ID: 1984-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Southwest Research Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Louis F. Klusmeyer, Senior Research Scientist Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 78284

Dear Mr. Klusmeyer:

This responds to your letter dated May 15, 1984, regarding the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for compliance testing of the "air over hydraulic" braking system used on certain Nissan heavy duty trucks.

After examining the information provided in your letter and the enclosed diagram of the air over hydraulic braking system, we note that air pressure is used to transmit braking pressure from the driver, not merely to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

When the original final rule was issued on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, the preamble stated:

It should be noted that the term "air brake system" as defined in the standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic," in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

See Federal Register, February 27, 1971, at page 3817.

In 1972, the agency reiterated this interpretation in the preamble to the original final rule on Standard No. 1O5a (now, Standard No. 1O5), Hydraulic Brake Systems:

Standard No. 105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with "air over hydraulic" systems, which remain within the purview of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

See Federal Register, September 2, 1971, at page 17917. Copies of these pages are enclosed.

Accordingly, the air over hydraulic diesel truck system described in your letter would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You ask whether the air chamber volumes at the "air booster," as it appears in your diagram, could be used in calculating the required air service reservoir capacity or in determining reaction time. This agency agrees that, if the brake actuation to the wheels is hydraulic, then the requirements of Standard No. 121 for air service reservoir capacity and brake application and release timing can be measured at the "air booster" for compliance testing. When a heavy duty truck is equipped with an air over hydraulic brake system, the air booster can be considered the equivalent of the air brake chamber in Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

15 May 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to examine heavy duty trucks produced by Nissan Diesel Motor Co., Ltd. in order to determine compliance with United States standards.

These trucks use a "air-over hydraulic" brake system and there is some question as to the appropriate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). We are, therefore, requesting a decision from NHTSA as to whether FMVSS standard 105 or FMVSS standard 121 is applicable to these trucks.

The following information may help in this decision:

o The driver uses a treadle valve to operate and control the service brakes.

o Compressed air is used from the treadle valve to the "air booster" and hydraulic brake fluid is used from the "air booster" to the service brakes.

o No hydraulic or mechanical means is used to transmit force from the drivers control to the "air booster" and no air is used to supply actuating force at the individual wheels.

o A complete loss of air pressure causes a complete loss of braking from the service brake system, rather than a reduced capability as would be normal with a "brake power assist unit" or a "brake power unit".

o "Air brake chambers," as such, are not used since brake actuation at the wheels is hydraulic. The air chamber volumes at the "air booster" could possibly be used in calculating required aiu service reservoir capacity or determining reaction time.

A diagram of the braking system is included with this letter as a aid in understanding the system.

If I can provide further information or answer questions for you, please call (512) 684-5111, extension 3017.

Sincerely,

Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Systems Department of Engine and Vehicle Research Engines, Emissions and Vehicle Research Division

LFK/dg Attachment

INSERT GRAPHS

ID: 1984-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Crail Kentucky Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 17185 Louisville, Kentucky 40217

Dear Mr. Crail:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of the testing requirements of paragraphs S5-3-3 and S5-3-4 of Federa1 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You state that you have always tested all of your trailers with the 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, downstream of the trailer test rig and the trailer. This is the correct testing method, because the purpose of the 50-cubic- inch test reservoir is to represent the volume of lines in the following vehicle.

You also state that a customer suggests that the correct reservoir connection is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This location of the reservoir in front of the trailer would indeed negate the purpose of the test requirement, because in this position the reservoir could not simulate the volume of lines in the trailing vehicle. Your interpretation, not the customer's, is correct for testing vehicles equipped with air brake systems for compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 15, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: 49CFR 571.121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Sir:

This letter is to seek clarification on sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. These require that on a vehicle designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes, meet brake actuation and release time requirements with a 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the control line coupling. We have always tested all of our trailers with the 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, that is downstream of both the trailer test rig and the trailer.

A customer insists that the proper location for the 50 cubic inch reservoir is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This, of course, negates the whole reason for placing the 50 cubic inch reservoir on the control coupling, which is to simulate the towed vehicle.

Since the standard is not clear as to where the 50 cubic inch reservoir is connected, we are requesting an interpretation as to the proper control coupling to which it should be connected.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Crail Director of Engineering

RJC/maf

ID: 1984-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your June 14, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Section 5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 217 provides manufacturers with three options with which they may meet the unobstructed openings requirements for buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You asked for our confirmation of your interpretation that windows and doors on these vehicles which meet the specifications of options (b) and (c) of section 5.2.2 have no requirements as to emergency exit release, extension, and identification. As discussed below, windows and doors installed in compliance with section 5.2.2 in a bus other than a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must comply with the requirements of section 5.3 and 5.4 of the standard. They do not have to comply with the requirements of S5.5 unless specially-installed emergency exits, such as push-out windows, are used.

