ID: nht75-3.46

DATE: 09/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peerless Division - Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 15, 1975, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires "hold back valves" on air brake system reservoirs to guard against loss of air pressure through auxiliary equipment installations.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must, of course, conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of any auxiliary devices, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the compressor build-up pressure must still meet S5.1 of the standard whether or not auxiliary equipment is installed.

Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider it appropriate that a pressure protection valve be placed in the line to an auxiliary device so that rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.

SINCERELY,

July 15, 1975

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

For auxiliary air equipment such as an air ride suspension, we have been utilizing a brake system hold back valve to protect the complete brake system at about 90 p.s.i. We are attempting to get a 100 p.s.i. hold back valve but there does not seem to be one available. We are working with an air valve supplier to develop such a valve. To get a 90 p.s.i. hold back valve, we have to modify an existing valve. Only 60 p.s.i. hold back valve, we have to modify an existing valve. Only 60 p.s.i. hold back valves are available through our normal sources of supply.

It has been brought up by some of our people that they think that we are required to protect only the spring brake release tank and that on some manufacturer's brake system this is provided in their spring brake valve.

I would like to get your legal interpretation on this matter as soon as is reasonable.

PEERLESS DIVISION ROYAL INDUSTRIES

C.J. Baker Director of Engineering

ID: nht95-5.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/77 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: I have been reviewing all NHTSA's attempts over the years at improving the definition of "OPTICAL COMBINATION" as the subject applies to Vehicle Lighting. I have numerous pages of information from the Federal Register and from NHTSA's Docket "Legal Interpretation" Files gathered over the past 20 years and I must say the situation is now worse than it ever has been.

Back in 1977 I was sent the attached letter from NHTSA lawyers. This was sent to me after five pieces of rather Technical back and forth correspondence * . The substance of the letter is that NHTSA's legal experts finally admitted that Lighting functions that share the same housing and the same lens (and when both use Separate Bulb Filaments and fulfill all other Lighting requirements for their particular function when lit separately), were "not" to be considered Optically Combined.

* All five pieces of Correspondence available upon request, but also in NHTSA's Docket Records.

Later, the Canadians, in spite of U.S. and Canadian written agreements to adopt identical rules and interpretations on this issue, said essentially they would only honor the common housing portion of this Interpretation, which "somehow?", NHTSA also later adopted in spite of the 1977 Legal Interpretation sent me that was based on well thought out scientific discussions and conclusions. *

Then, around 1990, "out of the blue", NHTSA put a "Rider" into a proposed change that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, "NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING", which of course, knocked out the second part of the Legal Interpretation sent me. In response, I wrote NHTSA asking for clarification and a reasonable explanation, and was essentially ignored.

Using the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support?

ID: nht95-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/77 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: I have been reviewing all NHTSA's attempts over the years at improving the definition of "OPTICAL COMBINATION" as the subject applies to Vehicle Lighting. I have numerous pages of information from the Federal Register and from NHTSA's Docket "Legal Inter pretation" Files gathered over the past 20 years and I must say the situation is now worse than it ever has been.

Back in 1977 I was sent the attached letter from NHTSA lawyers. This was sent to me after five pieces of rather Technical back and forth correspondence * . The substance of the letter is that NHTSA's legal experts finally admitted that Lighting function s that share the same housing and the same lens (and when both use Separate Bulb Filaments and fulfill all other Lighting requirements for their particular function when lit separately), were "not" to be considered Optically Combined.

* All five pieces of Correspondence available upon request, but also in NHTSA's Docket Records.

Later, the Canadians, in spite of U.S. and Canadian written agreements to adopt identical rules and interpretations on this issue, said essentially they would only honor the common housing portion of this Interpretation, which "somehow?", NHTSA also late r adopted in spite of the 1977 Legal Interpretation sent me that was based on well thought out scientific discussions and conclusions. *

Then, around 1990, "out of the blue", NHTSA put a "Rider" into a proposed change that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, "NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING", which of course, knocked out the second part of the Lega l Interpretation sent me. In response, I wrote NHTSA asking for clarification and a reasonable explanation, and was essentially ignored.

Using the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support?

ID: nht95-4.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1995

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 124 "Accelerator Control Systems"

ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Dietmar K. Haenchen (A44; Std. 124)

TEXT: This letter is to request an interpretation with regard to the provisions of Section S5.1 which requires "at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3 . . . In the event of failure of one source of energy by single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 . . ."

