ID: nht71-4.25

DATE: 10/19/71

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 FOR VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SNOW PLOWS

I appreciate your letter of September 8 and the concern you express about the effectiveness of the Federal motor vehicle safety program.

You have asked for a clarification of the opinion in my letter of August 16 that compliance of a vehicle with the Federal lighting standard, No. 108, would be based upon its "as-sold condition", where the vehicle is equipped with a hoist or mounting bracket and the snow plow, etc., is not sold with the vehicle. This opinion means that compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without the plow attached even though, to use your hypothetical situation, the purchaser may be invited by the dealer to come back tomorrow and pick up your snow plow so we won't have to put the lights on.

The legal responsibility of a dealer under section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is limited to ensuring that the vehicle complies at the time of sale. Section 108(b)(1) of the Act terminates compliance responsibility "after the first purchase of [the vehicle] in good faith for purposes other than resale." For this legal reason there is no violation of the Act if, after sale of the vehicle, the purchaser adds equipment (as in the mounting of a snow plow) or removes equipment (e.g., seat belts, head restraints) affecting compliance with Federal standards. A

vehicle equipped with a snow plow, however, would still be subject to State and local motor vehicle safety regulations, "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht71-5.16

DATE: 12/08/71

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

TO: Holophane Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1971, to David H. Soule of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for school bus lighting.

You are concerned with paragraph S4.3.4(b)(ii) which roads:

"The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

You have commented that "the use of the automatic system would make it mandatory that the red lights go on when the door is open and stop traffic where unnecessary -- such as railroad crossings." That is not correct. You will see from S4.1.4(b)(ii) that the red lamps are not automatically activated when the bus entrance door opens unless there has been prior manual or foot activation of the amber signal lamps.

You are also concerned with the fact "that this automatic system is patented and only one manufacturer has the right to make it." Since you have not enclosed the copy of the patent enclosed in attorney Smith's letter to you dated June 4, 1970, I am unable to comment on your statement. I would like to point out that Standard No. 108 does

not mandate the use of an amber-red lamp system; a system of red lamps only is also permissible. If the amber-red lamp system is used, paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) does not specify system design but only that the system be wired so that the driver can activate the amber lamp system at his option, and if he does activate it, that it automatically be deactivated and the red system automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.

ID: nht71-5.31

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 16 and 30, 1971, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 to heavy duty trucks. You reported that you are unlikely to be able to bring the side door locks and latches on your truck into conformity with the standard until mid-1972.

In your first letter, you asked whether the standard will apply to all trucks or only those having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. The standard will apply, beginning January 1, 1972, to all trucks without regard to their GVWR.

In your second letter, you requested for your trucks a temporary exemption of 180 days from the standard. We regret that we are unable to consider your request, since our authority under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) to grant such exemptions expired in April of this year.

Beginning January 1, 1972, the manufacture of any truck not in compliance with Standard 206 will be prohibited. Section 108(a) of the Act provides that

"No person shall manufacture for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable . . . standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397)

This prohibition is enforceable by civil penalties under section 109 (15 U.S.C. 1398) and injunction under section 110 (15 U.S.C. 1399). In addition, in the event that a noncompliance were determined to be a safety-related defect, notification of the defect would have to be furnished under section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402).

Let us know if we may be of further assistance.

ID: nht72-4.10

DATE: 11/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Renault, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1972, concerning the seat adjustment procedures of S8.1.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

As described in your letter, some models manufactured by Renault have front seats that can be adjusted to an extreme forward position to allow the reclining seat back to be fully lowered. You imply that this position cannot be used for driving the vehicle, and ask whether the "forwardmost" position referred to in S8.1.2 could be interpreted to be the forwardmost driving position.

The purpose of S8.1.2 is to specify an adjustment position that is appropriate for the 50th percentile adult male occupant used in the standard's barrier tests. If the adjustment range is determined by using the extreme forward position you describe, the midway point would no longer be appropriate for the 50th percentile adult male size. It is therefore consistent with the purpose of S8.1.2 to exclude the extreme, non-driving positions in determining the midway adjustment position.

