ID: nht88-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nuvatec/Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. William B. Huber Senior Vice President Nuvatec/Inc. 3110 Woodcreek Drive Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Dear Mr. Huber:

This response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You stated that you manufacture an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gauges ar e of a bar graph type, and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, the icons are illuminated to the same light intensity as the graphs. You stated that as an added feature, the icons blink when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as for low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. You stated that some of your customers have expressed concern about using your instrument cluster because it may not comply with Standard No. 101, and you requested a formal opinion. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with Part 567, Certification. Persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer are consi dered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers, dis tributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety not from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or it em of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Standard No. 101 (49 CFR Part 571.101) specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The standard's requirements for displays are applicable only to vehicles with a gross vehicle Height rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section @5. For these vehicles, the gauges identified in your letter (fuel, temperature, oil pressure, and electrical charge) are displays regulated by the standard.

The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the identification of gauges may flash. As discussed below, Standard No. 101 does not prohibit such flashing.

Section @5.3.3 states:

@5.3.3(a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions.

(b) The means for providing the required visibility-- (1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in @5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adopted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

(2) May be operable manually or automatically, and

(3) May have levels of brightness at which those items and their identification are not visible.

(c) Effective September 1, 1989, if the level of brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a point where those items or their identification are not visible to the driver, a means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore visibility. (d) For a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1989, the requirements of @5.3.3(b)(1) shall not apply to any gauge during the actuation of a telltale which shares a common light source with the gauge.

Under section @5.3.3(a), means must be provided for making the identification of gauges, i.e., the icons or symbols in your design, visible to the driver under all driving conditions. The on-and-off cycling of the identification occurring during flashing would create momentary periods of time when the identification is not visible.

However, it is our opinion that a flashing identification or other item is considered visible so long as it is visible during the on part of the cycle.

This opinion is limited to the specific issue addressed above and does not constitute an opinion an to whether your electronic instrument cluster complies with Standard No. 101.

As you may know, several amendments were made to Standard No. 101 during 1987. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the current standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 1, 1987

Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Association 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Yesterday I talked with a Mr. E. Glancy about an interpretation of FMVSS 101. Mr. Glancy indicated that it was against department policy to make interpretations over the phone, and we should make a written request with your office for a formal opinion.

Nuvatec manufactures an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gages are of the bar graph type and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, these icons are illuminated to the same brilliance as the graphs (as required by @101). As an added feature, we blink these icons when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. This blinking is similar to the blinking symbol for low fuel in the Lincoln electronic instrument cluster.

Some of our customers have expressed concern about using or instrument cluster because they may not comply with the referenced standard. Therefore, we are requesting a formal opinion. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Should you require any additional material or information, please give me a call.

Sincerely,

William B. Huber Senior Vice President

WBH/slp

ID: nht76-5.43

DATE: 03/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: F. A. McNiel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On February 12, 1976, this agency denied your petition to amend S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to read:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

You have now re-petitioned us on February 16, 1976, to amend S4.5.4 to read:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. This action may be supplemented by other beneficial means which will improve the performance of the stoplamps without impairing the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

This petition is unnecessary, because as you have now worded your suggested amendment it essentially reflects the present requirements of the standard. We do not view S4.5.4 as prohibiting a means of stoplamp activation supplemental to activation by application of the service brakes.

Any supplemental lighting device, however, is subject to the general prohibition of S4.1.3 against installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. For example, a positioning device that activates the stoplamps whenever the accelerator pedal is released would impair the effectiveness of the stoplamps by providing an ambiguous signal, as release of the accelerator does not always signify that the vehicle operator intends to brake.

You also questioned whether NHTSA desires to see improvements in motor vehicle stoplamp systems. Docket No. 74-5 represented a tenative effort to provide better systems on an optional basis, but on the basis of comments to the docket and our research contracts, we are re-evaluating the entire subject. Your denial must also be considered in this context, and at the present time radical changes in rear lighting are simply premature.

The remainder of your letter was also of interest. Dr. Haddon remarked that performance standards afford the private sector optimum flexibility in designing to meet the Federal standards. His comment reflected a statutory mandate which this agency continues to adhere to in its rulemaking actions. However, as I wrote you on February 12, any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent, with the restrictions ideally only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In some areas (e.g. the occupant protection provisions for vehicle interiors in impacts, Standard No. 201) a great deal of design freedom is afforded, while others (e.g. the headlighting requirements of Standard No. 108) may be quite restrictive because safety-related factors such as availability of replacements, uniformity of color and location, and detection of function are more important than design freedom.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

F. A. McNeil 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

FEBRUARY 16, 1976

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

Appeal of Petition Denial - Re: N40-30

Gentlemen:

In reply to your letter of February 12, 1976 wherein you deny my petition for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) as set forth by the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, I offer the following comments.