The specific question for interpretation relates to the compliance under S5.1 of a system using a coil spring composed of multiple strands of wire twisted into a wire cable which is then coiled into a spring. This would provide "at least two sources of energy" because the individual strands that compose the wire cable each provide a separate source of energy. A drawing of such a spring showing a cable of three strands of wire is attached. Also enclosed is a sample spring which uses seven strands of w ire. Assuming in the spring consisting of three strands of wire, that if only one strand is broken, the remaining two would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle, we believe such a spring would comply with S5.1 of the Standard. The seven strand wire spring provides even greater redundancy if, for example, the spring would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle if up to three of the wire strands were broken. Endurance testing on seven strand wire springs without damage and with intentional damage has shown that even if damaged by the separation of one or two wire strands, the coil spring is still fully functional with enough torque to perform its intended function.

For purposes of this request for interpretation, it should be assumed that only a single coil spring consisting of the multiple strands would be provided to close the throttle.

Your response as soon as possible (within 30 days) will be appreciated.

Drawing omitted.

ID: nht67-1.31

DATE: 09/21/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Busby and Rivkin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 13, 1967, you requested clarification of several issues relating to the location and size of turn signals as specified in the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Initial Standard No. 108, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, 80 or More Inches Wide Overall," specifies that turn signal lamps shall conform to Class A of SAE Standard J588d. As stated in the enclosures to your letter, SAE Standard J588d specifies that the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This requirement of the SAE Standard is addressed to a single lamp with only one bulb. For a combination of lamps, such as that shown on the sketch enclosed with your letter, the intent of this requirement could be part if the optical center produced by the two bulbs is outside the 4-inch limit. The location of this optical center must be determined from laboratory test data, which was not presented in your letter.

Proposed Initial Standard No. 112, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars; Motorcycles; and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers and Buses of Less than 80 Inches Wide Overall," would permit the use of Class A (SAE J588d) turn signal lamps until January 1, 1969. Under this provision, lamp No. 1 on your sketch would conform to the 4-inch spacing requirement. Combining lamp No. 1 and No. 2 to obtain a Class A area would again result in the situation previously described with respect to location of the optical center.

Since your letter makes frequent reference to "cars," we assume that you are primarily interested in the requirements of Standard No. 112. In this respect, we would caution you that the requirements specifies therein are presently only proposed requirements, and are subject to change prior to issuance of the final standard.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht68-1.14

DATE: 03/15/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Gruppe Autoelektrik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1968, to Mr. George C. Mield, concerning the requirements for motorcycle headlamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

On motorcycles Standard No. 108 permits the use of unsealed head-lamps conforming to SAE Standard J524. You will note that this SAE Standard(Illegible Words)not reference bulb sockets conforming to SAE Standard J567, which is intended to insure functional compatibility between bulb sockets and the bulbs lasted in SAE Standard J573. Therefore, the bulbs used in motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584 need not conform to SAE Standard J573.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Attention George C. Nield Acting Director

Subject: Safety Standard 108

Dear Mr. Nield,

With your letter of July 10, 1987, you informed me that secondary and related SAE standards are indirectly part of the above-mentioned standards.

I have concluded from your statement that employment bulbs according to SAE standard J573 is compulsory from the date of entering into force of standard 108.

A special problem is the design of motor cycle head-lamps to conform with the new safety standard 108 of January 1, 1969.

Indeed, safety standard 108 prescribes for motor cycle headlamps SAE standard J 584 of April 1964. This standard relates to J 575 d of August 1967. Both standards allow in principle unsealed units for motor cycle headlamps.

However, in the next related standard J 573 "lamp bulbs and sealed units" no appropriate bulb can be found suitable for unsealed headlamps.

Therefore I feel that also for motor cycle headlamps only sealed units are permitted from January 1, 1969.

I should be very grateful to have a rapid answer from you since we have no more much lead time for redesigning and re-tooling our motor cycle headlamps.

Sincerely yours, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH Gruppe Xutoslektrik,

ID: nht68-1.4

DATE: 01/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In our telephone conversation of January 8, 1968, and your letter of January 9, 1968, you requested:

". . . . an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that the labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

This letter confirms my statement in our telephone conversation that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 may be met if the information required in S4.3 of this standard is molded on one or both sidewalls of the tire in lieu of a label until August 1, 1968, after which this information is required on each sidewall.