Section 5.3 specifies emergency exit release requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Similarly, section 5.4 specifies emergency exit extension requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Since section 5.2.3 only specifies emergency exit requirements for school buses, the windows and doors on buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 or less must comply with Sections 5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. The Standard permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements.

You are correct in your understanding that Standard No. 217 does not require standard roll-down windows and doors on these vehicles to be labeled as emergency exits. The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially- installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the emergency exit requirements may be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Standard roll-down windows generally meet these specifications. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. However, section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NHTSA NOA-30:D.Hom:p11:69511:7/6/84:PR: NOA-30:Subj/Chron Concurrence: NRM; NEF Interps: Redbook (3) Std. 217 NRM-01:Info NEF-01:Info OCC 765

June 14, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release Dear Mr. Berndt:

Section S5.2.2, "Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.", of the subject standard states the following:

Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing: (a) Devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 without using remote controls or central power systems; (b) Windows that can be opened manually to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches; or (c) Doors

Option (a) specifies devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Options (b) and (c) make no reference to the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Based on this it is our understanding that options (b) windows . . . and (c) doors, do not have to meet the requirements of Sections S5.3 through S5.4 dealing with emergency exit release, extension, and identification.

In other words, on a bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less built on a Commercial cutaway van chassis, large windows meeting S5.2.2 (b) and/or the driver's door provided with the chassis and the entrance door, can be used to meet the unobstructed opening requirements of S5.2 without regard to the requirements of S5.3, S5.4, or S5.5.

We request your confirmation that our understanding is correct and thank you for your early reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services

fvc c: FMVSS 217 File

ID: 1984-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Margaret Moore Oba Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. 200 Park Avenue Suite 4114-12 New York, N.Y. 10166

Dear Ms. Oba:

This responds to your letter regarding the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on brake systems applicable to a diesel truck equipped with an "air over hydraulic" brake system.

After examining your letter and the enclosed diagram of the braking system, we note that air pressure is used to transmit braking force from the driver, not merely to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydaulic or mechanical components. A failure in air pressure would result in loss of braking force. Therefore, this brake system falls within the definition of hair brake system" in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

When the original final rule was issued on Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems, the preamble stated:

It should be noted that the term "air brake system" as defined in the standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic," in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

See Federal Register, February 27, 1971, at page 3817.

In 1972, the agency reiterated this interpretation in the preamble to the original final rule on Standard No. 105a (now, Standard No. 105), Hydraulic Brake Systems:

Standard No. 105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with "air over hydraulic" systems, which remain within the purview of Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

See Federal Register, September 2, 1971, at page 17971. Copies of these pages are enclosed.

Accordingly, the air over hydraulic diesel truck braking system described in your letter would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

January 26, 1984 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to request clarification regarding F.M.V.S.S. classification of brake systems. In a new model of diesel truck which we intend to import to the United States, we use a system called the "air over hydraulic" brake system. It is rarely used in America, and we are unsure whether it should fit within the definition of a hydraulic brake or an air brake, as it contains elements of both designs.

I am enclosing a simple diagram for your reference. In it, the blue line represents air, the red, fluid. As you can see, pressure exerted by the driver is carried by air to the hydraulic air serve. From there,force is then transmitted by fluid to the wheel brakes. The descriptions of brake systems in F.M.V.S.S. 105 (hydraulic) and 121 (air) define each category according to the medium transmitting force from the service brake control to the brake itself. If the unit which uses air is considered only as a form of power assistance, the air-over system should be included in the hydraulic brake definition.

However, if the air system from the pedal to the hydraulic servo is considered as an integral part of the brake and of equal value, then it would not be merely an assist to the hydraulic.

We would like to know into which category our brake system should fall. If my explanations or diagram are incomplete or unsatisfactory in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us for further clarification.

Sincerely yours, Margaret Moore Oba Encl:

ID: 1984-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BoPeep Nursery Products Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen Sher President BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario May 1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Sher:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if the requirements of Standard No. 213 apply to a system which is designed for use solely by children who weigh more than 50 pounds and is so labeled. Standard No. 213 does not apply to devices intended solely to restrain children who weigh more than 50 pounds.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds" (emphasis added). If your product is designed solely for use by children who weigh more than 50 pounds, it would not be a "child restraint" as that term is defined in Standard No. 213, and so would not be subject to the requirements of the Standard.

You should be aware of the requirements of sections 151-154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414), which specify that when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. This could become relevant to the sale of your product in several ways. For example, if the seating system were marketed and sold in such a way that it would be likely to be often used by children under 50 pounds, and were not certified as complying with Standard No. 213, it might well be found to contain a safety-related defect.

To prevent such unintended usage, I strongly recommend that the device be clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by this system. I would further recommend that your marketing efforts and point of sale materials highlight the size and age of child which your system is designed to restrain.

Another potential safety-related defect finding which could be made would occur if testing showed that children of the age and size intended to use your seating system were safer using a 3- point belt alone than the seating system with a 3-point belt. To ensure that this finding is not made, I would recommend some testing or engineering analysis by your company to show that your seating system when used with the 3-point belt system is at least as safe for use by its intended occupants as a standard 3-point belt would be when used alone.

Should you have any further questions or need any further information in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 25, 1984.

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL Room #5219 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, DC USA 20590

Attention: Mr. Stephen Kretzke

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

During our conversation of June 20th we had mentioned our need for an interpretation on Section S4 of FMVSS 213 and how our initial inquiry was directed through Calspan.

We have enclosed a copy of Calspan findings for your attention and are requesting confirmation of its contents.

We are also concerned that our point of sale material can highlight that our seat can be used for children 3 years of age and up and for children who are over 50 lbs.

We request your prompt reply to this inquiry as we are looking forward to entering the American market quite soon.

Yours Truly,

BO-PEEP NURSERY PRODUCTS LIMITED

Stephen Sher President

SS:sb Encl.

June 15, 1984

Mr. Stephen Shir BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario M8Y1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Shir:

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213) to your new booster seat, the Shuttle Seat, designed for children over 50 pounds in weight.

Section S4 of FMVSS 213 defines child restraint systems which must meet the specified requirements as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." On June 15, 1984, I received a verbal interpretation of Section S4 from the Department of Transportation's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in conjunction with the Office of Chief Counsel, that child restraint systems designed and labelled for use by children over 50 pounds are exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

Based upon the above interpretations and our evaluation of your booster seat, it is our opinion that, if the device is labelled for use only by children over 50 pounds that is is exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

I hope this information is of use to you. Please feel free to call me with any further questions.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Walsh, Head Biomechanical Sciences Section Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department

Barbara J. Kelleher Staff Associate Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department kd

ID: 1984-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche -- Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1984, asking about Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether it is permissible to limit activation of the brake system indicator lamp for purposes of checking the indicator lamp function to six seconds.

The answer to your question is yes. I have enclosed a copy of a letter addressed to Fiat, dated February 7, 1975, which discusses this issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock -- NHTSA

ESVG/My-re Weissach, June 19, 1984

Request for Clarification

Ref: FMVSS 571.105, S 5.3

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

The above-mentioned FMVSS also requires the possibility for the driver of a motor vehicle to check the brake system indicator lamp (S.5.3.2) before he or she starts the car.

The two alternatives mentioned are:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either

a) when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or

b) when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Point S 5.3.3 also requests:

Each indicator lamp activated due to a condition specified in S 5.3.1 shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position, whether or not the engine is running.

Assuming there is a defect in the brake system, as specified in S 5.3.1 a), b) or c), and the driver turns the ignition switch to the "on" position and the engine is not running, there will be no definite indication before starting the engine that there is a defect, since the indicator lamp is also activated to control the function of the lamp itself.

This means, the indicator lamp can be activated for two reasons, but without making the distinction between the dangerous situation as specified in S 5.3.3 and the more harmless situation specified in S 5.3.2.

We would now like to eliminate this uncertainty by limiting the activation of the lamp (specified in S 5.3.2) to 6 seconds, i.e. if the brake system is working properly the indicator lamp will dim after 6 seconds while it will remain activated if there is a malfunction in the brake system.

This improvement could be achieved by combining the brake system indicator lamps with the time-limit relay of the 'Fasten Seat Belts'-lamp which is activated for 4 - 8 seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or the "start" position (S 7.3 FMVSS 208).

We would now like to know if this method of controlling the function of the brake indicator lamp complies with the requirements in S 5.3.2 of FMVSS 105?

An early favorable answer would be greatly appreciated as we intend to use this method in a 1985-model in connection with the introduction of a modified instrument panel.

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40

7251 Weissach

WEST GERMANY

ID: 1984-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. -- M. Iwase, Manager, Techinical Administration Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shitzuoka-ken Japan

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1984, to Mr. Driver of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Mr. Driver has not been an official of this agency for many years, and in the future, your requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Your first question is whether Safety Standard No. 108 permits a two-headlamp system on motorcycles. The answer is yes. Paragraph S.4.1.1.34 specifies the lighting systems permissible on motorcycles. It allows two Type 2D1 or Type 2 (7 in.), or two Type 2B1 or Type 2B headlamps. Under Table IV, if two headlamps are used, they must be disposed symmetrically around the vertical center line. Two non-sealed headlamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may also be used, subject to the same mounting restriction. Therefore the system you propose appears acceptable under Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether the two headlamps may be mounted one atop the other, rather than side by side. While Table IV specifies that a single headlamp must be mounted "on the vertical centerline", requires that two headlamps be disposed symetrically around it. We do not interpret this language as allowing two headlamps to be mounted adjacent to each other on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Mr. E. T. Driver, Director Official of Crash Avoidance Date: June 21, 1984 Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Koito Ref. No.84.06.21.02 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Two Lamp System of Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. E. T. Driver;

We are now going to carry out engineering design of motorcycle headlamp of two lamp system as illustrated below.

We know well that there is a fact that the motorcycle with two lamp system headlamp has already been on sale in US market.

We would like you to confirm your opinion concerning the legal applicability of the two lamp system of Motorcycle headlamp.

Configuration of Two lamp system Motorcycle headlamp: INSERT GRAPH HERE Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upper Beam

Lower Bean

Upper Beam Motorcycle headlamp assembly Lower Beam

Motorcycle headlamp units

1. Photometric performance:

1-1) Each headlamp unit has equivalent dia. in dimension and photometric performance to the other and is designed to comply with the photometric requirements of table 1 & 2 of SAE J584 "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle headlamps "specified in FMVSS No. 108, having two filaments (One is for upper beam and the other is for lower beam).

1-2) As for the combined max. value for the upper beam headlamp, the headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd.

2. Installation arrangement:

Each headlamp unit is symmetrically installed about the longitudinal center line of Motorcycle.

3. Aiming adjustment mechanism:

Each headlamp unit is designed to be adjusted independently in horizontal and vertical directions

4. Others:

This motorcycle headlamp assembly is designed to conform to all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and SAE J584.

Would you please get us your advice concerning the following questions;

Question:

1. Whether the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted legally or not.

2. Additional question in case that the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted:

Whether the following installation arrangement be permitted or not.

INSERT GRAPH HERE Vertical arrangment

Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upon your kind review to the above, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated, and we remain,

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept.

Koito Manufacturing. Co., Ltd.

Shizuoka Works

ID: 1984-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lamborghini of North America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America 23535 Telo Street Torrance, California 90505

Dear Mr. Thomas:

We have received your petition of July 6, 1984, for a two-year exemption of the Lamborghini Countach from the requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 that it be equipped with sun visors.

You have filed this petition pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield. Petitions of this nature are appropriate where a product has inadvertently been manufactured out of compliance but the noncompliance has been corrected and the manufacturer seeks relief from the statutory responsibilities of notification and remedy for its past production. We do not understand this to be the case, as you have not reported importation of any Countachs without sun visors.

The proper procedure to obtain temporary exemptions from prospective noncompliances are those of 49 CFR Part 555. We assume that you have a copy of this regulation. If you wish to petition on one of the bases of this regulation, we shall be pleased to consider the matter further.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 6, 1984

The Administrator NHTSA Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

RE: PETITION FOR PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM FMVSS #201-LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP 500S

Enclosed, please find our petition for partial exemption from Standard 201 for sun visors on the basis that such non-compliance is inconsequential in relation to road safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America

TT:ac Enc.

LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP500S PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PART OF 49CFR PART 571.201.5.3.4.

49CFR 556.(B) (3)

APPLICANT: LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA 17230 SOUTH AVALON BOULEVARD CARSON, CALIFORNIA 90746

Applicant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California.

49CFR 556.(b)(4)

Temporary exemption is requested from 49CFR, Part 571.201.5.3.4.

Sunvisors

5.3.4.1. A sun visor that is constructed of or covered with energy absorbing material shall be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

Exemption is requested for a period of two (2) years. Vehicle concerned is the Lamborghini Countach LP500S. Number of vehicles involved is fifty (50) per year, for each of the two (2) years for which exemption is requested.

49CFR 556.4(b) (5)

Basis for petition

Our basis for request for exemption is probably more relevant to 49CFR 556, in that in our opinion the non-compliance of the vehicle with the sun visor requirement is inconsequential relative to motor vehicle safety.

The roofline, front header rail, (actually a part of the tubular steel roll cage) and the top portion of the windshield which is lightly tinted are relatively low and the angles subtended at the eye point relative to the horizontal plane by the roofline and the bottom of the tinted strip are as low as conventional sun visor placement would provide. The enclosed photograph shows the view from eye-level.

The enclosed diagram shows the position of a 50th percentile male's head from and the generation of the angles subtended at the eye-point by the header rail and the lowest point of the tinted portion at the top of the windshield.

"INSERT"

ID: 1984-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Hayes Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 29, 1984

Ms. Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent Hayes Equipment Corporation P.O. Box 526 150 New Britain Avenue Unionville, Connecticut 06085

Dear Ms. Lindley:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting information on the tire registration requirements applicable to your company as a manufacturer of new trailers. Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982. You also asked for confirmation that your company, as the manufacturer of trailers, has sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on trailers sold under your company's name. Your understanding is correct.

The responsibility of the various parties for recording and keeping records of the tire identification numbers of new tires are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.10 reads as follows:

Each motor vehicle manufacturer, or his designee, shall maintain a record of the new tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him or a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and shall maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires. These records shall be maintained for a period of not less than 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

As you can see from this language, it is the vehicle manufacturer that has the sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment an or in the vehicle and records of the first purchasers of those vehicles for purposes other than resale. This responsibility remains even if the tires on the vehicle are changed by a vehicle dealer or distributor, unless that dealer or distributor voluntarily notifies the vehicle manufacturer of the tire change. As long as the vehicle is sold with the tires that were shipped with it as original equipment, dealers and distributors of the vehicle have no responsibilities for either registering the tires or keeping any records. Should those dealers and distributors substitute tires on the vehicle other than those shipped as original equipment, they would have some responsibility for registering the tires with the tire manufacturer, per section 574.9, but it would be the tire manufacturer that would be responsible for keeping the records, not the dealers and distributors.

Should you have any further questions relating to tire registration requirements, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

for Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 11, 1983

Office Of Chief Council National Highway Safety Division 400 7th Street South West Washington DC 20590

Attention: Steve Kratzke

Reference: "Motor vehicle safety and cost savings authorization act of 1982).

Dear Steve:

As per our conversation of this date, I would like to request from you a copy of the above mentioned act. I would appreciate your clarifying one point for me. As I understand it from you, Hayes Equipment Corporation, as the manufacturer has the sole responsibility for keeping records of tire serial numbers and end recipient of said tire. As long as the trailer is sold under the Hayes name, no dealers, distributors, or stores (i.e. J. C. Penney) have any legal responsibility in this regard.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent

DL:jd

ID: 1984-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America,Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bruce Henderson Automobile Importers of America, Inc. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002 Arlington, Virginia 1002 Dear Mr. Henderson:

This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Vinson of this office, in which you asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you would like to know whether a supplementary turn signal unit may be added to each front fender near the wheel well of a vehicle already equipped with a turn signal system meeting Standard No. 108. You also asked whether there were any restrictions on the mounting height of such a lamp.

Standard No. 108 allows lighting equipment additional to that required by the standard provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (paragraph S4.1.3). The supplementary turn signal unit that you describe would appear to enhance the effectiveness of the required turn signals rather than detract from them. There is no requirement that equipment, added at the option of the manufacturer, meet the specific requirements of the standard applicable to identical or similar items of equipment; i.e., the supplementary unit is not legally required to have the same flash rate as the primary turn signals, nor is it subject to the same mounting height restrictions. Obviously, if these specifications are met, supplementary equipment is less likely to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment within the meaning of S4.1.3.

As you are no doubt aware, some manufacturers are wiring their front side marker lamps to flash with the turn signals. This type of supplementary system is acceptable to us.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 17, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vincent Office of Chief Counsel - NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

We would like to request all interpretation of the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (in particular, FMVSS 108) in the following case:

A passenger car complies fully with the requirements for turn signals in FMVSS 108. Is it permissable to add a "turn signal repeater lamp" to each front fender near the wheel well? This repeater lamp would indicate to a vehicle in an adjacent lane an intention to change lanes. The vehicle would continue to to meet requirements in FMVSS 108 for rate of flash, bulb burnout indications, etc.

If the use of such turn signal repeaters in addition to the "four-corner" signal lamps is permissible, is there any restriction on the mounting height - maximum or minimum?

Thank you for your attention and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, Bruce Henderson BH:bd