ID: 7759

Mr. Kevin Mitchell
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Sun Prairie, WI 53590

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter asking about the hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the "DOT print line," contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the "SAE print line," contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including "batch and shift" information.

You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as "AA") on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information.

NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974; 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose "may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies.

For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:106 d:11/25/92

ID: nht92-2.4

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KEVIN MITCHELL -- GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-21-92 FROM KEVIN MITCHELL TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the "DOT print line," contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the "SAE print line," contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including "batch and shift" information.

You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as "AA") on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information.

NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974; 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose "may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies.

For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht93-4.51

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Eddie Bernice Johnson -- U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from Eddie Bernice Johnson to Art Neill (OCC 8736).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 2, 1993, to Art Neill of this agency on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Bill Way of Dallas. Dr. Way is concerned about the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) to destroy M151 jeeps at the end of their useful military life because "for some reason the Department of Transportation has deemed (them) unsafe to be used on public roads." He finds this unusual "because if they are found to be unsafe on our roads, how can we consider these vehicles safe for use by military personnel?" Pointing out that used M151s could be sold for civilian use, he submits that "this is another waste of materials by the government."

As you know, it is the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve safety upon the public roads of the United States. Over 20 years ago, NHTSA became aware of allegations regarding the tendency of the M151 jeep to roll over during turning maneuvers. DOD was aware of these allegations and provided special handling instructions to M151 operators intended to minimize the possibility of roll overs. At that time, it sought NHTSA's advice as to the proper disposition of these vehicles at the end of their useful military life.

Because the suspension systems of the M151s could not be modified and because civilian operators would not have access to the same training in handling that was provided military drivers, NHTSA advised that surplus M151s should be rendered inoperable rather than sold to the public. DOD concurred, and formulated the policy that these vehicles should be destroyed at the end of their military life. This decision involved a balancing of the competing public interests of recovery of governmental funds and safety on the nation's highways, and the latter has been found to be the predominant public interest. In the years since DOD adopted this policy, it has been reviewed by both agencies from time to time and no compelling reason has been found to change it.

ID: aiam4961

Dear Mr. Gravino: This responds to your letter of February 7, 1992 asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you ask whether the standard contains any requirement that the parking lamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps operate independently of the ignition switch so that when they are activated they will remain activated regardless of whether or not the ignition switch is in the on or off position. You have reviewed Standard No. 108, and reference paragraphs S5.5.3, S5.5.4, S5.5.5, and S5.5.7, copies of which you have enclosed. The answer is no. Under paragraph S5.5.5, the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is required to operate independently of the ignition switch, but no other lamp is required by the standard to do so. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht94-1.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC-9662)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the "re-importation" of used certified motorcycles into the United States after modifications have been performed abroad. These modifications would not involve a " knowingly rendering inoperative" of equipment related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether our interpretation of November 16, 1992, "regarding this matter" remains operative.

We assume the letter to which you refer is the one addressed to Wolfgang Klamp of Blaine, Washington. Mr. Klamp's wife crossed the border daily in her Canadian-manufactured Ford Tempo to her Canadian place of employment. Because the vehicle was not cert ified as meeting U.S. safety standards, the U.S. Customs Service had informed her the car would not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. We verified that the Customs Service was a cting in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and provided several suggestions.

This letter remains our position. However, we fail to understand its relevance to the fact situation you present regarding importation of motorcycles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We can only surmise that ind ividual Customs officials may be questioning whether the modified motorcycles comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of entry, notwithstanding the fact that they are certified as complying as of their manufactu re. As you know, a motor vehicle offered for importation must comply with the U.S. safety standards at the time of importation (or be converted to those standards after entry), regardless of its state of compliance at the time of its manufacture.

We have no regulations under which a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may state that it has not knowingly rendered inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, we would recommend that Customs accept such a statement accompanying an HS-7 Form's declaration of vehicle compliance if it also contained the statement that in the modifier's opinion the vehicle remained in compliance upon completion of the modifications.

