ID: 1984-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Talbott Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry D. Day, P.E. Talbott Associates Inc. 7 S.E. 97th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97216-2498

Dear Mr. Day:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571-208). Specifically, you asked if Standard No. 208 requires that all bus passengers be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment. Standard No. 208 specifies that the designated seating position for the driver must offer full automatic protection for the occupant in those circumstances or that the seating position must be equipped with a seat belt assembly that conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. No requirements are specified for the other designated seating position on the bus.

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies the protection which buses must afford the occupants, and allows the bus to comply with one of two protection requirements. The first option, set forth in section S4.4.1, is for the vehicle to meet the crash protection requirements set forth in section S5 of the standard (which include restraining the occupant from ejection in the event of a rollover) by means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. This requirement, however, must be met only with respect to an anthropomorphic test device in the driver's designated seating position. The second option, as specified in section S4.4.2, is for the vehicle to be equipped with either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. Again, this option applies only to the driver's designated seating position. Neither of these options sets forth any requirements applicable to any other designated seating position in the bus.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 TAI File 830203

Legal Counsel, FMVSS 208 NHTSA U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 208, S6.1 as required by S5.3, Rollover. Specifically, my question is,

"Does S6.1 require that all passengers of a chartertype bus, transit bus, or school bus (e.g., multipurpose passenger vehicle with GVWR of more than 10,000 lb.) be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment."

I am working on behalf of a bus manufacturing client who is concerned the present "compartmentalization concept" of restraint is insufficient to meet S6.1 under the above conditions. Your response in this matter is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

TALBOTT ASSOCIATES INC.

Terry D. Day, P.E.

TDD/sv

ID: 1984-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Standards Attache; The French Embassy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. Chambord Standards Attache The French Embassy Suite 715 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Chambord:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Katzke of my staff, asking for information on requirements applicable to tire rims for vans. The three points set forth in your letter are correct statements of the requirements, but I will reiterate them to be certain that you provide accurate information.

(1) Vans are considered "motor vehicles other than passenger cars" for the purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120), and Standard No. 120 sets forth requirements which must be met by all new rims for use on vans. No other standard contains requirements applicable to those rims.

(2) Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 requires the rim manufacturer to permanently label each of its van rims with the letters "DOT" as a certification that the rim satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 120. The manufacturer is expected to exercise due care before making such a certification. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, need be consulted by a manufacturer before certifying the compliance of its rims.

(3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided that the package containing the rims or the van on which the rims are installed bears an appropriate certification label. The only inspections at the port of entry are checks to see that a certification label is attached to the package of rims or the van.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 10, 1988

Mr. Steve Kratzke Legal Department Vehicle Systems Group Crash Avoidance Division NHTSA (NRM 11) 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Our reference: NOTEL 273 (NOREX/LNE)

Subject: Tire rims for vans

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Mr. Arturo Casanova referred me to you for help with NHTSA regulations. In order to ascertain my understanding, would you please send me written confirmation of the following points:

1) Vans are considered "Motor vehicles other than passenger cars" and the only standard applying to van rims is FMVSS No. 120;

2) Certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 120 is conducted by the manufacturer of the rims. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, is required;

3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided the package or the van on which they are installed bears an appropriate certifications label. Are there any inspections at the port of entry?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

A. CHAMBORD Standards Attache

ID: nht80-3.15

DATE: 07/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1980, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the spacing required between headlamps and turn signal lamps on motorcycles.

You cited Table IV of Standard No. 108 which requires that the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between [turn signal] lamp and [headlamp] is 4 inches." You also cited paragraph 4.2 of the referenced SAE standard on turn signal lamps, J588e, which mandates that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." Finally, you have cited an agency interpretation of November 5, 1979, to Bajaj Auto Limited as support that the provisions of 4.2 prevail, and you asked for confirmation of this opinion.

The Bajaj letter does not provide the support you seek. The interpretation it provides is that the separation distance must be not less than the minimum under all motorcycle operating conditions.

