ID: nht72-4.22

DATE: 03/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter dated January 19, 1972, to Mr. Eugene Laskin, regarding questions you have reisting to interpretations of demonstration procedure descriptions contained in paragraphs 5.2j and 5.2k of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. Paragraph S5.2j - The phrase "within a period of 50 milliseconds" refers to the rise time of the acceleration only with the webbing movement measured from start of acceleration to lockup. The movement occurring after lockup due to natural webbing elongation and webbing compaction around the retractor spool is not measured. Webbing movement exclusive of the above-mentioned compaction and elongation can be measured by using a rotary of linear potentimeter reading out on a dual channel oscilloscope or oscillograph along with the readout of the time vs acceleration trace.

2. Paragraph s5.2k - The present standard does not specify any particular sequence for performing the 10,000 lockup cycles on emergency locking retractors as part of the total 50,000 cycles. This office presently has two laboratories performing the compliance tests in the following manner.

Laboratory A - One lockup cycle out of every five using the commercial Carlson cycling apparatus.

Laboratory B - 40,000 cycles of extension and retraction followed by 10,000 lockup cycles.

3. The methods presently employed by our test laboratories in actuating the lockup mechanism is to accelerate the retractor by means of compressed air, thus effecting the lockup.

This method of lockup is employed by our laboratories because a retractor that is sensitive both to vehicle acceleration and tilting would most frequently be locked by acceleration when installed in a vehicle.

This is not to say that you are compelled to cycle your retractors by accelerating them. If the locking mechanism is the name for both modes (e.g. a (Illegible Word)), it may make little difference whether the retractors are accelerated or tilted. However, if our test disclose a cycling failure, you will be obliged to show that your method was, in fact, equivalent to ours.

Should you require any further details or information regarding the test procedure for emergency locking retractors, please contact Mr. R. Jasinski of this office.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety.

ID: nht68-3.8

DATE: 01/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letter of December 5, 1967, which asks if the labeling requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 109, can be complied with by placing some of the information on one sidewall of a tire and other information on the other sidewall.

The Standard requires that all of the labeling information be on both sidewalls and placing some of the necessary information on one sidewall of the tire and some on the other would not satisfy this requirement.

The standard provides that until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporate all specified information not molded into or onto the tire."

THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

December 5, 1967

Mr. L.K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator National Highway Safety Bureau

Ref: Labeling of Tires where S.4.3 Requirements Appear on One Side of the Tire Only.

The mechanics of complying with the labeling requirements of S.4.3 MVSS No. 109 can become very cumbersome and expensive.

Here was our thinking over a year ago - we placed all the required information on what would be the white sidewall part of the mold, leaving the black side free to add that which would be required by the U.S. Department of Transportation, in the standards which we now have.

The attached sheet with this explanation will reveal the problem. Label No. 1 is basic. Labels 2 to 11 inclusive would have to be added to the tire. The workmen would first affix the basic label than a label to supply this missing information. As can be seen there are 56 sizes involved and ten other labels which shows a basic of conbinations to be 560.

We request an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. It is also our feeling that labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards.

R.L. Donnelly Corporate Secretary

ID: nht93-6.2

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: Bernhard Peer -- President, Peer Enterprises Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, Chief Council's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/6/93 from John Womack to Bernhard Peer (A41; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Per my conversation with the Department of Transportation in Washington D.C. they have advised I should write to you regarding our needs.

Our company, Peer Enterprises Inc., is the main importer for a product known as a TWIP; a slow moving, battery driven, scooter type vehicle with a maximum top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (.27kw). Please see attached brochure for full explanation and specification detail. The scooter is very quiet and because it is powered by a rechargeable battery, there is no exhaust thus making it very friendly to the environment. Manufactured In Italy, the TWIP has already been certified in most of the European Countries and is now ready for introduction to the USA. The TWIP Is extremely high quality construction, fully equipped with: brakes-front and rear, foot rests, kick stand, head light, tail light, horn and rear view mirror. The TWIP Is collapsible and can be easily stored for portable transportation.

Our primary market for this product will be recreational use i.e. RV motor homes, boats/yachts, etc. - anyone that can use a storable, portable form of transportation. Another segment of the market is industrial use. The TWIP is used in plants, warehouses, hospitals, etc.; also adequately serving security guards and maintenance personnel in a variety of circumstances.

Throughout Europe the market has been very successfully defined and the product overwhelmingly accepted. We now request your assistance to obtain federal approval and certification for the USA. We ore enclosing copies of certification forms from several of the existing distributing countries for your use. Peer Enterprises Inc. is staffed and fully prepared to begin our distribution business awaiting only your approval. We therefore ask your assistance as quickly as possible. If there is anything we can do to help expedite the process, please advise.

We thank you for your immediate attention to our request and await your response.