Alternatively, and relevant to modifications that relate to a safety standard which may not have had to be met initially (i.e. installation of glazing on a motorcycle that was not originally manufactured with a windshield), we suggest that the modifier p rovide a statement, in writing

or on a label affixed to the vehicle, of the kind required of an alterer of a new vehicle, as set forth in 49 CFR 567.7. This statement attests to the continuing compliance of a motor vehicle after modification. Our willingness to accept such a stateme nt should enable Customs to enter the modified motorcycles as conforming vehicles.

ID: 9662

Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the "re-importation" of used certified motorcycles into the United States after modifications have been performed abroad. These modifications would not involve a "knowingly rendering inoperative" of equipment related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether our interpretation of November 16, 1992, "regarding this matter" remains operative.

We assume the letter to which you refer is the one addressed to Wolfgang Klamp of Blaine, Washington. Mr. Klamp's wife crossed the border daily in her Canadian-manufactured Ford Tempo to her Canadian place of employment. Because the vehicle was not certified as meeting U.S. safety standards, the U.S. Customs Service had informed her the car would not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. We verified that the Customs Service was acting in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and provided several suggestions.

This letter remains our position. However, we fail to understand its relevance to the fact situation you present regarding importation of motorcycles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We can only surmise that individual Customs officials may be questioning whether the modified motorcycles comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of entry, notwithstanding the fact that they are certified as complying as of their manufacture. As you know, a motor vehicle offered for importation must comply with the U.S. safety standards at the time of importation (or be converted to those standards after entry), regardless of its state of compliance at the time of its manufacture.

We have no regulations under which a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may state that it has not knowingly rendered inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, we would recommend that Customs accept such a statement accompanying an HS-7 Form's declaration of vehicle compliance if it also contained the statement that in the modifier's opinion the vehicle remained in compliance upon completion of the modifications.

Alternatively, and relevant to modifications that relate to a safety standard which may not have had to be met initially (i.e. installation of glazing on a motorcycle that was not originally manufactured with a windshield), we suggest that the modifier provide a statement, in writing or on a label affixed to the vehicle, of the kind required of an alterer of a new vehicle, as set forth in 49 CFR 567.7. This statement attests to the continuing compliance of a motor vehicle after modification. Our willingness to accept such a statement should enable Customs to enter the modified motorcycles as conforming vehicles.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:3/7/94

ID: nht94-8.2

DATE: March 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC-9662)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the "re-importation" of used certified motorcycles into the United States after modifications have been performed abroad. These modifications would not involve a "knowingly rendering inoperative" of equipment related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether our interpretation of November 16, 1992, "regarding this matter" remains operative.

We assume the letter to which you refer is the one addressed to Wolfgang Klamp of Blaine, Washington. Mr. Klamp's wife crossed the border daily in her Canadian-manufactured Ford Tempo to her Canadian place of employment. Because the vehicle was not certified as meeting U.S. safety standards, the U.S. Customs Service had informed her the car would not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. We verified that the Customs Service was acting in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and provided several suggestions.

This letter remains our position. However, we fail to understand its relevance to the fact situation you present regarding importation of motorcycles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We can only surmise that individual Customs officials may be questioning whether the modified motorcycles comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of entry, notwithstanding the fact that they are certified as complying as of their manufacture. As you know, a motor vehicle offered for importation must comply with the U.S. safety standards at the time of importation (or be converted to those standards after entry), regardless of its state of compliance at the time of its manufacture.

We have no regulations under which a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may state that it has not knowingly rendered inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, we would recommend that Customs accept such a statement accompanying an HS-7 Form's declaration of vehicle compliance if it also contained the statement that in the modifier's opinion the vehicle remained in compliance upon completion of the modifications.

Alternatively, and relevant to modifications that relate to a safety standard which may not have had to be met initially (i.e. installation of glazing on a motorcycle that was not originally manufactured with a windshield), we suggest that the modifier provide a statement, in writing

or on a label affixed to the vehicle, of the kind required of an alterer of a new vehicle, as set forth in 49 CFR 567.7. This statement attests to the continuing compliance of a motor vehicle after modification. Our willingness to accept such a statement should enable Customs to enter the modified motorcycles as conforming vehicles.

