ID: nht78-2.45

DATE: 01/06/78

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

TO: Arent, Fox, Kenter, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 1, 1977, request for agreement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the installation as original or aftermarket equipment of an electric retarder on the driveline of an air-braked vehicle would not affect its compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As your letter indicates, you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a vehicle configuration in advance of manufacture of the vehicle, because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply. In this case, for example, the retarder's weight or the manner in which it is mounted would affect the actual compliance of the vehicle in which it is installed.

Jacobs' September 20, 1977, analysis evaluated the likelihood that certain retarders to be imported or manufactured by Jacobs would affect compliance. With regard to these retarders, it appears that their installation as original equipment or in the aftermarket in the fashion described would not affect compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 121. This finding is of necessity limited to the retarders evaluated in the September 20, 1977, analysis.

ID: nht78-2.46

DATE: 01/26/78

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 12, 1977, request for confirmation that an air-braked electric trackless trolley may be tested for compliance with S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with its transmission selector control in the "DRIVE" position if the drive wheels and motor are permanantly mechanically connected and the motor automatically provides retardation when the service brake control is depressed. Your other requests for interpretation have been answered by separate letters.

Section S6.1.3 of Standard No. 121 specifies:

S6.1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the transmission selector control is in neutral or the clutch is disengaged during all decelerations and during static parking brake tests.

This test condition does not permit testing for compliance with the transmission selector control in the "DRIVE" position. The performance levels of the standard were established at levels intended for the foundation brakes alone, exclusive of engine braking, and it is for this reason that the selector must be in neutral or the clutch disengaged. This is true both for vehicles with manual and automatic transmissions.

It does appear that a case may be made for testing the bus you describe with the selector in "DRIVE". One important factor would be whether the field in the motor generator is permanent or electrically induced. In the event you wish to petition for an amendment of S6.3.1, information of this nature should accompany your petition.

In response to your other question, the agency's July 10, 1974, letter to Flyer Industries remains valid.

ID: nht78-2.8

DATE: 06/19/78

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

TO: Highway Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 1, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking whether marker lamps on your new "bevel designed front Van Trailer" comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, instead of providing two amber clearance lamps, on the trailer front and two amber side marker lamps at the trailer's leading edge, you would install a combination clearance-side marker lamp at 45 degrees on the beveled leading edge of the trailer.

Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108 permits a side marker lamp to be combined with a clearance lamp "if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ." This means that the combination lamp in position on the vehicle must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972. This standard addresses specific photometric requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps and I enclose a copy for your information.

SINCERELY,

March 1, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Taylor Binson Chief Consul

Dear Sir:

We would like to have a ruling on location of marker lights on our new bevel designed front Van Trailer. At present we use four (4) amber lights; two (2) on front and two (2) on side at front. Would it be permissible to use two (2) amber lights on the 45 degree front bevel corner and eliminate two (2) lights?

Enclosed is a sketch showing front of trailer marked per above.

HIGHWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY A Division of MOTAC, INC.

LaVerne L. Kruckenberg -- Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-1.4

DATE: 01/16/79

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

TO: R. D. Phillips

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard D. Phillips Attorney At Law P.O. Box 66 Ludowici, Georgia 31316

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your December 15, 1978, questions about the status of school buses subject to recall for antilock malfunction now that the "no lockup" requirement of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been invalidated in the cases of trucks and trailers. You also ask whether the antilock systems in question must be reconnected, whether the vehicles would thereby be made more or less safe, and what the effect of continued disconnection might be on liability considerations.

I have enclosed the agency's official interpretation of the effect of the invalidation on the operational status of vehicles equipped with antilock. In the case of vehicles subject to recall, we stated that section 154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414) mandates an "adequate repair," and that, in the NHTSA's view, the benefits of "no lockup" performance mandate the offer of repair and reconnection.

The letter also states that disconnection, consistent with regulations of other authorities and the instructions of the manufacturer, would not violate the Vehicle Safety Act. While the NHTSA finds that the repair would provide desirable "no lockup" performance, we are unable to counsel you on the Long County Board of Education's liability if the system were not reconnected.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht91-7.22

DATE: November 27, 1991

FROM: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re L03/04

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masashi Maekawa (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Enclosed please find our written inquiring concerning the interpretation of photometric output requirements for Tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

ATTACHMENT

Dear Mr. P.J. Rice,

This letter is a question for the interpretation of photometer output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

We would like to know your opinion toward regarding photometer requirements.

We know the lamp like the following drawing is treated as two separate lamps: one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid.

Each lamp complies with the effective projected luminous areas requirements, but doesn't comply with the photometric requirement as shown below:

Effective projected Photometric requirement luminous requirement

Lamp A Comply does not comply Lamp B Comply does not comply

In this case, is it possible to apply the combination of lamps (Lamps A & B), as prescribed in S 5.1.1.6 of FMVSS No.108 to the photometric requirement of the stop lamp?

If yes, 1. Is it also possible to apply this provision to Tail lamp? 2. Which photometric requirements, 1 lighted section or 2 lighted sections, will apply?

Drawing of Tail/Stop Lamps A and B in relation to the quarter panel side and trunk lid side.