However, despite the references in some parts of the standard to an occupant of the 5th percentile adult female size, the adjustment range specified in S8.1.2 does not refer to this or any other size of occupant and we are of the opinion that no occupant size specification can be read into the section.

We would consider a position to be outside the range used to determine the midway point of S8.1.2 if it cannot reasonably be used for driving and if it is separated from other positions by a distance greater than the normal distance between positions. It would appear that the position described in your letter meets these criteria and that it should therefore be excluded in determining the midway position under S8.1.2.

ID: nht73-3.27

DATE: 02/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of October 23, 1972 and January 25, 1973, concerning the intent of the antilock performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. I apologize for our delay.

Your question arises from an amendment to S5.3.1 of the standard. As originally adopted in February 1971, the section required that the vehicle be capable of stopping without wheel lockup except for "momentary" lockup allowed by an antilock system. As amended in February 1972, the word "controlled" is used in place of "momentary", so that the section now provides that stops are made

without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 m.p.h. except for controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system . . . .

In making this change, the agency had in mind the type of antilock system that was designed to permit one wheel on an axle to lock under some circumstances while the other wheels continued to turn. It was thought that adequate control could be attained by such systems, and the standard was amended accordingly.

The question you raise is whether a system could be designed in which all wheels could be permitted to lock for substantial periods, so long as they are "controlled" by an antilock system. As you correctly indicate, the term "controlled", unlike "momentary", is not a time-related word. Our answer, therefore, is that such an antilock system would be permitted under the standard as it now stands.

It is our present opinion, however, that such a system would probably not provide an acceptable level of performance. If it appears that such a system would be installed, it is likely that we would undertake rulemaking action to prohibit it.

ID: nht73-3.49

DATE: 04/04/73

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

TO: Wagner Electric Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1973, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a.

Answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The reservoir configuration in your Sketch No. 1 would meet the requirements of S5.4.1 for compartmentalized reservoire. We have provided a similar interpretation to General Motors Corporation on this point, which is enclosed for your reference.

2. Since the configuration of your Sketch No. 1 conforms to S5.4.1, a single fluid level sensing device is acceptable.

3. The configuration shown in your Sketch No. 2 would not comply with volumetric requirements of S5.4.2 since your "reserve" fluid volume plus "protected" fluid compartments "A" and "B" volumes would not be equal to the total volume required by S5.4.2. S5.4.2 requires a volume for each reservoir equal to the fluid displacement resulting when all-wheel cylinders or calipor pistons serviced by the reservoir move from a new lining, fully retracted position (etc) to a fully worn, fully applied position. Thus, if this final condition existed on both subsystems, one subsystem would not have the specified fluid available.

4. The configuration depicted in your Sketch No. 3 would meet the requirements of S3.4.1 and S5.4.2 as well as S5.3.1(b) assuming the indicator lamp would be activated at or above the 25 percent level of fluid volume.

5. The configuration shown in your Sketch No. 4 would meet the requirements of S5.4.1 and S5.4.2 as well as the requirements of S5.3.1(b) with the same assumption that the lamp would be activated at or above the 25 percent fluid volume level.

ENC.

ID: nht73-3.50

DATE: 04/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Young Windows, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1973, requesting clarification of the certification and labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", for persons who cut sections of glazing materials. You state your understanding is that such persons should add to the cut piece the DOT symbol and the manufacturer's code mark used on the larger piece from which the smaller piece was cut. Your understanding of these requirements is not correct. The labeling requirements of Standard No. 205 were most recently amended on November 11, 1972 (37 FR 24035, copy enclosed). These amendments become effective April 1, 1973. They require a person who cuts glazing material to mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. This does not include the DOT symbol and the mark of the manufacturer of the larger sheet, and these items should not be included by persons who only cut the material. That person must also certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1403). One method by which this can be done is to affix a removable label to the glazing material which states that it conforms to the Federal safety standard.

