ID: nht88-3.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/88

FROM: MELVIN KREWALL -- DIRECTOR TRANSPORTATION SECTION FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OKLAHOMA STATE DEPT OF EDUCATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/31/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MELVIN KREWALL, REDBOOK A33 (2), PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Oklahoma asked me to submit two questions to your office for your consideration.

1. May a transit coach-type vehicle, manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, be used on a public school bus route to transport students to and from school?

2. What must be done to a transit coach-type vehicle to bring it into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus?

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- GENERAL COUNSEL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP SECTION 101 [3]; PART 571 [A]; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529; BROCH URE FROM ARROWPOINTE; DRAGOON PATROLLER ARMORED RESCUE AND SECURITY VEHICLE; 5/19/88 letter from Raymond M. Momboisse to Bwayne Vance

TEXT: Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchase d directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured f or, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for you r request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, t he Border Patrol will save $ 5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicab ility of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 571(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

2

Under 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibi kes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public ro ads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to c onsider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operati ons and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original mil itary specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that on e of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has becom e of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-14 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United Sta tes, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a componen t of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the

3

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufacturers and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/88

FROM: JIM BATES -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO JIM BATES -- CONGRESS, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Steed:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Angelo R. Collica, regarding a plan he has developed for a lighting safety device which is not currently authorized for motor vehicles.

Essentially, this device will promote driving safety, relieve lane changing tensions and create a more relaxed atmosphere on the highways. I would appreciate your providing me with information as to the requirements necessary to install lighting devices on motor vehicles. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Alice Lara of my district office at (619) 691-1166.

Thank you for your assistance. Please respond to me at 430 Davidson Street, Suite A, Chula Vista, California 92010.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/88

FROM: LANCE E. TUNICK -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Maserati Automobiles Incorporated (MAI) requests an interpretation of the requirements in S.4.1.3. of FMVSS 208 concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with passive restraints. More specifically, because the s tandard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. and because, under Section 108 (b) (5) of the Safety Act, the standard does not apply to vehicles intended solely for export, MAI assumes that if, during a "phase-in" period, vehicles that we re previously imported into the U.S. by MAI are exported to Canada (where we have one dealer) would be deducted from the U.S. production total to arrive at the base figure to which the phase-in percentage would apply.

We would greatly appreciate your confirming this interpretation as soon as possible, so that we can report under 49 CFR Part 585.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht88-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 21, 1988

FROM: BRADLEY J. BAKER -- PRESIDENT, CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO AUGUST 31, 1989 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, TO BRADLEY J. BAKER, CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.; [A34; STD. 108]

TEXT: Our company currently manufactures a Recreational car dolly used to tow a vehicle behind motorhomes. It is also used by car dealerships to retrieve cars and trucks.

We have a question regarding the 3 bar light cluster on the back of this unit. Is it a necessity? So far, we have to guess at our interpretation of the Federal laws. We don't know if this is considered a motor vehicle under FMVSS 108; 49 CFR 571.108. The National Truck Equipment Association could not answer this question and recommended we write to you.

We would appreciate your opinion on this matter. I can be reached at the following address:

Classic Manufacturing, Inc. 21900 W. U.S. 12 Sturgis, Mi 49091 Attn: Brad Baker (616) 651-9319 Fax No.(616) 651-2921

Thank you for your help in advance

Sincerely

ID: 86-6.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Aaron M. Lowe -- Executive Director, Vehicle Security Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Aaron M. Lowe Executive Director Vehicle Security Association 5100 Forbes Boulevard Lanham, MD 20706

This responds to your letter dated July 22, 1986, requesting this agency to withdraw the granting of four petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard.

You state in your letter that the Vehicle Security Association (VSA) challenges the granting of petitions to Volkswagen of America, Inc., General Motors Corporation, Isuzu Motors Corporation, and Nissan Research and Development, Inc. for exemption of certain vehicle lines beginning in model year 1987. For the reasons given below, the agency believes these petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard were properly granted according to the requirements of section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 543, Petition for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

You state that the lack of theft data concerning vehicles marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard makes it difficult for NHTSA to make a determination, based upon substantial evidence, that a standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with Part 541 in reducing and deterring theft. You add that the agency is not required to approve petitions for exemption and request that the agency withdraw its grants of those petitions for that reason.

Section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act permits vehicle manufacturers to petition NHTSA to allow high theft vehicle lines to be exempted from the standard. To be exempted, a high theft line must be equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment and NHTSA must determine that antitheft device is likely to be as effective as parts making in reducing and deterring theft. This section requires that the agency's determination to grant or deny a petition be made within 120 days after the date of filing the petition. If the agency fails to make a determination within the specified time period, this section also states that the petition shall be considered granted.