(Drawing omitted)

ID: nht89-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989

FROM: J. DOUGLAS SMITH -- ENGINEERING MGR., DURALITE TRUCK BODY AND CONTAINER CORP. TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO J. DOUGLAS SMITH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108)

TEXT:

As an O.E.M. manufacturer of truck bodies, Duralite is responsible for final certification on literally thousands of new straight trucks. Recently however there has been some question regarding the interpre- tation of FMVSS 108 (lamps, reflective devices , and associated equipment). It is our understanding as well as industry standard that if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body. During the last week, a customer of ours received a warning for not having clearance lights in the proper location. Corporal Talbot of the Maryland State Police said that it was their interpretation that the cab mounted lights were sufficie nt and that a new officer had interpreted the meaning differently.

A change in the interpretation of this standard would effect many thousands of vehicles already on the road. Of all the major truck body manufacturers there is only one of which I am aware that has body mounted clearance lamps visible to the front. To revise the standard at this point would cost fleets a great deal of time and money.

As it is our responsibility to build and certify new units, your immediate attention and response to this situation would be greatly appreciated. If you have any question please feel free to contact me at (301) 727-6962.

ID: nht92-8.27

DATE: March 13, 1992

FROM: Wally Herger -- Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Nancy Bruce -- Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Bill Gaines to Wally Herger; Also attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Wally Herger (A39; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Bill Gaines of Transfer Flow, Inc., who has requested my assistance regarding difficulties with the Department of Transportation. Transfer Flow, Inc. is a manufacturer of fuel tanks and fuel systems. The company's problem stems from the rigid requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75.

It is my understanding that current technology has made it possible to meet required safety standards by utilizing less expensive testing procedures than the FMVSS 301 test, and that less stringent testing is permitted for vehicles over 10,000 GVW and vehicles under 10,000 GVW that have been sold to the end user. If that is indeed the case, then I would very much appreciate your thorough review of the problem faced by Transfer Flow, Inc. Further, I would like to know if it is possible to administratively update these requirements.

I have enclosed a copy of Mr. Gaines letter and related documentation for your information and review. If you require further information, please contact my office or Mr. Gaines directly. I have assigned this case to my staff assistant, Dave Meurer. He can be reached at (916) 893-8363 or at the address checked above.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht94-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1994

FROM: Robert L. Hart -- Manager - Legal & Engineering Services, Gerry Baby Products Company

TO: Dee Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip Recht to Robert L. Hart (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

Several weeks ago I discussed our new child restraint with you. It is our model #632 with a preliminary name of Gerry Belt Right II Booster/Toddler Car Seat. A copy of the proof from our 1995 catalog describing this product is enclosed.

Model #632 has a removable 5 point restraint system. When the restraint is removed, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213.

Gerry is developing the final name for the product from these nine choices and we want to make sure we are not in violation of the standard if we use any of these names.

Belt Right 20 to 60 Lb. Car Seat

Belt Right Booster Car Seat

Belt Right Convertible Car Seat

Belt Right Convertible/Booster

Belt Right Convertible Toddler Seat

Belt Right Toddler Car Seat

Belt Right Baby to Toddler Car Seat

Belt Right Baby to Booster Car Seat

Belt Right Beyond Baby Car Seat

Please review these names at your earliest convenience and let me know if there are any problems. Thank you very much for your help.

Enclosure (Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht93-2.28

DATE: March 25, 1993

FROM: Jose M. Gonzalez -- Engineering Manager, Kustom Fit

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Ed Jetner -- NHTSA 208 Engineer; Ron Belk -- KF President; Bob Barras -- KF of Ohio

TITLE: Re: Baseline Sled Testing Evaluation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Jose M. Gonzalez (A41; Std. 208; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT: We are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation industry. We have been in business since 1956. We do follow and test our products for your established standards. Since early 1991, we began testing our products dynamically using HIGE Sled Testing laboratories. We have been successfully obtaining good results that are under 20% or more than the maximum requirement criteria with one exception, the General Motors G Van. We have done 4 tests using Hybrid III dummies and we have improved the results with every test. However, we can't achieve the same levels of confidence that we have achieved with other vehicles. We would like to hear your opinion for the following approach:

We would perform two tests: The first being a baseline HIGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and the second one with OEM hardware and our seats. The results would then be compared as follows:

If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208?

Your response to this request will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht78-1.22

DATE: 09/22/78

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

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter noting two standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that you consider to be in conflict. You suggest that Part 569, Regrooved Tires, conflicts with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in their requirements for the size of the molding of the word "regroovable".

Standard No. 119 specifies all of the labeling of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. The size of that required labeling is set at not less than .078 inches. This size provision applies generally to all of the various information required to be labeled on a tire. The information labeled on the tire includes the tire identification number and word "regroovable" if appropriate. Both of these requirements, however, are subjects of their own regulations. The tire identification number is specifically regulated by Part 574 and regroovable tires are regulated by Part 569. Each of these Parts further specifies the size designation of the information that it requires. For example, Part 569 specifically requires the word "regroovable" to be in letters .38 to .50 inches in height.

The two standards do not conflict. The size requirement in Part 569 falls within the acceptable size levels of Standard No. 119. Part 569 merely further restricts the size of the word "regroovable" beyond that specified in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, the two are consistent. To understand both requirements, apply the general size requirements of Standard No. 119 to all information that is not otherwise regulated elsewhere. For information specifically regulated elsewhere, apply the size criteria specified in the applicable regulation.