You ask how the "AS12" and "AS13" marking should be affixed. The "AS" designation is part of the labeling required by section 6 of ANS Z26, and it should be applied in the manner that the other labeling items of that section are applied. We understand etching is the method ordinarily used, and it is appropriate.

ENC.

ID: nht73-4.46

DATE: 08/07/73

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

TO: Kesler Precision Optics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1973, enclosing an accessory passenger car mirror that you feel is a detriment to motor vehicle safety.

Since the unit incorporates two convex mirrors it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors for original equipment on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. However, the Standard does not cover aftermarket items such as the unit you sent, and its sale is therefore not prohibited under Federal regulations.

Yours truly,

July 12, 1973

National Highway Traffic safety Administration Chief of Counsel

Attention: Mr. D. Vinson

As per our telephone conversation yesterday I am writting to confirm this report on the Blue Fox matter. I also sending package of mirror product so you gentlemen can see how unsafe it is to the driving public. I have myself researched this type of design and I know this could be alot safer being impact resistance and distortion free. The most important this product states it eliminates blind spot left and right. Also the mirror cuts off center viewing area on all standard automobile mirrors when this mirror is attached over other original mirror on the vehicle. This mirror is being distributed throughout the nation in auto(Illegible Word). Like(Illegible Word) here on the west coast and Aid stores there on the east coast. Now the public does not know this type of mirror design until they try one out, but then the person driving with it might be to late of finding out by already having an accident. To your judgement.

Sincerely Yours,

R. Kesler

Please send confirm report of Administration decision to Kesler Precision Optics.

ID: nht92-3.13

DATE: 10/21/92

FROM: CHESTER I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT, SALES, WESTBAR CORPORATION

TO: WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. -- CHIEF COUNCIL, DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are writing for classification and possible further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1. in FMVSS 108. Our request involves mounting locations of clearance lamps on boat trailers which are 80 inches or more in width.

In 1989, S5.1.1.9. addressed one aspect relating to the mounting location for clearance lamps on boat trailers. This paragraph allows boat trailer builders a longitudinal variance from the strictest standard whereby the clearance lamps no longer have to be at the highest point nor rearward location on a boat trailer, when design of the trailer does not allow it in effort to protect the function of the lamp from damage during normal usage.

Several of our personnel, and several of the staff from one of our major trade organizations, believe there was an additional interpretation from the DOT. This additional interpretation, also directed at boat trailers, would allow a boat trailer manufacturer to draw an imaginary line through the (outboard) tire on each side of his trailer and then mount his red and amber clearance lights outside of these lines. The rationale was to provide desired width identification while providing protection of the light during normal use. A sketch below depicts the most inboard allowable mounting locations should this interpretation be confirmed by your office.

(GRAPHIC OMITTED.)

1 = most inboard allowable mounting location for amber clearance lamps.

2 = most inboard allowable mounting location for red clearance lamps.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to receiving your timely response to our request for a written confirmation of this mounting location interpretation.

ID: nht88-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 7, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MANAGER -- REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 106; BRAKE HOSES-REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-9-88, TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 106

TEXT: Section 5.3 sets forth the test requirements for hydraulic brake hoses. This section states that:

"A hydraulic brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading, . . . However, a particular hose assembly or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements aft er having been subjected to and having met the constriction requirement (S5.3.1) and any one of the requirements specified in S5.3.2 through S5.3.11."

Sections S5.3.3 and S6.3 speak to the Whip Resistance Test. Table 11 in Section S6.3.1 specifies slack for different hose configurations. In Table 11 for a hose "over 19 to 24 inches inclusive", and "more than 1/8 inch or 3mm." there is no slack specif ied and therefore no requirement in the standard.

Volvo believes that the correct interpretation of this standard, for a hose that falls into the category of over 19 to 24 inches, inclusive, and more than 1/8 inch or 3mm. in diameter is that, while it must meet or exceed the constriction requirement, an d any one other of the requirements in Section S5.3, it need not be tested to meet or exceed the whip resistance requirement to be in compliance with FMVSS 106. Please confirm this for us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.