In the notices granting the petitions filed by these four manufacturers, NHTSA noted that the limited and apparently conflicting data on the effectiveness of the pre-standard parts marking programs makes it difficult in the first year of this legislation's implementation to compare the effectiveness of an antitheft device with the effectiveness of compliance with the theft prevention standard. Section 605 clearly requires such a comparison, which the agency has made on the basis of the limited data available. However, the House Committee Report states that section 605 was adopted because the Committee was willing to give standard equipment antitheft devices "an opportunity to be proved as effective in deterring theft as the numbering standard." H. R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 17. The agency believes that Congress did not intend that the data limitations in the early phase of implementing the theft prevention standard result in across-the-board denials of exemption petitions.

If, as the standard is implemented, NHTSA receives data indicating that a manufacturer's antitheft device has not been as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the theft prevention standard, the agency may terminate the exemption under section 605(d). The agency will be monitoring these and other theft data in an attempt to effectively implement the purposes of the vehicle theft legislation.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 22, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

VSA officially challenges the granting of petitions to Volkswagon/Audi, General Motors, Isuzu, and Nissan by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for exemptions from the marking requirements of The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984. VSA firmly contends that the petitions did not meet the requirements as established by the Act and therefore should not have been granted.

VSA is a trade association representing manufacturers, manufacturer's representatives, distributors, and retailers of vehicles security systems. These companies sell primarily in the aftermarket. While VSA strongly believes that the installation of security systems in cars can be of great benefit in preventing the incidence of theft, we also must point out that one of the prime benefits of aftermarket security systems as they are installed today in the variety of systems and the differences in installation of each system on each car. These permutations add a degree of difficulty for thieves attempting to steal cars with aftermarket antitheft systems.

The opposite holds true for cars standard equipped with security systems. NHTSA itself provides the reasoning behind this difference. In its "Report on Automobile Antitheft Devices," NHTSA states "once thieves had determined the means to defeat one manufacturer's system, they would, in essence, be able to defeat all such systems since they would be manufactured to the same specifications. Such a result would clearly be inconsistent with the goals of the Theft Act."

Although the agency confines its discussion to a federal standard for security systems, the argument can be extended against original equipment systems. All manufacturers if they standard equip a car line with a security system, must manufacture the systems to the same specifications. Therefore what is true for a federal standard also is true for a standard equipped system. Once a thief disengages a security system on one car in a car line, he can perform the same feat with the remainder of the cars he comes upon in that line. The word "standard" in either case spells trouble for the car owner who possesses such a system. VSA admits that impressive data on the effectiveness of standard equipped security systems was reported in the NHTSA "Report on Automobile Antitheft Devices" regarding the Nissan 280 ZX and the Cadillac Eldorado Convertible; however, NHTSA itself admits that this data is inconclusive. NHTSA's statistics seem to show that in the short term, a standard equipped system could be beneficial. However, as thieves learn the systems, we we question how effective they will be in the long term.

NHTSA's regulations mention that this provision of the Theft Act is to provide this technology an opportunity. VSA wonders whether a car owner who spends over $20,000 for a new car will appreciate it being stolen in order to provide the car companies with an experiment which they could have accomplished without government sanction. We further question whether a car owner will be grateful to hear, that once the car is stolen, recovery of the vehicle will be less likely because the car maker was exempted from the parts marking standard.

NHTSA seems to be inventing Congressional intent rather than implementing the letter of the law. Section 605 (a) (1) of the theft auto states: "Any manufacturer may petition the Secretary for an exemption from the application of any of the requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard under section 602 for any line or lines of passenger motor vehicles which are equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device which the Secretary determines is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the requirements of such standard." Part (c) of this section states that the Secretary shall make the determination based upon "substantial evidence".

NHTSA admits in its regulations that there is little substantial evidence from which to make that determination. "The agency realizes that empirical data bearing directly on the effectiveness of marking done in compliance with the theft prevention standard will not be available for petitions for model years 1987 or 1988. The agency will have to make determinations based partially on engineering judgements about the information otherwise available to the agency on the effectiveness of means for reducing and deterring theft".

VSA feels compelled to remind NHTSA that no where in the law is it required to approve exemptions. If NHTSA concludes that it cannot make a determination on whether a system will likely be as effective as marking parts based on substantial evidence, then the Agency should act responsibly and reject the petition. NHTSA appears to be struggling to justify the petitions based on "engineering judgements." Such tortured interpretations of the law are clearly contrary to public interest.