(Brochure omitted)

ID: nht90-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/90

FROM: HIROSHI OZEKI -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MAZDA

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

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 06/05/90 ON STD 108 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MITZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION; LETTER FROM FRANK BE RNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO CHUCK HOWARD -- SAFETY ALERT CO, DATED 06/17/83

TEXT: Mazda is exploring the possibility of installing a deceleration warning system on its future models. Such a system would operate using the vehicle's hazard warning system. Under certain circumstances, as of yet undetermined, the hazard lamps (amber in color and flashing) would be activated concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear.

In reviewing FMVSS No. 108 and previous interpretations concerning this standard and considering how each would apply to deceleration warning systems, Mazda has discovered, what its believes, are conflicting interpretations. For your convenience, the interpretations in question have been reproduced as Attachments 01-02. The purpose of this letter is to request your definitive interpretation of this standard with respect to S4.1.3 and the enclosed attachments.

An interpretation issued on June 17, 1983 (Attachment 01), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Berndt, determined that the simultaneous activation of both the rear stop lamps (red in color and steady-burning) and the rear hazard warning system o r rear turn signal lamps (red or amber in color and flashing) is permissible provided, " . . . the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed." In Mr. Berndt's opinion the operation of the rear stop lamps, and the rear hazard warning lamps or turn signal lamps in this manner would not be in violation of S4.1.3. of FMVSS No. 108.

Conversely, an interpretation issued on December 6, 1986 (Attachment 02), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Jones, expressly states that the described deceleration warning system, ". . . must be steady-burning in every mode. There is a good r eason for this requirement, as simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and

steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion. . .", thus, ". . .impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3."

Could you please provide a definitive interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 as they pertain to the deceleration warning system under consideration by Mazda; as described above.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Rob Strassburger (313-930-2513) of my staff or Mr. S. (Ted) Kadoya (202-626-3263) at our Washington, D.C. office.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 1985-03.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Escobosa, Esq. -- Dinkelspiel, Donovan and Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcedero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

May 22, 1984

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Original signed by Paul Escobosa

P.E.:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen

PAGE INSERT HERE

PAGE INSERT HERE

ID: 1984-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dinkelspiel; Donovan & Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

US. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcadero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Mr. Escobosa:

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Very truly yours,

Paul Escobosa PE:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen

ID: nht90-3.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-22-90 from B. Abernethy to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 4858; OCC 4583); Also attached to Automotive Engineering Magazine editorial, dated July, 1985, entitled "Regulation at its Best?"

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and May 22, 1990, requesting an interpretation of the Federal standard on motor vehicle lighting, No. 108, as it relates to an invention of yours, and of July 2, 1990, withdrawing a request for confidentiality made in your earlier letter.

As we understand it, based upon your conversation with Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, your device would make the light emitted from a lamp increase or decrease in intensity based on the level of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle. Thus, as a vehicle decelerates, the intensity of the lamp would change from a high value to a low value as the vehicle proceeded to stop. You believe that this would discourage tailgaters.

However, the device would also simultaneously modulate in intensity at an unknown rate. The reason that it would do so is that it is sensitive to external forces and is of low inertia. This means that it would also respond to minute changes in decelera tion that occur because of other factors. These factors include uneven road surfaces, uneven brake rotor thickness that causes surging, and tire imbalance which causes vehicle vibrations. Thus, as the intensity changes from a higher to a lower level du ring the stop, it would randomly modulate from a slightly higher intensity to slightly lower and back as the device sensed the random accelerations and decelerations from these other effects. The actual signal resulting would vary from vehicle to vehicl e, and from roadway to roadway as these extraneous factors interacted with the device. A driver following would not see a signal that was consistent or reliable in its meaning.

Therefore, we have concluded that Standard No. 108 would not permit your device. Under the standard, rear lights such as stop lamps and taillamps must be steady burning when in use, and they would not be when your device is employed. Further, equipment not required by Standard No. 108 may not be used if it would impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. We believe that your device would impair the distinctive "message" (either as a signal light or as a presenc e light) that each rear lamp is intended to convey.

ID: nht69-2.25

DATE: 09/18/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration, that has been referred to this office. In your letter you ask for a yes or no answer to specific questions relative to certification of assemblies completed from chassis-cabs. The answers to your questions follow: 1. QUESTION: "We manufacture bodies that are sold through a non-exclusive dealer that sells construction equipment.

The dealers sale includes only the body and its mounting on a chassis-cab. The chassis-cab is furnished by the customer and is normally purchased through a second dealer that handles truck sales. The chassis-cab is delivered to our factory for the mounting of the body. Do we supply certification for the completed vehicle?" ANSWER: The answer to your first question is yes, you would supply certification to the dealer or distributor at the time of delivery of the vehicle. 2. QUESTION: "If the answer to the first question is yes, do we remove the temporary certification label on the chassis cab (367.5), write the chassis-cab vehicle identification number on this and place this in our file as evidence that the vehicle we assemble has been furnished with a certified chassis-cab?" A simple yes or no answer cannot be given to question No.