We view Table IV as controlling in this instance as it contains a specific locational requirement for motorcycles. Since that specific requirement is lacking in Table IV for other motor vehicle, paragraph 4.2 of J588e would then apply with respect to separation distance for lamps on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

June 9, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Dear Sir

We request interpretation of the interlamp spacing requirements specified for motorcycles in Table IV of FMVSS 108.

A four-inch spacing is required between turn signal lamps and the edge of the headlamp in front, and between turn signal lamps in the rear. However, while subject table uses the words, "edge to edge", SAE J588e, referenced in Table III, specifies measuring turn signal distance from the filament center.

Acceptance of the filament center of a turn signal lamp as the measuring point is underscored by your letter of November 5, 1979 to Mr. Keshav of Bajaj Auto Limited.

A closely related question concerns the method of measurement, i.e., whether the required four-inch separation dimension is a physical measurement between lamps or a distance between lamp projections. This is questioned because the measurement method is not specified in Table IV, and because S4.3.1.1 of the standard, and section 4.3 of SAE J588e otherwise require unobstructed photometric compliance.

In view of the above, we interpret the standard to mean that the four-inch dimension is a physical measurement to a turn signal's filament.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation as soon as convenient.

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

ID: nht78-2.1

DATE: 12/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

Dear Mr. Gill:

This is in response to your letters of October 9, 1978, and October 20, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.

The type face shown in the attachment to your letter of October 9, 1978, meets the requirements of S4.3.1. Since the standard does not specify a location for the placement of the VIN on motorcycles, it may be stamped on the certification label. However, Honda should also consider stamping the VIN on the cycle frame as well, to aid in recovery if the motorcycle is stolen.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosures

October 9, 1978

Office of Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Sir:

Attached are sheets showing the format of the type face which Honda Motor Co., Ltd. intends to use for the vehicle identification number required by FMVSS 115.

Please inform me as soon as possible whether this type face meets the requirement of S4.3.1 of Standard number 115.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:lw

Enclosure

October 20, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation as to the suitability of a method for compliance with the requirement of section S4.3 of FMVSS 115, Vehicle Identification Number (V.I.N.). That section gives the general requirements for the part of the vehicle upon which the V.I.N. must appear.

Section S4.4 of the standard gives specific requirements for the location of the V.I.N. for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVNR but there is no such specification for other vehicles, such as motorcycles.

We respectfully request your confirmation that the requirements of S4.3 for motorcycles will be met if the V.I.N. is stamped on the label required by S 567.4 (e) of Part 567 - Certification.

Your earliest response will be appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:rk

ID: nht78-3.22

DATE: 10/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ward Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 22, 1978, letter asking whether your proposed emergency door label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Paragraph S5.5.3 requires that each school bus emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit" or "Emergency Door" as appropriate, in letters at least 2 inches high, of a color that contrasts with its background, located at the top of or directly above the emergency exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. The label that you propose would be located on the inside of the glass but would be visible from the outside of the vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has indicated in the past that the location of the emergency exit label can be directly above or on the top half of the emergency exit. Your location near the top of the glass on the rear emergency door appears to fall within this acceptable area. The standard further requires that the label be located on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. The intent of this requirement is to provide a visible emergency exit designation on both the inside and outside of a bus. Since your label would be visible outside the school bus even though its location would be on the inside of the glass, the NHTSA concludes that it complies with this requirement. In reaching this conclusion, the agency assumes that you will have a similar label that will be visible inside the bus.

In summary, since your described label is the required size, consists of contrasting colors, and is placed in the appropriate location, it appears to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

WARD Industries Inc.

August 22, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admn.

Ref: FMVSS 217

Dear Sir:

A drawing showing proposed location of the emergency door identification label is enclosed. Paragraph S5.5.3 requires the designation "emergency door" or "emergency exit" as appropriate, in letters at least two inches high of a color that contrasts with its background, located at the top of or directly above the emergency exit on both inside and outside surfaces of the bus.