VSA therefore requests that NHTSA withdraw the granted petitions and instead require marking of the parts according to the law.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Aaron M. Lowe Executive Director

ID: 86-6.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas MacGregor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas MacGregor Terralab Engineers 3585 Via Terra Salt Lake City UT 84115

Dear Mr. MacGregor:

Thank you for your letter of August 28, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You asked whether the performance requirements of the standard would apply to a propane-fired engine block heater. You explained that the heater has its own fuel system that is independent of the vehicle's fuel system. As explained below, a propane-fired heater would not be covered by Standard No. 301.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements for the fuel system used in certain motor vehicles. The heater you have described apparently does not have any connections to the fuel tank or fuel lines of the vehicle. Instead, the heater has its own propane fuel system. Since the heater is not connected to the vehicle's fuel system, it would not be covered by the standard. Even if the heater were connected to the vehicle fuel system, it would not have to meet the performance requirements of the standard, since it is a propane-fired heater. S3 of Standard No. 301 limits the application of the standard to vehicles that use a fuel with a boiling point above 32o F. Propane has a boiling point below 32o F.

Even though the heater is not covered by the requirements of Standard No. 301, it would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet that describes how our regulations, including those on defect notification and remedy campaigns, apply to equipment manufacturers.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

28 August 1986

Steve Ashe Chief Counsel's Office Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20596

Dear Mr. Ashe:

Per our conversation I am writing to obtain an opinion.

We have been approached to test a propane-fired engine block heater. The propane fuel for the heater is separate and independent of the vehicular fuel system.

While there are standards which cover the test requirements for the heater itself, we need an Opinion which will determine whether impact (crash) and roll-over tests are required per 301, even though the language of 301 excludes LPC since its boiling point is below 32 F.

Also, if the Opinion should state the testing is necessary, would the system have to be tested for each truck and bus style, or would one representative test be acceptable for all installations?

Sincerely

Douglas MacGregor

ID: 86-6.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Groth

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Glenn Groth 3355 Mission Ave. Ste 211 Oceanside, CA 92054

Dear Mr. Groth:

This is in reply to your letter of July 21, 1986, to Dr. Carl Clark of this agency. You have developed a "brake light enhancer," a device which flashes the stop lamps three times before they become steady-burning. The sample you provided us is packaged to describe the device as "the ultimate in rear end collision prevention," and bears a label "This product is for off road use". The device is specifically permitted under Section 25251.5(c) of the California Vehicle Code. Your letter states that several vehicle manufacturers have shown interest in the device, but wish to see "DOT approval." You anticipate that the device might eventually be "a mandatory device like the third brake light now." You have asked Dr. Clark "What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?"

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we establish the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to be met by manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standards apply from manufacture through first sale of the vehicle; after the first sale, as a general rule, modifications may not be performed to a vehicle that take it out of compliance with a standard. However, this prohibition does not extend to modifications performed by the owner himself. The Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which manufacturers certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, without the necessity of prior "approval" by the Department. The Act also requires national uniformity of Federal and state safety standards in that once a Federal standard has been established, a State standard covering the same aspect of performance must be identical to it.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal standard on motor vehicle lighting. Because the Federal requirement does not allow a stoplamp to flash three times before becoming steady burning, a motor vehicle may not be manufactured with the brake lamp enhancer installed. Further, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installs a brake light enhancer, that person could be viewed as having rendered the stoplamps partially ineffective, and therefore as having violated the Act. Because the advertised purpose of this device is to prevent rear end collisions for on road vehicles, the label "This product is for off road use" will not serve to protect any person from liability under the Act.

In summary, your device is permissible under the Act only if it is designed to be installed by a vehicle owner, and so advertised. The fact that it may be legal under California law will not protect a driver from citation for operation of the system in any State where it may not be permitted by local law. You have the right to petition the Department for an amendment to Standard No. 108 to permit or require your device, but at present we are satisfied that the new center high mounted stop lamp sufficiently addresses the identical safety need covered by your system. Because the safety standards are performance oriented rather than design oriented, the agency's regulations are not intended to specify devices or systems of a proprietary nature.

I enclose a copy of our petition regulations for your information. If you file a petition with us, it should contain data substantiating the safety need and demonstrated performance of your device, rather than simple allegations that it prevents rear end collisions. We are returning the sample of your device herewith.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 21, 1986

Dr. Carl C. Clark Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Brake Light Enhancer

Dear Dr. Clark:

Thank you for the time you shared with me on the telephone last Friday, July 18, 1986. I appreciate all the information and help you provided.