ANSWER: 2.

The method you use in procuring and retaining information relative to the chassis-cab would be up to you. The procedure you describe, writing the chassis-cab identification numbers on the label and placing some in your file would be considered satisfactory.

3. QUESTION: "With reference to the vehicle identification number, paragraph 267.4(g)(4), do we supply only our vehicle identification (or serial0 number?" ANSWER: yes, you would only supply your vehicle identification (or serial) number in accordance with Part 367.4(g)(2) of the regulation. 4. QUESTION: "Paragraph 367.4(g)(2) requires the month and year of manufacture. It further states "This shall be the time during which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle." In a previous response to a letter of ours signed by Mr. F. C. Turner and addressed to Senator Charles Persy (copy enclosed). Mr. Turner stated that a FHWA ruling stated that a completed assemblege need only conform to the standards that were in effect at the time of completion of the chassis-cab.

requirement will be the month and year of manufacture as stated on the label in paragraph 367.5." ANSWER: Yes, the month and year of manufacture of the chassis-cab would be used to satisfy the requirements of 367.4(g)(2), month and year of manufacture.

We trust this will clarify the situation for you

ID: nht92-1.21

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: DALE E. DAWKINS -- DIRECTOR, VEHICLE COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY AFFAIRS, CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TO: MARION C. BLAKEY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION: LOW EMISSION MOTOR VEHICLE - DATED DECEMBER 4, 1991; GRANT OF PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THREE FEDERAL MOTOR SAFETY STANDARDS (DOCKET NO. 91-66; NOTICE 2) - DATED JUNE 19, 1992

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-18-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DALE E. DAWKINS (A40; PART 555)

TEXT: Chrysler Corporation desires to inform the NHTSA that we will manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV's) that will fall under the temporary exemption that the agency has granted for the TEVan, an electrically powered version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemptions for these CCEV's are to be coterminous with that granted the TEVan vehicle. This consortium is a joint cooperative effort by Chrysler Corporation, Westinghouse Corporation, the State of Maryland, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Power to develop electrically powered low-emission passenger vehicles under contract to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

These CCEV vehicles will be almost identical to the TEVans except for the propulsion system which will utilize an AC electrical motor, whereas the TEVans will be powered by a DC electrical motor. The CCEV with its AC motor will utilize a unique speed reduction direct drive transaxle, whereas the TEVan with its DC motor will utilize a speed reduction 2-speed transaxle. All compliance and product aspects of the vehicle program remain unchanged per our petition to the Agency on December 4, 1991 and later modified via a docket file submission on March 5, 1992. Based on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety.

We seek no broader temporary exemptions from FMVSS for the development of low emission vehicles than those already granted for the TEVan. The combined volumes of the CCEV and TEVan vehicles will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted by the NHTSA.

The above information allows the NHTSA to clearly understand the content of our electric vehicle development programs and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Mr. Len Blazic of my staff at (313) 956-5365.

ID: 2854yy

Mr. Gene Schlanger
President
ROC Capital, Inc.
63 Greens Road
Hollywood, FL 33021

Dear Mr. Schlanger:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 3, l991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the permissibility under Federal and State regulations of a "lighted sign" on which messages could be scrolled from left to right. Such a sign "is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window." However, "if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto." The sign would incorporate LEDs and would not project a beam or flash. You intend to sell it "to the general public."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses your device, nor any prohibition against your selling it. The question arises, however, as to whether and under what circumstances Federal law may allow its use.

As a general rule, aftermarket equipment such as this is acceptable under Federal law provided that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, does not entail removal of, or otherwise rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that removal by any of the persons just mentioned of the high-mounted stop lamp that has been required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985, in order to substitute your lighted sign, would be a violation of Federal law.

The question arises of whether the lighted sign may be installed in the rear window of any other vehicle, or in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, or on the top of any vehicle, situations where there is no direct removal of safety equipment. The agency regards any impairment of the effectiveness of rear lighting equipment as tantamount to rendering it partially inoperative. Thus, if aftermarket equipment is likely to create confusion or distraction in a following motorist, we regard it as likely to impair the messages that required lighting equipment is supposed to impart. A lighted sign with a changing message is likely to create a distraction, diverting attention from signals sent by stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Thus, we believe that this device has the potential of rendering those lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. Even when installed in a side window, where it may not be visible directly to the rear, the device has the potential of distraction when the vehicle carrying it is approached in other lanes, i.e., at an angle from the rear.

We are unable to tell you whether the device is illegal under the laws of each of the 50 States. If you are interested in pursuing this question, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l