In relation to S4.5.4, I agree with your statement that a signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. The possibility of an improvement over this 'one shot' stoplamp warning system is what I am endeavoring to get incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, subsection S4.5.4.

As for subsection S4.6 (b) I agree that from the standpoint of traffic safety there is no need for the amendment that I have proposed. My proposal was based primarily on economy. If for any conceivable reason the flashing of the headlamps and the side marker lamps for signaling purposes could enhance traffic safety, cutting a flasher unit directly into the existing lighting circuit would be much less costly than the installation of the additional wiring and switching means that would be required to isolate the headlamps and the side marker lamps from the conventional lighting circuit.

My suggested amendment to S4.5.4 stated - "The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle." - I regret that my choice of wording could be construed to indicate any intent that activation of the stoplamps upon application of the service brakes could be deleted under any circumstances. Such an act would very definitely impair the vehicle's lighting system, and so would therefore be unacceptable under such revised standard. - However, to make my proposal crystal clear, I am rephrasing my petition to amend FMVSS No. 108, subsection S4.5.4 to read as follows --

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. This action may be supplemented by other beneficial means which will improve the performance of the stoplamps without impairing the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

Such an amendment would provide a standard against which any means that would improve the performance of a vehicle's stoplamp warning system could be tested -- such as a means to signal other drivers that the brakes are going to be applied (prior to the time of the actual application of the brakes) in the event that a 'panic' or other sudden stop is going to be made.

The reason cited for denying my petition for amendment of S4.5.4 was - "Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid" - Does this statement mean - as it implies - that the NHTSA has no desire to see any improvement in a motor vehicle's antiquated stop warning system? - I find this to be extremely odd in view of the fact that your department previously informed me that "rear end collisions account for 10 per cent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 per cent of all motor motor vehicle accidents". - As for validity, the reasons for your denial of my petition are certainly not valid in relation to the statements made by Director Haddon December 14, 1967.

Again, I strongly urge that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approve my revised petition for the amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108, subsection S4.5.4 as set forth above.

Respectfully,

Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate

copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle

ID: nht75-1.31

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of December 12, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" appearing in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

You have described a process of heat shrinking plastic vacuum booster hose over short corrugated metal connecting tubes, the ends of which are flared to retain threaded hex fittings. You have submitted sample hose assemblies and requested confirmation of your interpretation that the end fittings are permanently attached. While these fittings may meet the common understanding of the words "permanently attached," Standard No. 106-74 defines "Permanently attached end fitting" as:

an end fitting that is attached by deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging, or an end fitting that is attached by use of a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replacement each time a hose assembly is rebuilt.

Deformation of the hose about the fitting by heat shrinking is not "deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging." The latter part of the definition is inapplicable because the assemblies are not subject to being rebuilt. Therefore, to classify these end fittings as permanently attached would require an amendment of the standard. Such an amendment is being considered.

Your January 7, 1975, petition for reconsideration, requesting exclusion of the above described vacuum hose from the coverage of Standard No. 106-74, was received more than 30 days after the most recent amendment of the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking. The Standard defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The conduit between the vacuum booster and vacuum pump in your brake booster circuit clearly falls within this definition, and hence is subject to the Standard's requirements. The NHTSA has concluded that, because of its flexibility, this hose is exposed to the same hazards as the more traditional types of vacuum brake hose and so should be subject to the same performance requirements. Accordingly, your petition to amend the definition is denied. The conduit between the vacuum pump and the intake manifold, however, falls outside the definition of "brake hose" because, as described by Mr. Craig Jones in a conversation with Mr. Howard Dugoff of this agency on March 17, 1975, the booster system produces full vacuum even when this conduit fails. Therefore, this conduit need not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

December 12, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Brake Hoses

Gentlemen:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106; Brake Hoses, defines under Section S4 a "permanently attached end fitting" as being a fitting that is attached by deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging or an end fitting that is attached by use of a sacrificial sleeve or ferrule that requires replacement each time a hose assembly is rebuilt.

Vacuum booster circuit conduit can be constructed with materials and techniques so as to satisfy, what we believe to be, the intent of this definition. Specifically, thermoset plastic materials can be heat shrunk over corrugated connections at end fittings and mid-circuit devices such as check valves. Additionally, threaded hex fittings can be secured to metal end pipes by means of flaring. These construction techniques not only provide satisfactory performance but result in an assembly that cannot be disassembled without the disstruction of one or all of the various components. Examples of these construction techniques have been forwarded to the Docket Room.

These assemblies as used on Mercedes-Benz vehicles are completely and finally assembled by our suppliers. Installation of these assemblies into our vehicles entails only the threading of the fittings into the various parts of the vacuum cricuit. There is no final construction of these hose assemblies in our manufacturing facilities. Additionally, these assemblies are offered for spare parts usage only as complete assemblies.

We hereby request clarification as to whether or not this type of vacuum conduit assembly construction satisfies the intent of the definition of permanently attached end fittings as used in this Standard and thereby permit banded identification of the complete assembly rather than a separate identification of each component.

Should you require additional information or material to clarify this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Very truly yours,

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 7, 1975

Office of The Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Petition for Reconsideration FMVSS 106, Brake Hose

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Driver in Washington on July 26, 1974 and with Mr. Dugoff on November 4, 1974 during his visit to Germany, we would like to restate our position that the flexible vacuum conduit used in Mercedes-Benz passenger vehicles in the brake boost circuit does not fall within the definition of brake hose as outlined in Standard 106.

While this particular conduit may not satisfy the hose flexibility requirements of paragraphs S9.2.2, S9.2.3, S9.2.7 and S9.2.10, it does offer the important advantages of being resistant to high temperature and ageing.

Additionally, the installation in Mercedes-Benz vehicles is such that it is subject to very little vibration between the intake manifold and booster. The material was specifically chosen because its limited flexibility permits safer, simpler installation requiring fewer mounting brackets. The complete assembly, when installed, is still sufficiently rigid so as to prevent any abrasion, and in appearance is similar to tubing so that a mechanic will not be tempted to push it aside to gain more workspace.

A sample of this assembly has been forwarded to the Docket Section for review. Should you request additional material or information for this Petition for Reconsideration, please do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Very truly yours,

Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering

ID: nht92-4.31

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Richard Allison -- Program Manager, The Bott Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard Allison (A39; Std. 216)

TEXT:

The Bott Group, Inc. (a Design, Sales & Engineering firm for manufacturers of roof racks (luggage racks), decklid racks and accessories), on behalf of all O.E.M. clients who use our products, requests the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", while considering the conditions as described herein.

To be specific, The Bott Group requests an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks).

This accessory neither contributes to nor detracts from the actual strength of the roof panel and would collapse easily upon application of the forces as specified in paragraph S6.3 of the standard. The roof rack examples we present for consideration, in the attached documentation, can be easily removed for compliance testing.

Roof racks are positioned on the roof panel surface to lend aesthetic enhancement to vehicle contours. This could influence the positioning of the test device (per S6.2), as well as render impossible compliance with the maximum allowed travel of the test device (per S4), and thus, not achieve the true objective of the standard.

The Bott Group roof rack designs fall into two unique categories:

1) Four Seasons Style Has adjustable/removable crossbar assemblies with end supports that move fore and aft above the vehicle roof in fixed, outer channels. Refer to Figure 1 on attachment "A".

2) Elevated Siderail Style (with fixed position end supports) Has adjustable crossbar assemblies that move fore and aft above the roof surface by sliding in an elevated, channeled siderail assembly, however, the end supports are in fixed positions on the vehicle roof. Refer to Figure 2 on attachment "B".

Please consider, for instance, the roof rack example in Figure 2 on attachment "B". The fixed position, front end support of the siderail assembly is mounted in the area of the "B" pillar on the roof surface.

Under normal conditions this style of roof rack assembly is not removable during use, but it can be easily removed for testing.

The adjustable crossbar assembly on the roof rack example shown in Figure 1 on attachment "A" (normal forward positioning is also in the "B" pillar area) can:

1) be adjusted to its rearward most position out of the contact area of the test device or,

2) be removed completely or,

3) the entire roof rack assembly can be easily removed for testing.

The Bott Group believes that there are three different test conditions which should be considered. We have illustrated the differences in the positioning of the test device (refer to Figure 3 on attachment "C").

Condition 1- Test conducted without a roof rack installed or the roof rack has been removed and the test device has been positioned as outlined in S6.2. The first point of contact has been established and is indicated (marked "A").

NOTE: Test condition 2 & 3 assumes that the "elevated siderail style" roof rack with the fixed position end supports is used.

Condition 2- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned the same as in test condition-1. Using the first point of contact established in condition-1 (marked "A"), as reference, the test proceeded. The actual first point of contact during this condition was to the fixed end support of the roof rack (marked "B") and this was a considerable distance rearward from the original contact point "A" established in condition-1.

The dimension between point "A" and point "B" varies according to the fore/aft positioning of the fixed end support of the roof rack on the roof surface.

When the first point of contact, "B", occurred, the second item we identified was a gap between the bottom of the test device and the roof surface at point "A". This may not comply with S6.2(c).

Condition 3- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned as outlined in S6.2 to the contact point (marked "B") established in test condition-2. This condition seemed to create three situations.

a) The complete test device is relocated some distance rearward of the original positioning in test condition-1 and its established contact point (marked "A"). This may not provide test requirements per S4, S6.2 & S6.4 of the standard.

b) The positioning of the test device left a gap between the bottom surface of the test device and the surface of the roof at point "A". The test device, not being tangent to the surface of the vehicle roof, when first point of contact occurs, may not comply with S6.2(c) of the standard.

c) With the test device not making contact (not tangent) with the roof surface at point "A" when the required pressure is applied to the test device, as specified in S6.3, a considerable amount of test device travel is required before contact (tangency) with the roof surface point "A" is made. This may cause non-compliance with S4, as measured in accordance with S6.4, of the standard.

The Bott Group requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2 or 3, is correct and thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216.

If test condition 2 or 3 is deemed correct, can the additional amount of test device travel, required between first point of contact and the actual contact (point "A") on the roof surface, be added to the "allowed distance" of test device travel when determining compliance with paragraph S4 of the standard?

The Bott Group is concerned for the timeliness of this matter because of the design timelines we work under (several model years in advance) and we would like to thank the Agency, in advance, for its kind, prompt, attention and consideration of this matter.

(Figures omitted)

ID: GPScrashsensor

Mr. Ralph Longton
Application Engineer
LoJack Corp.
15 Commercial Circle
Dedham, MA 02026





Dear Mr. Longton:

This responds to your letter of June 1, 2001. In that letter, you inquire about a system that LoJack is currently developing. This system will be located in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. In the event the vehicle is in a crash, the system will rate the crash as minor or major, alert a G.P.S. locator, and contact a clearinghouse. The clearinghouse will attempt to contact the driver or send assistance. You would like to know whether there are any regulatory obligations you may need to meet in the deployment and operation of such a device.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot speak to all of your regulatory obligations, but only to Federal requirements in the area of automotive safety. We do not have any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for this type of device. However, the FMVSS could be relevant to your device if the device affects a vehicle's compliance with any of the standards. We do not have sufficient information about your system to comment on whether it would likely affect a vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS.

I have enclosed a copy of a paper titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

I hope this answers your question. Should you have any more questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:571
d.7/20/01

ID: nht89-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION -- WASHINGTON OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DO T TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kastner:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) actions to extend certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) to light trucks and vans. The Secretary has asked me to r eply.

Your letter was especially concerned with NHTSA's November 1987 amendment to FMVSS 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, and our denial of NTEA's petition for reconsideration of that rule. I regret that I am unable to respond to your comments at this time. As you know, the Department and NTEA are presently involved in litigation concerning those actions. In view of the litigation, we feel it would be inappropriate to address your comments in this letter.

We appreciate your interest in informing the Department of your views. I can assure you that Secretary Skinner is actively interested in each of the letters he receives regarding NHTSA's mission to improve motor vehicle safety. Let me assure you also t hat the potential impacts on small businesses is one of our concerns in each of our rulemaking actions.

A copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed in NHTSA's docket section.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-1.22

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1974, request for a determination of whether two of your motorcycle treadwear indicator designs conform to the S6.4 requirements of Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The treadwear indicator requirements have been amended by deleting all of that portion of S6.4 that begins "The indicators shall, as a minimum". This means that the manufacturer determines for himself the location and design of the six treadwear indicators required (three in the case of motorcycle tires). He must assure himself that when the indicator is reached, the tread at that point on the tire is worn to a depth of one-sixteenth of an inch (or one-thirty-second of an inch in the case of motorcycle tires).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation, att: Asst Chief Counsel Richard Dyson -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Dear Mr Dyson.

Trelleborg Gummifabriks AB has exported motorcycle tires to U.S.A. for a couple of years. With referens to FMVSS-119, S 6.4 Tread Wear Indicators. We have a little question:

If you look on the two enclosed drawings, G-3053-2, you find two different designs for treadwears: "Forslag I" and "Forslag II".

Please, inform me if you think the one or both of the two designs are in accordance with your stipulations.

Yours sincerely TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG -- Tire Department; Erik Sundelin

ID: nht68-3.45

DATE: 07/29/68

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

TO: Lotus Cars Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letters dated November 18 and July 3 which ask if Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 requires your company's "Elan Convertible" to have sun visors.

The National Highway Safety Bureau recognizes that the requirement for every passenger car to have two sun visors of energy-absorbing material with mountings that have no rigid material edge radius of less than 0.125 if statically contactable by a 6.5 inch diameter head form, may create a problem for manufacturers of certain types of vehicles. However, the requirement will, on balance, contribute to the safety of the general public.

Compliance with the requirement can and should be made in a manner so as to increase occupant protection.

LOTUS

JULY 3, 1968.

Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator US Department of Transportation,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 201: Sunvisors

We despatched a petition to you on 28th November 1967, requesting that we be permitted to substitute increased header padding for the sunvisors stipulated in F.M.V.S.S. 201 on our model: ELAN CONVERTIBLE.

On 19th January we sent further information to back up our earlier submission. We felt, for reasons given in our letter of 28th November 1967, that the spirit of F.M.V.S.S. 201 would be met, on this particular model, better, by increased padding, than by the addition of sunvisors.

We would be extremely grateful for some indication of your view of our petition.

B.A. Luff General Manager

ID: 1983-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Co. Inc. -- John E. Bennett, Director, Research & Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering Truck-Lite Co., Inc. 310 East Elmwood Avenue Falconer, New York 14733

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This in response to your letter of April 12, 1983, asking for interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This paragraph states in pertinent part that "means may be provided to flask...side marker lamps for signalling purposes." You have first asked whether the rear side marker can be made to flash. You have also asked whether this language may be interpreted as allowing both front and rear side marker lamps to be flashed. The answer to both questions is yes. In the absence of restrictive language, paragraph S4.6 may be interpreted as allowing flashing of either front or rear side marker lamps, or both sets of lamps.

You have also asked whether, where the rear side marker and taillamp used the same optical source ("minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb"), it is acceptable to have an overriding signal lamp is actuated. The answer is yes. The standard's prohibition against optical combinations (paragraph S4.1.1) does not preclude this design.

We hope that this answers you questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 12, 1983

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel (Room 5219)

Subject: Request for interpretation of an element of FMVSS-108

Dear Sir:

In our endeavor to continue the advancements of vehicle lighting devices, which is a continuing assignment within our company, and offer specialized products to our customers with inherent benefits to the consumers, we have under consideration a new product which requires an interpretation of Section S4.6 Item (b), FMVSS-108, before we finalize our programs.

This section (S4.6) of FMVSS-108 requires.. "when activated:

a. Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash; and b. All other lamps shall be steady burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes."

Our questions are in reference to the rear side marker lamp and item (b) above. They are stated as follows:

a. Can the rear side marker be made to flash? Is Section S4.6, Item (b) to be interpreted as both front and rear side marker lamps may be flashed for signalling purposes? We know of only one current production (Jeep CJ) vehicle which the rear side marker lamp might be so viewed.

b. In a design where the rear side marker function and the rear tail lamp use the same optical source (minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb), is it acceptable to have an overriding-flashing signal visible through the rear side marker lens when the signal lamp is actuated?

We are attempting to market a new product within the near future and do not wish to proceed until the above is cleared. Therefore we would appreciate your response to your questions as soon as possible.

Kindly accept our thanks for your prompt attention to this request. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of additional assistance.

Sincerely,

TRUCK-LITE CO., INC.