At your suggestion, I'm enclosing the following items for your review: (1) A copy o; the patent for the Brake Light Enhancer; (2) A copy of the amendment to the California State Vehicle Code permitting the use of the device on vehicles in California to flash the stop lamps three 3 times before coming on steady; (3) A brochure which briefly describes the product; and (4) A sample of the device for your inspection and testing.

As I mentioned to you over the phone we have several auto manufacturers interested in the device, but before they will commit themselves to using it they would like to see more approvals or endorsements for the product, such as by the D.O.T. We anticipate that if and when the device is approved by the D.O.T., it would initially be offered as an option and later as a mandatory device like the third brake light now.

What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?

Thank you again for all your help. I've enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Glenn Groth

ID: 86-6.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: no addressee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1986, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and your letter to me of november 13, asking for our comments on four new motor vehicle lighting devices.

The first device performs a combination of two functions. It consists of three lamps serving as identification lamps and will meet all requirements of Standard No. 108 for such equipment. The three lamp cluster will also serve a auxiliary stop lamps (mistakenly referred to as a turn lamp in the November letter). The second device is a clearance lamp meeting requirements of Standard No. 108, which would also serve as an auxiliary stop lamp (also mistakenly referred to a a turn lamp in the November letter). The third device is described as a "tracking lamp" ( the diagram shows this to be the rear side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108) meeting all requirements for such; it will also serve as an auxiliary side turn signal indicator. The fourth device will serve as an intermediate side marker lamp, complying with Standard No. 108's requirements, but will also serve as an auxiliary side turn signal lamp. The devices are intended for use on wide trucks and trailers. In your opinion, the auxiliary functions will not "confuse or inhibit" the functioning of lighting equipment required by Standards No. 108.

With respect to the combination of lamp functions or truck and trailers, Standard No. 108, specifically paragraph S4.4, prohibits only the optical combination of clearance lamps with taillamps or identification lamps. These combinations do not exist in any of your four proposed designs. Under paragraph S4.1.3 supplemental lighting devices are permitted as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You have concluded that there would be no impairment. Under the facts as presented in your letter, we have no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

We have noted your request that your letters be accorded confidential treatment because of proprietary commercial information, and your attorney's consent on your behalf that our interpretation may be made public provided that all information identifying you as the writer is deleted. We shall follow this procedure.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-6.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Kunst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kunst Deutsche Tecalemit Deutsche Tecalemit GmbH P.O.B. 120128 D-4800 Bielefeld 12

Dear Mr. Kunst:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. You enclosed drawings of a brake hose end fitting and a vacuum brake hose assembly you manufacture, and asked whether the assembly would conform to the constriction requirements of S9.2.1. In our opinion, the answer is no.

Your letter did not clearly state the size of the inside diameter of the hose used in assembly 90 28B 758. That dimension is necessary in order to ascertain whether constriction requirements are met. We believe, however, based on the markings at the bottom your diagram -i.e., "TUBE 12.5x2.0 DIN 73 37B" - that the brake hose has an outside diameter of 12.5 mm, and a wall thickness of 2.0 mm. The hose would therefore have a nominal inside diameter of 8.5 mm. (If our assumptions are incorrect, please do not hesitate to contact us.) *

Paragraph S9.2.1 of Standard No. 106 states:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly shall be not less than 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for light duty.

To pass the constriction test of S9.2.1, a vacuum brake hose assembly (heavy duty) must have an inside diameter that is at least 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. This, if the nominal inside diameter of the hose is 8.5 mm, the inside diameter of the assembly must be not less than 6.38 mm at any point. If the assembly is intended for light duty, under the 70 percent requirement its inside diameter must be not less than 5.95 mm at any point.

You stated that the inside diameter of end fitting 90 279 346 is 4 mm + 0.5 mm. Because of this size, the part of the fitting which is attached to the hose would not meet constriction requirements of S9.2.1 for either light or heavy duty applications.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington DC 20590 USA

Subj.: Federal Safety Standards MVSS 106 Paragraph S 9.2.1, Constriction -

Dear Sirs,

In the a. m. matter we wrote to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, Mr. Stanley R. Scheiner. Today we have received the information from Mr. Scheiner that your office is responsible in this case.

Herewith we would like to give you the following information:

In conjunction with a development for General Motors, we urgently require your interpretation of paragraph S 9.2.1, regarding the constriction of the size of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly.

As you can learn from the enclosed drawing information, the end fitting 90 279 346 with an inside diameter of 4 mm + 0,5 mm tolerance will be used for the brake hose assembly, drwg. no 90 288 758.

Please confirm that this design comply with paragraph S 9.2.1.

We would deeply appreciate your short term reply.

Yours faithfully

DEUTSCHE TECALEMIT GMBH i.v. Kunst

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS