ID: nht88-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: DERRAL T. CRANCE -- AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEER, SALT RIVER PROJECT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DERRAL T. CRANCE, REDBOOK A33 (2), STANDARD 121

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Recently Salt River Project ordered sixteen material/reel trailers and two transformer oil trailers. The trailers were built in 1987 by an out of state manufacturer and delivered to Salt River Project via a local vendor representing the manufacturer. A description of the two types of trailers is as follows:

A. Material/Reel Trailer

GVWR - 20,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 211 inches overall

Width - 92 inches

Height - 90 inches

Deck - 30 inches from ground

Axles - Tandem 10,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-Cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

B. Transformer Oil Trailers

GVWR - 22,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 244 inches

Width - 90 1/2 inches

Height - 102 inches

Bottom of Tank - 24 inches from ground Axles - Tandem 12,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

I have attached a copy of a vehicle data record for a tank trailer and a photo of a material/reel trailer for clarification of the two types of trailers. Salt River Project's interpretation is that the trailers need to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 121 Air Brake System (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980). Our concerns specifically are in the reservoirs and the required protection system as set forth in FMVSS 121.

Please issue an interpretation to clarify the following items:

1) Are the trailers as outlined above required to conform to MVSS 121 (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980)?

2) If conformance to 121 is required, then is a protected reservoir for parking brake release required?

3) If conformance to 121 is required, then is it a requirement that the service reservoirs be protected by check valves or equivalent?

Sincerely,

Attachment

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

(PHOTOGRAPH OF TRAILER OMITTED)

ID: 0789b

Mr. Jeffrey Echt
President, Saline Electronics, Inc.
13379 Michael Road
Highland, IL 62249

Dear Mr. Echt:

We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, asking whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system.

Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash." With this in mind, "and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped", you have asked:

"1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissible under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver."

Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original equipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use.

Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementary lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing

and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system.

Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95

ID: 11303

Mr. Jim Young
Wheeled Coach
P.O. Box 677339
Orlando. FL 32867-7339

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 17, 1995, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as in relates to "customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting." You have described these options as:

"Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights. The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc. . .)"

As you clarified in a phone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on November 2, the "rear facing warning lights" are part of the ambulance lighting system which is not a system required by Standard No. 108. This option is permissible. Although there is no Federal legal requirement that governs the performance of ambulance warning systems, we recommend that the rear facing warning lights be red, the required color for stop lamps, inasmuch as the intent seems to be to provide an additional indication that the brakes have been applied.

"Brake Enhancer. Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning.

"Back -up alert strobes. Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear."

Optional equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have not indicated the color of the strobe lamps. If they are red or amber, they could cause confusion in the eyes of an observer when operated simultaneously with the steady burning white backup lamp. There is a lesser possibility of confusion if they cast a white light, as long as they do not mask the steady burning backup lamp. In that event, the strobes could be fitted to the ambulances.

"Taillight flashers. Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work if the rear doors on the ambulance are open."

This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires taillamps as well as stop lamps to be steady burning, under all circumstances.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/17/95

ID: 1982-2.37

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kamlot Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Braden President Kamlo Marketing Inc. 4311 East 104th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136

Dear Mr. Braden:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding "plush" seats and a rear sofa.

Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.

You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear of the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Would you please send me a letter regarding the proper seat belts to be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. The vans are being remanufactured with plush seats (4), a rear sofa, bay windows, and carpeted. When finished they are a 7-passenger vehicle, under 10,000 lbs. GVW.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Terry W. Braden President

ID: 1983-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Stephen D. Aarons Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer Department of the Army United States Field Station Augsburg APO New York 09458

Dear Captain Aarons:

This responds to your recent letter concerning an Army jeep which was not equipped with safety belts. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, applies to U.S. government vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, effective January 1, 1968, requires all passenger vehicles to be equipped with safety belts. This standard applies to government motor vehicles, generally. However, 49 CFR 571.7(c) specifically provides the following exception:

"(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."

This means that Safety Standard No. 208 would not be applicable to an Army jeep if the Army contract with the vehicle manufacturer did not specify that the vehicle was to be equipped with safety belts.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LAEJA 6 June 1983

SUBJECT: Government Vehicles without Seatbelts

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Dear NHTSA

This inquiry has been written on behalf of an emergency ward nurse stationed at Fort Gordon Georgia, not to represent US government interests.