ID: rmaltrjul25.ztv

Ms. Ann Wilson
Senior Vice President
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Wilson:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 2003, requesting an interpretation of certain provisions of NHTSAs early warning reporting (EWR) regulation, subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579. You have expressed six concerns.

Your first concern involves "Updates of deaths and injuries." If a tire manufacturer is not aware of the tire identification number (TIN) at the time an incident involving death or injury is initially reported, Section 579.28(f)(2)(i) requires the manufacturer to "submit an updated report of such incident in its report covering the reporting period in which the . . . TIN is identified." You interpret this as meaning that if a tire manufacturer receives TIN information after the close of the reporting period in which the manufacturer receives a claim or notice of death or injury, it must "provide NHTSA with the TIN in the report covering the reporting period in which the TIN information is identified by the manufacturer." However, you observed that at the public meeting conducted by NHTSA on June 18, 2003, a NHTSA employee "stated that tire manufacturers must submit the TIN by updating the entire death and injury file for the reporting period in which the original claim of death or injury was reported." You ask for clarification of this requirement.

The requirement was properly communicated at the public meeting. Pursuant to Section 579.29(a), EWR information must be submitted on templates provided on the NHTSA website. The same template that is used for the original report is used for updated reports. The initial submission would be identified as "Version 1." The first updated report would be identified as "Version 2," and so on.

You expressed concern with a statement at the June 18 public meeting that a manufacturer could not delete a claim that had been reported in a previous period, "even if the manufacturer subsequently discovered that the claim was erroneous (i.e., did not involve the manufacturers tire or did not involve a death or injury)." You have asked for confirmation that "this is the official interpretation of this rule."

The updating provisions of Section 579.28 do not address the issue of correction of information once the information has been reported to NHTSA. Practical considerations limit our ability to make corrections to EWR data in our data warehouse. The Office of Defects Investigations current plan is to allow manufacturers that identify significant errors to request the opportunity to submit corrected data templates. We will respond to such requests on a case-by-case basis.

Your second concern is labeled "Scope of information on deaths and injuries." We amended Section 579.26(b) in a Federal Register notice of June 11, 2003 (68 FR 35132). The amended regulation clarifies that reporting of incidents involving deaths and injuries applies to "all tires manufactured during a production year covered by the reporting period and the four production years prior to the earliest production year in the reporting period."We also amended Section 579.4(c) to define "production year" for tires to mean "the calendar year in which the item was produced." Your members believe that reporting relative to certain production years is subject to different interpretations. You understand that NHTSA intends reporting under Section 579.29 to encompass "tires produced in the current production year and . . . tires produced in the previous four years." You asked for confirmation of your understanding.

Applying the EWR regulations definition of "production year," the reporting requirement for tire manufacturers may be read to apply to all tires manufactured during a calendar year covered by the reporting period and the four calendar years prior to the earliest calendar year in the reporting period. Because EWR reporting is on a quarterly basis, there will never be more than one calendar year during a reporting period. Thus, the four calendar years prior to the earliest calendar year in the reporting period will be the four calendar years before the calendar year of the report. Thus, we confirm your understanding of this requirement.

Your third concern relates to "Tire type code."Tire manufacturers must provide the "tire type code" as part of their quarterly report on production information. The EWR regulation does not define "tire type code," but you pointed out that the preamble to the final rule indicates that "tire type code" means the third grouping of the TIN (67 FR at 45862). You asked for confirmation.

We noted in the preamble to the final rule that we would use RMAs preferred term of "tire type code," instead of "serial code" as we had proposed, and that the term "corresponds to the third grouping of identification requirements as specified in 49 CFR 574.5(c)." 67 FR at 45862. Section 574.5(c) identifies the third group as a "descriptive code;" Figure 1 thereof clearly depicts the four information groups of the "Tire Identification Number," and identifies the third group as "Tire Type Code." Thus, we confirm your interpretation.

