ID: nht91-3.36

DATE: May 1, 1991

FROM: Cliff Chuang -- Chief Design Engineering, Prospects Corporation

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Require Confirmation For The Interpretation Of New FMVSS Standard number 118

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Cliff Chuang (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

We have received the new FMVSS #118 published on April 16, 1991. Our company is currently developing advanced power window and power sunroof control systems for the automotive industry. Several of our interpretations to the new standard #118 need to be confirmed in writing by your office.

First, the new FMVSS #118 section S5 (a) says: "Notwithstanding S4, power window, partition or roof panel systems which, while closing, reverse direction when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more from a solid cylinder of 4 to 200 mm in diameter and open to at least 200 mm, may close: ... "

Our interpretation of "22 pounds or more" is that 22 pounds is set as the MINIMUM level of the resistive force for the control system to reverse the window moving direction from closing to opening. Most motors that are currently used in the vehicle power window systems have a maximum force of around 65 pounds. Assume the motor has to give X pounds of force to move the window upward in a normal closing, if an obstruction occurs, naturally the motor will provide more force in order to continue to move the window upward. The force level can change very rapidly when the obstruction occurs. When the total force reaches the minimum level of (X + 22) pounds, or exceeds the minimum level and reaches anywhere between (X + 22) pounds and the maximum force (i.e., 65 pounds), if the control system has the capability to immediately reverse the window moving direction from closing to opening to at least 200 mm, then this control system complies with FMVSS #118 S5.

Second, the new FMVSS #118 section S5 (b) says: "The 4 to '200 mm dimension cited in S5 (a) is measured from the window or panel's leading edge to the daylight opening."

Our interpretation is that this 4 mm daylight opening can-be seen from inside the passenger compartment. We attached diagram Fig.-l (for window), Fig.-2 and Fig.-3 (for sunroof) to explain our understanding.

Please examine our interpretations and confirm them in writing as soon as possible. Your confirmation will have significant impact on our system development. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Fig.-1 -- Window Diagram (graphics omitted) Fig.-2 -- Sunroof Diagram (graphics omitted)

Fig.-3 -- Sunroof Diagram (graphics omitted)

ID: nht94-4.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bryan J. Williams -- Director, International Operations, Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/24/94 FROM BRYAN J. WILLIAMS TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10437)

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of October 24, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting an interpretation regarding the relationship of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to an AAMVA list.

Your company manufactures UV coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These "provide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure." One of these coatings, UVT200, is used by Fo rd, General Motors, and Chrysler on headlamp lenses. However, "UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 'Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles.'" You info rm us that some overseas headlamp manufacturers believe that appearance on the list is required by Federal law and is a prerequisite to certification. The question you ask is:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS 108?

The answer is no. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that plastic materials used in lenses (which include headlamp lenses) conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, May 1970. Under SAE J576c's outdoor exposure test, the luminous transmittance of the material must not change by more than 25% from its performance before the test. In appearance, the headlamp lens material must not sho w surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, or delamination. Also, under paragraph S5.1.2(b), after the outdoor exposure test, the haze and surface luster of the material must not be greater than 30 percent haze, as measured by ASTM D-1003-61 . Manufacturers have found that a coating is required for the plastics used in headlamp lenses to meet Standard No. 108's outdoor exposure requirements. However, neither SAE J576c or Standard No. 108 require the coating, let alone specify what coating is acceptable. The decision to coat, and the choice of coating, is that of the manufacturer in determining compliance with and certification to Standard No. 108. Therefore, the AAMVA list has no legal relationship to Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to NHTSA whether the coating used is or is not on the AAMVA list.

ID: nht81-1.29

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1981. According to your letter, you have been told that Federal motor vehicle safety standards are only "Federal Specifications" and not considered to be "Federal laws". You have heard it said that a "side marker lamp is not an 'illegal lamp'" simply because it does not meet the photometric requirements specified in Table 3, Column 5 of DOT 108 (SAE J592e July 1972). You have asked our opinion on the matter.

We are glad to set the matter straight. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an agency of the Department of Transportation, in implementation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In that Act, Congress provided this agency with authority to specify requirements to be met by motor vehicles and equipment, and these requirements have the force of Federal law. The Act provides for a civil penalty and injunctive sanctions if the standards and other implementing regulations are not met. It is unimportant what people call the Act and standards, as long as they realize their purpose and the consequences of noncompliance.

Standard No. 108 is unusual in that it only requires that lighting equipment be designed to conform, rather than per se conform. In this sense, the failure of a single side marker lamp to meet the photometric requirements incorporated into Standard No. 108 may not necessarily be considered a noncompliance but a larger number of failing lamps could cause NHTSA to question the adequacy of the lamp's design and conclude that a noncompliance existed meriting notification and remedy.

I hope that this explanation is helpful to you.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have been told that Department of Transportation standards, and specifically DOT 108, are only "Federal Specifications" and are not now and have never been considered to be federal laws.

We have read comments made to this effect and have heard it said that a side marker lamp is not an "illegal lamp" simply because it does not meet the photometric requirements specified in Table 3, Column 5 of DOT 108 (SAE J592E July 1972).