John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering JEB:h cc: R. Kotsi

ID: nht74-4.5

DATE: 06/20/74

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

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1974, request to know whether check valves or equivalent devices must be placed immediately adjacent to or within each service reservoir in a trailer air brake system to comply with S4.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, and whether the standard intends each axle subsystem to have a separate service reservoir and check valve system, with particular regard to arrangements for liftable axle systems. S5.2.1.5 states:

S5.2.1.5 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

The answer to both of these questions is no. In an April 3, 1974, letter to Great Dane Trailers, Inc., we interpreted S5.2.1.5 to permit location of the check valve at the isolated reservoir, permitting that valve to also guard the service reservoirs on that axle system. The language of S5.2.1.5 is unclear in this regard, and may be amended in the future. In response to your specific question, it is permissible to use a single check valve to protect more than one reservoir in a subsystem.

Standard No. 121 does not require a separate service reservoir check valve for each axle system in a tandem axle. As you point out this could decrease total vehicle reliability, and abuse in this area could lead to amendment of the provision. In answer to your fourth question, a single check value could be utilized to protect the air reservoir or reservoirs required for a liftable axle system or subsystem.

Yours truly,

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

May 7, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Re: Docket 74-10; Notice 1 49 CFR 571.121

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation

As a supplier to the motor vehicle industry of air brake equipment designed to meet the requirements of FMVSS-121, we find ourselves faced with a constant responsibility to provide this equipment in the most economical form. Competitive influences and customer confidences demand this response from the equipment suppliers. The possible combination of several components essential to the FMVSS-121 trailer air brake system and related economies hinges on the degree of latitude allowed in the meaning intended for Section 5.2.1.5. We realize, however, that economy should not prevail if, in fact, there is any significant reduction in overall safety or system protection.

In designing and constructing air brake systems to meet the requirements of FMVSS-121, we have considered several approaches to the means of complying with Section S5.2.1.5, particularly with regard to the definition of the system connecting the trailer service reservoir with its source of air pressure. For convenience in reference, we reprint S5.2.1.5 below with the word "system", which is specifically in question, underlined.

S5.2.1.5 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check values or equivalent devices.

It has been difficult for us to assess how much of the trailer air brake system is considered by NHTSA to be included in the wording . . . between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure . . .", particularly when the ultimate source of air pressure to charge said reservoir is located on another vehicle, the self-propelled towing vehicle, in the form of its air compressor.

In the case of a vehicle application where it is advantageous to use several reservoirs in a separate but connected subsystem, the possibility is presented of using a single check valve conveniently placed to protect the subsystem.

Question #1: Is it permissible to use a single check valve to protect a plurality of reservoirs in a subsystem?

One interpretation is that all of the air lines existing between the point of coupling to the towing vehicle (the supply air line coupler) and the service air reservoir are subject to failure or leakage, and that the protecting check valve or equivalent device is to be placed immediately adjacent to or within the reservoir.

This location of the check value or equivalent device would give the required protection for all failures or leakages occurring between the air reservoir and any source of air pressure notwithstanding a failure in the check value itself.

We have interpreted the "source of air pressure" for a service reservoir to be the last connection to that reservoir. This precludes the use of tubing or hose between some remotely-located device and the reservoir port.

Question #2: Must the check valve or equivalent device be either (1) immediately adjacent to [coupled at the reservoir port] or (2) within the service reservoir?

Any alternative location allowed for the protective device gives rise to either a need for redefinition of the intent of S5.2.1.5 or an interpretation of the meaning of the one word "system" as used in this particular section, hence our request for clarification.

We have read several preamble statements in 121-related Dockets (73-13, Notice 1; 73-13, Notice 3; 74-10, Notice 1) which emphasize the Administration's opinion that axle-by-axle systems, i.e. separate systems for each axle of a truck, enhance the total vehicle reliability. Does this same safety philosophy apply to trailers and to the service reservoirs on trailer axles? To paraphrase this, we submit

Question #3: Is it intended for each axle subsystem to have separate service reservoir and check valve provisions?

If the answer to Question #3 is negative, there is a further possibility that a separate definition is required to differentiate between (1) protection for a single-axle trailer and (2) protection for tandem or multiple-axle trailers.

To extend this idea further for installations on multiple-axle trailers where one or more "liftable" axles are employed, an additional question arises.

Question #4: May a single check valve be utilized to protect the air reservoir or reservoirs required for the "liftable" axle system or subsystem?

We have asked for interpretations rather than for rule changes so that these matters will not give cause for delaying the effective date for FMVSS-121 Air Brake Systems.

John W. Kourik

Chief Engineer, Automotive Products