

2

from any direction. This takes more of the guess work out of being a defensive driver.

The obvious awareness of another vehicle and the intentions of its operator are the keys to avoiding a collision. The Wheel Well lighting system provides complete illumination around the vehicle, with all light indications or signals being visible fr om any direction. Therefore, we can provide the same safety advantages for all drivers, not just those approaching from the rear. In addition, the reflection of the Wheel Well lights off of the wheels will draw attention to the vehicle even more.

This is not just an idea. Our lighting system is already being used on a few vehicles locally. Four hundred lights have been produced to perform a marketing trial and provide consumer feedback.

The Wheel Well lights utilize standard lights, bulbs, and wiring. They are inexpensive and simple to install. We believe this new patent pending product will do even more to revolutionize highway safety than even the eye-level rear view brake light.

Please understand that these new lights are standard vehicle lights already manufactured by Peterson Manufacturing. Our system merely provides for placement of the newly designed lights above the wheels. They are directly wired into the vehicle and provide the same signaling around the vehicle as can be seen from the rear of any standard vehicle.

Please advise us as to the legality of providing this new system in existing vehicles.

ID: nht75-4.11

DATE: 09/03/75

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

TO: Crane & Excavator Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 28, 1975, letter asking whether the unloaded vehicle weight of a mobile crane carrier would include components that are essential to its specialized function but are not removed for transit purposes. You also suggest alternative wording for a particular exclusion criterion proposed for mobile crane carriers and similar vehicles under Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

I have enclosed a copy of a recent notice that amends Standard No. 121. The preamble to the notice deals with the issues you have raised and should make clear to you that vehicle components are not generally considered part of the rated cargo capacity and therefore would not be subtracted from a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating to determine the unloaded vehicle weight.

YOURS TRULY,

FMC CORPORATION Crane & Excavator Division

July 28, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Council Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Your letter to me of July 2, 1975: N40-30 (TWH)

Thanks for the referenced letter of interpretation as requested by me on June 23, 1975.

I fully realize that NHTSA definition of GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) does not require that the GVWR be the sum of the vehicles GAWR but must not exceed the sum of the vehicle GAWR's.

Your referenced letter states "Unloaded vehicle weight will normally be the GVWR of a vehicle minus its rated cargo load and its assigned occupant weight (at least 150 lbs.). The rated cargo load would not include the weight of portions of a vehicle which are essential to its specialized function but are removed in accordance with State regulation for transit purposes".

Therefore, I assume the following: "The rated cargo load would not include the weight of portions of a vehicle which are essential to its specialized function but are not removed in accordance with State regulation for transit purposes".

Please advise me if my assumption is correct.

To more fully allow our customers to meet the maximum number of State and local regulations it is necessary that our GVWR be a summation of the vehicle GAWR's. Therefore, few of our truck cranes will fall within the 95% or more of GVWR.

The regulation would be more meaningful and specific if you deleted "An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95% of the vehicle GVWR" and replaced it with "An unloaded vehicle weight whose cargo portion is less than 5% of the vehicle GVWR". I recommend this change.

Please advise me if my assumption is correct and your comments on my recommendation.

H. Ray Cozad, Chief Engineer

ID: 1985-01.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Masaki Ogura -- Manager, Truck Engineering, MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masaki Ogura Manager, Truck Engineering MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center, Suite 501 Southfield, Michigan 48075

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. According to your letter, your trucks, which have a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, have a coolant temperature sensor for overheat warning and also a coolant level sensor for lack of engine coolant to prevent engine overheating. Both sensors are connected to the same telltale lamp, so that either excessive coolant temperature or lack of coolant will illuminate the telltale. Your letter noted that Standard No. 101 specifies an identifying symbol for coolant temperature but not a symbol for coolant level. You asked whether a system displaying the symbol specified by Standard No. 101 for coolant temperature meets the requirements of the standard. As discussed below, while some of Standard No. 101's requirements are applicable to your trucks, the standard's telltale requirements do not apply to trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more.

Section 5, Reguirements, states:

Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1, and each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, Standard No. 101's requirements for identification of controls are applicable to trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more, but the standard's requirements for identification of internal displays are not applicable to such vehicles. Since telltales for coolant temperature are a type of internal display, that requirement of Standard No. 101 is not applicable to the vehicles (more than 10,000 pounds) described by your letter.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

December 24,1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Telltale Identifying Symbol for Coolant; FMVSS No. 101 Controls and Displays

Dear Sir:

This is to inquire about the identifying symbol for engine coolant.

1. Our interpretation is as follows:

In Standard No. 101 the telltale identifying symbol for coolant temperature is specified, but a symbol for coolant level is not specified.

2. Telltale for coolant

Our trucks (more than 10,000 pounds GVWR) have a coolant temperature sensor for overheat warning, and also a coolant level sensor for lack of engine coolant to prevent engine overheat.

Both sensors are connected to the same telltale lamp, so that either excessive coolant temperature or lack of coolant will illuminate the telltale for coolant temperature described in FMVSS No. 101 (column 4).

3. Question

Does our system described above conforms to FMVSS No. 101?

Very truly yours,

Masaki Ogura Manager Truck Engineering

MMC SERVICES INC.

ID: nht94-7.20

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributor Association, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/14/94 and 1/12/94 from Richard Kreutziger to Walter Myers (OCC 9559); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This responds to your Fax of January 12, 1994, requesting an information on the extent to which a state can adopt requirements for school buses which exceed the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This also responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the location requirements for a side emergency door exit in Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

Your January 12, 1994 FAX requested clarification of when a state could impose requirements on school buses which exceeded the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Specifically, you asked whether the state could impose such requirements on (1) a public school and (2) a contractor providing transportation for a public school. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable FMVSS that are different from the applicable FMVSS, except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirements would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires ALL school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. In addition, the agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

Your February 14, 1994 FAX asked whether the November 2 final rule permits a right side emergency exit door to be to the rear of the passenger compartment.

The answer is yes. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

(Appendix omitted.)