You are next concerned with reporting "plant of manufacture" for imported tires. Section 579.26 requires a tire manufacturer to include in its reporting of information under paragraph (a) "the plant where [the tires were] manufactured." You asserted that in most cases, with respect to tires that they import, "U.S. tire manufacturers do not know the TIN, the date of manufacture, or the plant of manufacture for such tires." Thus, without the TIN, the manufacturer will be unable to provide NHTSA with the name of the plant where the tire was manufactured. You requested that manufacturers be allowed to provide the country of origin (and date of importation) rather than plant and date of manufacture, when the TIN is unknown. We concur in your suggestion that in the context presented, the report on country of origin and date of importation satisfies the regulation.

Your next request concerned "Production information." You cited Section 579.26(a), which requires manufacturers to submit "cumulative warranty production" and "cumulative total production through the end of the reporting period." However, you assert that the preamble to the amendments of June 11, 2003 "states that tire manufacturers must submit data only for the quarterly reporting period and not 'year-to-date' ('YTD') or cumulative data," and you believe that a handout by NHTSA at the public meeting on June 18 was subject to varying interpretations.

The regulation establishes the reporting requirement, and we do not find it open to the interpretation that you suggest. Under the introductory text of Section 579.26 and paragraph (a), a tire manufacturer must report "the quarterly reporting period, the tire line, . . . the production [calendar] year, the cumulative warranty production, and the cumulative total production through the end of the reporting period." This means, for example, that a manufacturers report for the third quarter of a calendar year would contain the total warranty production and the total production for a tire line for the first three quarters of the calendar year. Separately, a manufacturer would also report, for that tire line (as further delineated and subcategorized in the rule), information described in Section 579.26 that includes "the model year of tire manufactured during the reporting period and the four calendar years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period . . . .""Model year" is defined to mean "the year that [a tire] was produced." See Section 579.4, 68 FR 35142. Thus, each quarterly report in a calendar year would also include the total warranty production and the total production for each of the four previous calendar years for a tire line for which information is being reported under paragraphs (a) or (c). This includes tire lines no longer in production. We contrast this with the numbers of property damage claims and warranty adjustments that a tire manufacturer must report under Section 579.26(c). These numbers are reported on a quarterly basis, and not cumulatively.

Finally, you expressed concern with "Appropriate entry code for unknown data." Your members have been advised that they must not leave any cells blank on the EWR templates in order for their reports to be accepted. You have asked whether unknown data should be reported as "UNK," as indicated on the EWR templates previously posted on NHTSAs website, or "U," as indicated at the June 18 public meeting, or in some other format.

Section 579.26(a) was amended in a June 11, 2003 Federal Register Notice, to add the requirement that if a manufacturer is not certain whether a particular group of tires is used as original equipment on a motor vehicle, it shall state "U" in the reporting field (68 FR at 35144). In reporting incidents involving deaths or injuries under Section 579.26(b), a manufacturer must use code 99 if no component of the tire is specified in the claim or notice (i.e., if the relevant component is unknown to the manufacturer). In reporting under Section 579.26(c), the regulation specifies that no reporting is necessary if the system or component involved is not specified in the codes (i.e., the final template should not contain a blank cell since no reporting is required).

If you have further questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/10/03

ID: nht72-6.59

DATE: 05/05/72 EST

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: W. G. MILBY -- PROJECT ENGINEER BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

TITLE: 40-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in reply to your letter of April 19 to Mr. Schneider asking for interpretations of the motor vehicle controls safety standard, Standard No. 101.

You have asked that we reconsider our earlier opinion that your heater gate valve is a "heating and air conditioning system control" for purposes of Standard No. 101. We see no reason to modify our earlier view. A control, as you have described it, that allows hot engine water to flow through the heater cores is clearly a heating system control, requiring identification as such. Table I of Standard No. 101 allows you the option of choosing your own form of identification. Perhaps a legend such as "Water Control" and a designation of "Winter" and "Summer" positions would clarify your intent that the valve not be used as a temperature control device. However, pursuant to paragraph S4.3 this control need not be illuminated, if, as appears likely, it does not direct air directly upon the windshield.