This decal would be placed on the inside surface of the glass but would be viewed from the outside. The lettering would be black on a solid white background.

Please review this and advise if this will meet requirements of Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS 217.

E. M. Ryan, Chief Design Engineer

EMERGENCY DOOR

2" BLACK LETTERS ON WHITE BACKGROUND PRESSURE SINSITIVE DECAL

NOTE: DETAIL VIEW 1/4 SCALE

WARD

SCHOOL BUS MFG., INC. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72032

OUTSIDE EMERGENCY DOOR DECAL LOCATION

DATE

CHK

DRAFT: (Illegible Word)

ENGR: SCALE N OR PART ORDER NO. REV CHANGE BY DATE ENGR (Illeg.) (Illeg.) PER BUS (Illeg.)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-1.18

DATE: 04/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Black, Manager U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an opinion of whether a red rear fog lamp system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as original equipment. This lamp system would be of the same intensity as the stop lamp system, installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assemblies. The system would have a separate switch and be operational only when the headlamp switch is in the "On" position.

As you have noted, Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for either front or rear fog lamps. Lighting equipment supplementary to that required as original equipment may be provided at the manufacturer's option if it does not impair the effectiveness of any equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (S4.1.3). On the basis of your submission, we are unable to form an opinion whether your system would impair effectiveness within the meaning of S4.1.3. If it is Alfa Romeo's judgment that the red fog lamps will not impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps or backup lamps, then you may have a reasonable basis upon which to install the fog lamp system and to certify compliance with S4.1.3.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

March 12, 1979 Ref. Nr. 068

Dear Mr. Vinson:

FMVSS 108 is lacking in the area of non specified lighting devices, and we find it necessary to request your interpretation of the standard itself.

We would like to incorporate into our rear light assemblies a rear red fog lamp of the same intensity of the present stop lamp. The fog lamp would be installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assembly. This compartment having its own lens and reflector. We propose to use a separate switch with warning light for operation of this fog lamp. It would only be operational when the headlamp switch is in the "on" position.

We feel this system has merit for U.S. model Alfa Romeo vehicles. For the same reason, it is standard on our European models. However, FMVSS 108 is absent of any reference to such a device. One could, but its absence, assume it is either permissible or forbidden. We think that the intent of 108 is to permit the use of such non specified safety features.

Could you please discuss this with one of your 108 experts and let us know your combined opinions as to its compliance status.

A diagram of the tail lamp assembly indicating the desired location for such a device in the as yet unoccupied compartment is enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

D. Black

ID: nht91-7.53

DATE: December 23, 1991

FROM: Thomas A. Gerke -- Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Marc Iacovelli -- President, Rally Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated February 3, 1992 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas A. Gerke, Esq. (A39; Std. 107; 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Rally Manufacturing, Inc. ("Rally").

The purpose of this letter is to obtain confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA") position with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. Specifically, Rally needs confirmation that FMVSS 107 does not apply to replacement windshield wiper arms and blades ("Wiper Blades") sold by a distributor/wholesaler to retail stores and other similar customers where the Wiper Blades are not installed by the distributor/wholesaler.

On May 14, 1991, Rally received a letter from NHTSA (NEF-31LLo IR 934 copy enclosed). After devoting significant management time to the matter and incurring substantial legal expenses, Rally was able to convince NHTSA that the position taken was contrary to applicable regulations and the positions taken by NHTSA in the record of various proposed rule making proceedings. IR 934 was closed. (See enclosed NHTSA letter dated August 7, 1991).

At the time of receipt of the May 14, 1991 letter, Rally discontinued the production of the products identified in the correspondence. Although the August 7, 1991 letter closed IR 934, Rally did not resume production. This has put Rally at a very significant competitive disadvantage and is resulting in the loss of sales, market share and shelf space to Rally's competition. Specifically, in reliance on your letter dated September 3, 1991, Rally's competitors (one of which is Custom Accessories, Inc.) have continued to offer a broad product line which includes products identical or very similar to the product discontinued by Rally. Again, this broader product line has put Rally at a competitive disadvantage and resulted in the loss of sales, market share and shelf space.