Would you be kind enough to forward to me NHTSA's opinion on this matter.

Your early response is most urgently requested.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Senior Vice President

ID: 18577.drn

Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems permits a motorcycle to meet the stopping distance requirements of S5.3 and S7.8.1 through means other than hydraulic or air service braking systems. The answer to your question is yes, the motorcycle must meet the stopping distance requirements, but Standard No. 122 does not specify the particular braking system that must be used.

In your letter, you explained that your client, S-Lemma Inc. is in the process of certifying an electric motorcycle, the S-LEM Active. You state that the S-LEM Active meets the braking requirements by means of a hydraulic system and an electro-magnetic based regenerative braking system. You note that since electro-magnetic braking systems are not mentioned in Standard No. 122, your client is concerned that even if the S-LEM meets the stopping distance requirements of S5.3 and S7.8.1, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not recognize the compliance of a motorcycle with Standard No. 122 through means other than hydraulic or air service braking systems.

In Standard No. 122, S1. Scope, states: "This standard specifies performance requirements for motorcycle brake systems." Required equipment is specified at S5.1 which states: "Each motorcycle shall have either a split service brake system or two independently actuated service brake systems."

NHTSA interprets these provisions to require at least two independently actuated service brake systems that will independently meet the stopping distance requirements of S5.3 and S7.8.1. Since nothing in the standard specifies that each service brake system is limited to hydraulic or air service braking systems, the regenerative braking system is permitted, as long as it can, independently of the hydraulic system, meet the stopping distance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:122
d.11/20/98

ID: nht79-2.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 1, 1979

Mr. William G. Finn Operations Manager Continental Products Corp. 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of September 7, 1979, asking whether tire sidewall molding, required by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), may be accomplished using characters with a height of 6.5 millimeters, rather than 5/32nds of an inch as stated in the regulation (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1). You also ask whether UTQG sidewall moldings must appear on both sides of the tire.

The specification of 5/32-inch tire sidewall characters was intended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, e.g., 6.5 millimeters, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height. UTQG information need be molded on only one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 7, 1979

Mr. Hipolit - Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Per our telephone conversation of September 5, please let us know the answers to the following questions regarding the UTQG law which goes into effect for radial tires on March 1, 1980.

1. Can the lettering molded into the side-wall of the tire be 6.5 mm high?

2. Must these markings be molded on both sides of the tire, or is one side sufficient?

Your prompt reply would be most appreciated, and we thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

William G. Finn Operations Manager

WGF:jld

ID: nht94-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1994

FROM: Darlene E. Skelton, President, National Institute Of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Asst. Administrator-NHTSA Office of Rulemaking

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DARLENE SKELTON (A43; STD. 120; STD. 121; PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice:

The National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety is a nonprofit organization committed to improving safety in the purchase, application, operation, and maintenance of emergency vehicles. Over the course of our work, several items have come to question .

1. We have examined vehicles that the GVW exceeds the tire rating capacity. In such cases the manufacturer places a limitation on the distance and speed the vehicle can travel.

For example, a fire truck with four rear mounted tires rated 7,000 lbs. each or a total of 28,000 lbs. are mounted on a 31,000 lb. axle. The final stage manufacturer actually acquired a letter from the tire manufacturer a. raising the air pressure from 100 to 110 or 115 psi b. placing a limit of driving no more than 55mph for a distance no greater than than seven (7) miles.

Our question is, do these practices constitute a violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)?

2. We have also examined vehicles where the axle has been re-rated.

For example, one manufacturer increased the axle rating because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Because there is less cycling over the highway, they decided that the same axle in a fire truck application could be increased fr om 22,000 lbs. to 24,000 lbs.

Does this re-cycling of axles constitute a violation of the FMVSS?

3. We have knowledge of some manufacturers taking air supply for horns off of the air supply for breaks.

Does this violate the FMVSS?

Any direction you can provide regarding these issues is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht87-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/87

FROM: J. MIKE CALLAHAN -- PRECISION IMAGES

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO J MIKE CALLAHAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/19/87 TO ROGER M. COX, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/03/87 TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Reference FMVSS108, I am representing a company that will be selling plastic name plates which would be installed behind the red lens of the third brake light. These are to be sold to new car dealerships. When the driver of the car steps on the brake t he dealer's name lights up.

I need letters regarding the legality of the name plates for the following states:

Washington Oregon California Arizona Montana Idaho Nevada North Dakota South Dakota Wyoming Colorado Kansas Oklahoma Iowa Illinois Utah New Mexico Louisiana Arkansas Missouri Wisconsin Minnesota Texas Nebraska

I would appreciate any help you can offer.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

DEALER ADS,INC

DEALER ADS BRINGS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR NAME

LIGHTED

SEEN 50,000 TIMES PER YEAR 400,000 TIMES AVE. LIFE OF CAR

FOR SO LITTLE YOU WON'T BELIEVE IT!!!

INSTALL IN HIGH MOUNT STOP LIGHT

1. MEETS ALL FEDERAL D.O.T. FMVSS 108 (LOCATION IS CONSIDERED AN AUXILIARY LIGHT AND AS SUCH COMPLIES WITH STATE LAWS ALSO.)