When examining a patient involved in an accident while inside a government jeep, she discovered that no seat belts had ever been installed in the vehicle. The victim's commander further alleged that his situation is not at all uncommon in the Army, Standard 208 (effective 1 July 1971), as you know, requires restraint belts for passenger vehicles. How does current guidelines effect previously manufactured vehicles, and what regulations if any, apply to US government motor vehicles?

We appreciate your guidance on the rules which apply to this dangerous condition.

STEPHEN D. AARONS Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer

CF:

Director, Automotive Consumer Action Program 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

Center for Auto Safety 1233 Dupont Circle Bldg Washington, DC 20036

ID: 1983-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VIRACON Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Richards VIRACON, Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Mr. Richards:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's regulations and standards which would be applicable to a sun roof kit that you plan to manufacture as an item of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. As I understand it, you only plan to manufacture the sun roof kit and have no plans to install the sun roof in vehicles. You were, however, interested in any regulations or standards affecting the installation of such a sun roof kit.

Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies performance and location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or as replacement (aftermarket) equipment. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that the glazing used in your sun roof complies with all applicable requirements of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. A copy of the Act and the applicable defect regulations are enclosed. In addition, Part 556, Manufacturer Identification, requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. A copy of Part 556 is enclosed.

If a sun roof is added to a vehicle before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle alterer is required by Part 567 of our regulations to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A copy of Part 567 is enclosed. If the sun roof is added by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop after the sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle does not have to be recertified. Such businesses are, however, prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. Thus, for example, they would have to ensure that they do not install the sun roof in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, a copy of which is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1984-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cibie/Marchal -- G. Couffinhal

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. G. Couffinhal Cibie/Marchal 17, rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobigny Cedex France

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1984, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. With respect to the standardized light source socket for replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether a bulb socket design with a "bottom view" diameter of 29.7 mm. etc. would be acceptable.

As you have noted, Dimension P of Figure 3-7 and 3-8 of Standard No. 108 specifies a millimeter dimension of "(28.75 to 28.65)". The dimension of your design exceeds this figure, and is therefore noncompliant with requirements intended to insure proper function with standardized replaceable light sources. It is not permitted by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

17, rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobighy Cedex Telephone (1) 843.93.70 - Telex 210 323 F

N.H.T.S.A. Mr. Richard Van IDERSTINE

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Room 5307 400 Seventh St., SW WASHINGTON DC 20590 - USA -

Le 19 Avril 1984

Dear Richard

CIBIE requests interpretation concerning the interchangability drawing of the headlamp bulb assembly socket (In reflector) figure 3-7 of the Federal Register - Volume 48 Number 191 - Dated Friday September 30, 1983.

We draw your attention to the bottom view dimension "P" which appears to identify a circle of diameter 28,70 +/- ,005 mm. We would request your opinion about the enclosed drawing dated April 13th 1984 showing three arcs of circle with a diameter of: 29,7 + 1 + 0 mm.

The reason for this request is quite simply in order to obtain a better injection gate in the mould.

This design peculiarity has no effect upon the requirements as laid down by the NHTSA for either the correct installation of the bulb nor the hermeticity of the head light unit.

For information please find enclosed a copy of our drawing E 3277-80 which illustrates the nature of our request.

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

G. COUFFINHAL

COPY: 030 - M. GERARD A36 - M. DORLEANS 039 - Mme THAIN 050 - M. J. MARSHALL

********INSERT GRAPHIC********

COUPE A

ID: 1984-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort Crew, Inc. -- William E. Hedenberg, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William E. Hedenberg President Comfort Crew, Inc. 716 South Milwaukee Avenue Wheeling, Illinois 60090

This responds to your October 5, 1984 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting further information on the certification requirements applicable to the air suspension systems you manufacture. You previously requested information on the certification requirements by letter to this agency dated August 13, 1984. In our response, we informed you that there are no standards that presently apply to air suspension systems. We further stated, however, that persons installing the suspension system on new vehicles prior to their first sale for purposes other than resale would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the safety standards affected by the alteration.

In your telephone call, you asked what standards, in our opinion, would be affected by the installation of the suspension system. In addition, you asked what kind of information should be maintained by you and provided to the persons installing your air suspension system to enable such persons to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards affected by the alteration.

It is impossible for the agency to identify all the standards that might be affected by your system since the alterations made to install your system presumably vary from vehicle to vehicle. For example, based on the location and configurations of the vehicle's fuel system, the installation of your system could have an effect on Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. So that you may be aware of all the vehicle systems that are currently covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards, we have enclosed a sheet explaining how to obtain additional information on the standards.

You could confer with the manufacturers of the vehicles on which you recommend installation of your air suspension system to learn which, if any, safety standards they feel might be affected by the system's installation in those specific vehicles. With this information, you could conduct further testing or undertake engineering analyses of your suspension system as mounted on the vehicle to determine whether installation of your device will affect a vehicle's compliance. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as altered will continue to comply with the safety standards, this information could aid the installer of the equipment in certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1985-01.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shaw

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Shaw Sales Manager Shinn Fu Co. of America, Inc. 1004 Andover Park East Seattle Washington 98188

Dear Mr. Shaw:

This in in reply to your letter of December 5, 1984, with respect to the permissibility under Federal regulations of a "Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light" which provides functions additional to a stop signal.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment specifies requirements only for center high-mounted stop lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, and for equipment that replaces original equipment center high mounted stop lamps.

If you offer this device to new car dealers for installation on new cars before their sale, the dealer bears the responsibility for insuring that the car he sells complies with the center high mounted stop lamp requirements for new motor vehicles. On vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1986, equipped with the center lamp, that lamp may flash with the hazard warning lamp, but it cannot be combined with other lighting functions such as turn signals.

However, the device you wish to offer appears intended as an aftermarket device and not intended as original equipment for passenger cars. If this assumption is correct, there is no Federal standard that applies to it, and its legality must be determined according to the law of each State where it will be in use.

We hope that this information has been helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U. S. Dept of Transportation Dec. 5, 1984 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir,

We're a manufacturer of Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light and we understand it must meet the requirement of Federal Standard if we want to marketing this product.

Now, our question is: If we design it with multi functions, will it be O.K br D.O.T? That means it is designed with not only the stop light function, but also is designed with the hazard flashing light function for emergency use and with the automatic warning flashing light function if this supplemental light catches the high-beam bright lighting from the rear vehicle which approaches closely behind you in a short, unsafe distance. The designed is patented and is definitely helpful for highway safety.

Please help us by confirming this letter as soon as possible or advising us otherwise. Thank you in advance for your great help. Shinn Fu Co. of America Inc. William Shaw Sales Manager WS/ny Encl.

ID: 15291.ztv

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO Vision
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1997, regarding the "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp developed by VALEO. This headlamp is visually/optically aimable, incorporating one removable light source. You have enclosed drawings (Figs. 1-4) illustrating the new headlamp.

You believe that the headlamp would be permitted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, but you have asked the following three questions:

"a) Does the provision in S7.4(a)(3) apply? We think it does not, since the 'Baroptic' is not an integral beam. As a matter of consequence, the ratio between the luminance of each light-emitting surface is not a legal criterion. Nor is the relative contribution of each Fresnel lens to the lowbeam beam pattern."

If you have decided that the "Baroptic" is not an integral beam headlamp system, then paragraph S7.4(a)(3) would not apply since paragraph S7.4 applies only to integral beam headlamp systems. The "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp will be a "replaceable bulb headlamp" regulated under paragraph S7.5 provided that its replaceable light source is designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix A or Appendix B of Part 564 and the appropriate information has been submitted to and accepted by NHTSA.

"b) Where do we need to mark the name of the light source as required in S7.5(g)? We propose to place this mandatory marking on the outer lens (6), in front of the center of the midpoint Fresnel lens if an odd number of lenses is used (Figure 3a), or in between the central Fresnel lenses if their number is even (Figure 3b)."

S7.5(g) requires only that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked "in front of " each replaceable light source. The locations you have chosen meet this requirement.

"c) We have the same question and same proposal as above for the 'mark' of the optical axis' as per S7.8.1(b) of FMVSS 108."

S7.8.1(b) requires headlamps to have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp . . . to identify the optical axis of the headlamp . . ." These markings " may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp." The marks for optical axis that are shown in Figure 3(a), Figure 3(b), and Figure 4 of your submission would appear to indicate the optical axis itself of the respective headlamp design, but must be placed in the location necessary for correct aiming and photometric testing.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-2830).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/3/97