The situation has left Rally with no choice but to reintroduce the products in question in order to be able to offer a competitive product line. The difference between the positions taken in the May 14 letter to Rally and the September 3 letter to Custom Accessories, Inc. is the reason Rally seeks the requested written confirmation.

Your cooperation in immediately confirming to the undersigned on behalf of Rally that the NHTSA position is and continues to be (as set forth in your September 3 letter) that the sale of Wiper Blades by a wholesaler/distributor to retail stores and other similar customers without any installation service by the wholesaler/distributor is not (i) prohibited by FMVSS No. 107; (ii) a violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; or (iii) prohibited by any other applicable authority enforced by the NHTSA. Our telecopier number is 816-391-7600.

If there are any questions concerning the above or the requested letter, please telephone me immediately. Otherwise, thank you in advance for your prompt confirmation of NHTSA's position.

ID: nht78-1.38

DATE: 04/25/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 28, 1978, letter asking whether portions of your van-type school bus have to comply with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. You enclosed pictures showing portions of the bus designated in pink and yellow and question the standard's applicability to them.

The head protection zone requirements do not apply to portions of the school bus that are considered part of the bus sidewall. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers the sidewall to include those surfaces that run parallel to the outboard edge of a forward facing seat. Accordingly, the portions of your bus designated in yellow in the pictures need not comply with the requirements since they are part of the bus sidewall structure. The pink portions of your photographs represent part of the bus structure that is perpendicular to the bus sidewall. The NHTSA does not consider them to be part of the bus sidewall structure. Therefore, since they fall within the head protection zone they must comply with all of the requirements applicable to that zone.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PHOTO A VIEW LOOKING FORWARD TOWARD RIGHT-HAND FRONT SERVICE DOOR.

(Graphics omitted)

PHOTO B VIEW LOOKING FORWARD TOWARD LEFT-HAND FRONT DRIVER'S AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

Wayne Corporation

February 28, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This inquiry concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The enclosed photographs marked and labeled as follows:

Photo A - View looking forward toward right-hand front service door, and Photo B - View looking forward toward left-hand front driver's area, show interior views of the Wayne Busette school bus described in the enclosed Wayne Busette specification sheet. The interior surfaces of the bus colored pink and yellow in Photos A and B fall within the head protection zone defined in FMVSS 222, S5.3.1.1. For purposes of clarity, the front row of passenger seats had been removed before the pictures were taken.

Please advise whether or not the areas colored pink and yellow in Photos A and B are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 222, S5.3.1.2, Head Form Impact Requirements, and S.5.3.1.3, Head Form Force Distribution. In responding to this inquiry, we ask that consideration be given to the first paragraph of S5.3.1.1, "The head protection zones in each vehicle are the spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus sidewall, window, or door structure and which . . . ." Wayne believes that while the pink and yellow colored areas are located in front of a passenger seat, these surfaces should be classified as part of the bus sidewall, window, and door structure and, therefore, are excluded from the requirements of S5.3.1.2 and S5.3.1.3.

Your prompt attention and early reply to this inquiry would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

[Enclosures Omitted]

ID: nht73-1.24

DATE: 12/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 20, 1973, asking whether you may install "lights as set forth in Example 1." In this example identification lamps would be mounted under the rear crossmember of the vehicle while "the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps."

The rear lighting scheme shown in your "Example 1" appears to be seriously at variance with Standard No. 108. There is a clear violation of paragraph S4.4.1 which forbids the optical combination of tail lamps and clearance lamps. Both clearance lamps and identification lamps must be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." The fact that you have developed a clearance lamp that can be mounted in the header area demonstrates that that is the "practicable" location, despite the fact that the header may be too shallow to accommodate the lamps specified by the customer. Further, since the performance required of clearance lamps is identical to that for identification lamps, and three of your clearance type lamps could serve as identification lamps and the header would appear to be the "practicable" location for the identification lamp arrangement as well.