Sincerely,

THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

January 9, 1968

Roger H. Compton, Director Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Compton:

Re: Replies to 1) Our December 5, 1967, Letter Addressed to Mr. L. K. Bridwell

2) Confirmation of Telephone Call (December 15, 1967) Placing Labeling on One Side of Tire by Stencils Molded into the Tire in Lieu of labels

My letter of December 5, 1967, last paragraph, stated as follows:

"We request an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic Label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

On December 15, 1967, our Mr. John A. Diehl called Mr. Schwentker and received a verbal reply by telephone from you that The Armstrong Rubber, Company could proceed without labels if the required information of S4.3 MVSS Standard 109 was molded on one sidewall of the tire in lieu of labels.

We appreciate your position and understand that your staff is not complete. However, we would like to receive a reply in writing or by means of a notice in the Federal Register that the course which you approved and which we are following can be used by all tire manufacturers.

Sincerely,

R. L. Donnelly Secretary

ID: nht70-1.6

DATE: 05/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Donald B. Haaversen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal motor vehicle tire standards.

The only tire standard promulgated to date is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars" which was effective January 1, 1968. This standard specifies minimum performance for size, strength, endurance, high speed laboratory testing and labeling. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.

The replies to your specific questions are as follows:

1.Question: New American made tires have DOT load ranges, load capacity and inflation pressures molded into the sidewall. Is this required (that they be permanently marked), or is it sufficient to affix a temporary marking (such as a sticker) with this same information?

Response: Section S4.3 states that this information shall be permanently molded into or onto all new passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968. If the tire was manufactured between January 1, 1968 and July 31, 1968 the labeling requirements may be met by use of a label or tag.

2. Question: How is load capacity information arrived at? Is it by manufacturer certification, government conducted tests, or some other method?

Response: The load/inflation schedule is calculated by use of empirical formulas and coordinated through the various Tire and(Illegible Word) Associations as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers.

3. Question: Is it necessary that these tires be subject to safety tests? These particular tires are already imported by another organization and may already have passed the necessary tests, if any.Response: The application of the "DOT recital to a tire, is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all the minimum performance standards of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

I have also enclosed for your review and information the following data:

1. U.S. Customs Regulations for Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment.

2. Automobiles Imported Into the United States.

ID: nht68-2.37

DATE: 05/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: E.B. Buske Manufacturing Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 19, 1968, to Dr. William Hadden, Jr., requesting comments on the proposed installation of lighting equipment and the certification label for tow trucks which are manufactured by your company.

With exceptions as listed below, the lighting equipment shows on the photograph enclosed with your letter appears to meet the location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.

1. The front clearance lamps do not appear to be located "as near as practicable to the upper left and right exercise edges of the vehicle." Clearance lamps located further outboard on the cab would meet the requirements of the standard.

2. Standard No. 108 requires that rear indentification lamps be located "on the rear" of the vehicle. Location of these lamps beneath the truck body (for protection) would meet the requirements of the standard.

3. No red reflex reflectors are shown on the rear of the truck. The red reflector tape may be used in addition to the red reflex reflectors, but not as a substitute for the reflex reflectors.

4. No red rear side marker lamps are shown on the truck.

The photograph you enclosed of your trust has been marked to indicate possible corrections for the above discrepancies. Also enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108.

The information you have provided in regard to certification does not fully meet the requirements of Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965. For your further information, we are enclosing copies of the certification requirement and labeling requirements for chassis-cabs under the notice of ruling regarding chassis-cabs.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. The above comments are therefore for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht68-2.43

DATE: 06/17/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Consumers Power Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 9, 1968, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Bureau, requesting our comments on the rear lighting arrangements you plan to use on several of your service vehicles.

With reference to the rear lighting arrangements only and with exceptions as noted below, the lighting installations shown on your standard lighting drawing appear to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to location and number of lamps.

1. The rear clearance lamps on vehicles designated by Specification Numbers (50)(54), (49), (52) and (53) do not appear to be located as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle. Clearance lamps located on or immediately forward of the rearmost post on vehicle (50)(54) and the dump truck (54 + 74) shown on your photograph would be more in accordance with the requirements of the standard. Location of rear clearance lamps at greater heights on the rear of vehicles (50)(54), (49), (52) and (53) appears to be practicable.

2. Assuming that vehicles (27), (42) and (22)(28)(29) are less than 80 inches in overall width, Standard No. 108 requires that such vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, be equipped with either rear side marker lamps or rear side reflex reflectors. Vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, must be equipped with both rear side marker lamps and rear side reflex reflectors. If these vehicles are 80 inches or more in overall width, additional lighting requirements as specified in Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1968, apply.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for your interest in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.