2. INSTALLS IN MINUTES (PART OF DEALER PREP).

3. MORE CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE THAN STANDARD DEALER ATTACHED ADVERTISING.

NEW IMPROVED DEALER ADVERTISING! WILL BE SEEN DAY AND NIGHT! COST EFFECTIVE!!!! SEEN THOUSANDS TIME MORE THAN OTHER FORMS OF ADVERTISING

YOUR LOCAL DISTRIBUTER IS Mike & Cindi Callahan PHONE BOX 5524 KENT, WA. 98064-5524 206-631-0693

ID: nht78-2.2

DATE: 12/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: AMF Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. W. Fink AMF Incorporated 3700 W. Juneau Avenue P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1978, concerning the lettering permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of the standard provides that the type face utilized for the vehicle identification number shall consist of capital, sans characters. Although the "1" in the "posident" type face which you propose to use has a slight at the top, the type face would still be considered sans . Consequently, there is no bar to utilizing "posident" if you desire.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 7, 1978

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

On October 19, 1978 a member of my staff, Harvey Medinger, called you to determine if special stamping tools (typefaces) such as the "Posident" were permissible for stamping the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) required by Standard No. 115. Your response was generally favorable; but, you requested a drawing of the Posident typeface. Enclosed is the requested drawing.

Due to the high theft rate of our cycles, we wish to continue using a unique typeface not readily available to the general public.

The Posident characters meet all requirements of Standard No. 115; except, the sans requirement. Per Standard No. 115, letters I, O and Q would not be used.

Please review this request and inform us of your decision.

Very truly yours,

R. W. FINK Mgr./Information Systems

RWF/meo

Enclosure

ID: nht74-1.21

DATE: 07/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Lackey, Alexander & Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We are enclosing herewith a copy of new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, which becomes effective March 1, 1975, and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a new Federal standard (No. 120) which proposes requirements for tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.

There are no Federal requirements regarding the tensile strength of tire bead.

We regret we cannot be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

LAW OFFICE

LACKEY, ALEXANDER & JACKSON

June 15, 1974

United States Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;

Atten: E. T. Driver,

Dear Mr. Driver:

In your letter addressed to the undersigned, you enclosed copies on Standard Regulation Nos. 109, 110, 117, and part of 574. You stated that you were in the process of developing proposed Standards Nos. 119 and 120. If these standards have been completed, I will appreciate your forwarding a copy of the same to me.

I do not intend to impose upon you, but if you have in your rules and regulations any test of the tensile strength of the steel wires forming the bead as defined in 22914, Section 571.109, Standard No. 109, Sub-Section S-3, I would appreciate your also forwarding a copy of same.

I am now prosecuting a case against a manufacturer and find that the bead wire is completely separated. When it was placed upon the rim to be mounted, air was put in the tire to cause it to expand to the rim; and the party mounting the tire lost an eye when the air escaped with great force at the break in the bead into his face.

The defense to this law suit appears to be that the party mounting the tire put too much air in the tire which caused the bead to separate. I have had the tire X-rayed and find a clean break in the steel wires in the bead; but there is no breaking of the fabric or the rubber.

I, therefore, need to know the tensile strength of the wires forming the bead in order to meet my opponents' effort to prove that the steel wires were broken because of excessive inflation of the tire. If you have any regulation as to the required tensile strength of the bead wires, I will appreciate your furnishing me a copy of such regulation or specification.

Your cooperation in this matter is very much appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Joseph L. Lackey

ID: 1983-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/00/83 EST

FROM: GREAT WEST CASUALTY CO.

TITLE: GW SAFETY TALK

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, AND OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING

TEXT: LOSS PREVENTION TOOL: In our mailing to fleets, we will include a brochure or pamphlet regarding Siping of Tires. We do not have any statistics or facts concerning the Siping of Tires. However, we insure several carriers who siping every tire in the fleet and they and their drivers are convinced it is a major safety factor that cannot be ignored on rain, snow, or ice slick highways. These carriers talk in terms of better control, better maneuverability, cooler running tires, better mileage, etc.

SIPING OF TIRES. Some time ago, we wrote a short article about siping of tires which improved traction on wet and icy roads, ran cooler, etc. We were surprised at the calls from carriers who didn't know what siping was. I personally talked to 2 carriers and their drivers report substantial traction improvement on wet and slick roads. One carrier was having some difficulty with unusual wear patterns on the tire. They siped them and it corrected the problem. When the carrier and the driver gives validity to the process, then it is worthy of consideration.

SAF-TEE SIPING CALL YOUR FELLOW TRUCKER AND *Improves Traction on Wet and CHECK FOR YOURSELF Icy Roads (22% National Safety Council) *Increases Tire Life 15% to 20% 1. Palmer Trucking - Jim Palmer, (406) 721-5151 2. Unthum Trucking - Keith Reilly, (515) 448-4707 *Decreases Uneven Wear Patterns 3. Holland Trucking - Dennis Holland, (701) 280-2634 50% - 70% (Tread Flexes More) 4. Apple Lines - Dale Coates, (605) 256-6661