Sincerely,

November 20, 1973

Richard Dyson National Highway Safety Administration, DOT

Ref: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 in the area of rear clearance lamps and identification lamps under the conditions outlined below:

Fruehauf Corporation has been asked to build a large number of van type trailers (over 80 inches in overall width) which incorporate a rear header too shallow to accommodate the identification lamps or clearance lamps specified by the customer.

The customer contends that due to the shallow header, it is not practicable to mount the identification lamps any higher than below the rear crossmember and that the combination tail and turn signal lamps (at the bottom) could serve as the clearance lamps.

EXAMPLE I (Graphics omitted)

Rear Header

Stop & Tail Lamp

Tail & Turn Signal Lamp

Identification Lamp

Fruehauf Corporation has a clearance lamp which could be installed in the shallow header and has proposed that they be installed at the top rear corners, with the identification lamps being installed below the rear crossmember.

EXAMPLE II

Clearance Lamp

Identification Lamp

The customer has refused to accept Fruehauf's proposed installation due to the clearance lamps not being compatible with the existing lamps in his large fleet, thus creating a hardship.

This order will be held in abeyance until we can get a ruling from your department as to whether we may install the lights as set forth in Example I and certify the vehicles as being in accordance with FMVSS No. 108.

Very truly yours,

FRUEHAUF CORPORATION -- R. O. Crider - Manager, Government Safety Standards and Regulation Compliance

cc: E. Chosy

ID: nht75-1.19

DATE: 10/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Toyota's September 5, 1975, request for confirmation that the brake warning indicator labeling requirements in Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, permit the use of "PARK" and "SERVICE BRAKE" but prohibit the use of "PARK" and "BRAKE" as labeling for use on two indicator lamps, one signaling the condition of the parking brake system and the other signaling two or more functions of the service brake system. The relevant requirements of S5.3.5 of the standard state:

. . . . If a single common indicator is used, the lens shall be labeled "Brake." If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of the various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(d), the lens shall include the "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling (use "Brake Pressure," "Brake Fluid" for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b)) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word "Park" may be used.

You are correct that S5.3.5 prohibits the use of one indicator labeled "PARK" with another indicator labeled "BRAKE". "PARK" may be used for a separate indicator of the parking brake condition, but only if the other indicator or indicators of brake system condition use the word "Brake" with appropriate additional labeling.

You asked if the designation "SERVICE BRAKE" would be a permissible label on an indicator separate from the "PARK" indicator. The designation would be permissible so long as it describes two or more of the conditions listed in S5.3.1(a), (b), or (c). You will note that S5.3.5 has specific labeling requirements for an indicator which signals only one condition in the case of 1(a), 1(b), and 1(d). In the case of S5.3.1(c), "SERVICE BRAKE" would not be appropriate labeling for the antilock function.

September 5, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 105-75, S5.3.5

Dear Dr. Gregory:

We wish to request clarification of our interpretation of S5.3.5, "Brake System Indicator Lamps," of FMVSS No. 105-75, "Hydraulic Brake Systems."

In S5.3.5 it reads as follows: ". . . If a single common indicator is used, the lens shall be labeled "Brake." If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of the various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(d), the lens shall include the word "Brake" and appropriate additional labeling (use "Brake Pressure," "Brake Fluid" for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b)) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word "Park" may be used . . . ."

As we interpret it, this requirement does not prohibit the use of a separate indicator lamp for the parking brake labeled "Park" and one for the rest of the brake systems labeled "Service Brake." However, it does prohibit the simultaneous use of two separate indicator lamps labeled "Park" for the parking brake and "Brake" (without any additional labeling) for the other brake system functions, such as those described in S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b).

We would appreciate your informing us of your opinion of our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

KN:mc