You have also asked if the cable-operated fresh air door whose function is to control the air that passes through the heater cores is also a "heating and air conditioning control." It appears that this control serves a function similar to that of the heater valve, and that identification is also required, with words or abbreviation at the manufacturer's option.

Finally, you ask if the defroster identification may be preceded by "RH" and "LH" to identify the right hand and left hand defroster systems respectively. The answer is yes; we have no objection to this form of identification.

Yours truly,

ID: nht80-2.47

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, in which" you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.

1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.

2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., foot operated controls or hand operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column or in the windshield header area) "the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated." Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.

3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:

(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,

(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,

(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,

(d) driver's side window defroster control,

(e) driver's fresh air vent control,

(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.

Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standand 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, "control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield." Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.

9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.

The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.

The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.

10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment. 11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.

12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.

13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.

14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.

15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.

16. With respect to air conditioning systems:

(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.

(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system;

(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.

17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 16, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 101-80

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of several issues related to FMVSS 101-80, discussed at a January 9, 1980 meeting of NHTSA. The issues are numbered below in the sequence discussed at the meeting:

1. In all cases where both symbols and wording are shown in Table I, the symbol is mandatory and the wording is optional.

2. In the case of optional wording accompanying mandatory symbols, which require illumination, only the symbol must be illuminated. It is mandatory for the optional wording to be illuminated.

3. There is no requirement relating to driver comfort fans. These fans are provided to direct air at the driver for his comfort as the name indicates. However, they can be adjusted to direct air on the windshield.

4. There is no requirement for hot water flow valves for heaters. Typically, these valves are opened in winter and left open; closed in summer and left closed. Heat in regulated be means of switch controls to operate air blowers.

5. There is " requirement for heater fresh air control valves. These valves are used to control the ratio of fresh/recirculated air entering the heater.

6. The fan control for an optional driver's heater must be identified but not illuminated.

7. There is no requirement for a driver's side window defroster control.

8. There is no requirement for a driver's fresh air vent control.

9. Confirmation is needed with respect to Table II that the next to last line is only applicable to vehicles with air brakes and the last line is only applicable to vehicles with hydraulic brakes.

10. The proportion of the symbols are those developed by the ISO, however, there is no requirement limiting the minimum or maximum sizes of the symbols.

11. None of the requirements of Table II apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. This is true even in the case where a display is required by another FMVSS; Example: the turn signal display required by FMVSS 108.

12. A hazard control mounted in the steering column does not require illumination.

13. Clearance lamps may be controlled by the headlamp switch. In this case, only the headlamp symbol should be used.

14. If necessary to accomodate a temporary inventory balance out, a slightly different wiper symbol may appear on the wiper knobs that is required by Table I, provided that the required symbol appears adjacent to the control and is properly illuminatted. It is also satisfactory to provide no symbol on the knob itself.

15. With respect to S5.2.2, a bank of switches which control multi-speed fans will comply if they are identified as shown in the enclosed print 0981233.

16. Air conditioning controls must be identified but not illuminated. The extreme positions of air conditioning controls must be identified. The fan symbol is required for air conditioning fan controls.

17. Any type tell tale may be used for a single display on vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR to indicate high engine coolant temperature and/or low engine oil pressure. We understand that Ford Motor Company has proposed an engine symbol for such a display. What is the status of this proposal?

We would like to go on record at this time to alert NHTSA that it may be necessary to revise the effective date of the subject standard as it applies to heavy duty vehicles to alleviate a temporary chassis shortage. This could be caused by a prolonged strike by a major chassis manufacturer which is still in effect. This may result in the mounting of bodies on chassis built after September 1, 1980, which were scheduled for chassis built prior to that date.

Your early response to these items will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, William G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Department

fvc

Enclosure

c: Wilbur Rumph Ben Newberry Jim Moorman Jim Swift Bob DuMond