ID: nht73-1.36

DATE: 07/26/73

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

TO: Signal-Stat Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 10, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking which SAE Standard incorporated into Standard No. 108 applies to turn signal operating units, SAE J589 or J589a.

The correct standard is SAE J589. You noted that the tables in the standard refer to J589, while paragraph S5.1 states that subreferenced standards shall be those published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook. The key word in S5.1 is "subreferenced", i.e., referred to only in an SAE standard itself referenced in the Federal standard. J589 is directly referenced, not subreferenced and the number identified is correct. An example of a subreferenced standard would be J575, which is mentioned in J589.

Your truly,

July 10, 1973

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: L. Schneider

Gentlemen:

We will appreciate in obtaining your interpretation relative to the testing regulations of the "Turn Signal" operating units.

I. FMVSS#108, paragraph S.5.1 states:

"S5. 1 SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices included in Tables I and III and paragraphs S4.1.4 and S4.5.1 are those published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook".

The 1970 SAE edition of SAE Standards contains SAE J-589a for Turn Signal operating units.

II. On the other hand, Tables I & III of FMVSS #108 specifies SAE J-589 for Turn Signal operating units. Is it a conflict between paragraph S5.1 and the Tables I and III of FMVSS #108?

Please inform which of the two mentioned SAE Standards is applicable for 1973, J-589a or J-589.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours, SIGNAL-STAT CORPORATION --

Rene Politis, Director, Product Reliability and ASSURANCE DEPT.

ID: nht73-1.37

DATE: 11/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking whether Standard No. 108 permits four identification lamps.

It does not. The purpose of the three-lamp system is that vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width be clearly identified as large vehicles, and only the three-lamp system specified by the standard is permissible. Standard No. 108, however, allows some latitude in mounting. The system need not be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle if the manufacturer determines that is impracticable. Since you appear to have made such a determination, the front identification lamp system should be placed "as close as practicable to the vertical centerline" with height and spacing requirements in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Larry Schnieder

Dear Sir:

In regards to trucks of 80 or more inches, are the three (3) lamps for front identification a minimum requirement?

The front loader equipment requires a bumper guard across the center of the windshield over the cab which would obscure the center lamp. Would four (4) identification lamps be permissible, i.e., 2 on each side of the center?

I would appreciate any advice or reference to a standard.

Thanking you in advance.

Very truly yours,

Crane Carrier Company --

Darrell Gambill,

Standards Engineer

ID: nht73-1.38

DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1973

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

TO: Mr. James C. Martin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 9 to the U. S. Department of Transportation concerning the operation of 4-way flashers and brake lights on a 1972 Toyota.

Since there is no requirement that the hazard warning signal (4-way flashers) be capable of operating independently of the stop signal, it is permissible for the stop signal to override the hazard warning signal. In fact, these signals on most passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured in the United States operate similarly.

ID: nht73-1.39

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Automotive Aftermarket

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

Sincerely,

Bendix

Automotive Aftermarket

May 30, 1973

Department of Transportation

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Reference: Phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent on 5/14/73

Dear Mr. Schneider:

The revision to the FMVSS #116 Standard, as published May 17, 1973, has an effective date for label changes of July 1, 1973, but does not specifically authorize the sellers of Brake Fluid to exhaust existing container stock.

The label changes are minor, as follows:

Existing Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

* New Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN. Contamination with dirt or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. CAUTION: STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED. DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER OR USE OTHER LIQUIDS.

* We have corrected the labeling as to the use of upper and lower case letters per the instructions of Mr. Taylor Vincent.

The current safety warning label requirements are not inadequate for the conventional Brake Fluids. Bendix labeling for DOT 3 Brake Fluid conforms to the existing standard for safety warnings.

This letter is a request for permission to exhaust container stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date. Existing Bendix container stock is in the form of lithographed containers both filled and unfilled. A minimum of 60 - 90 days is required to modify lithography plates. If permission is not granted, this letter is to be considered a petition to amend the Docket No. 71-13, Notice 4, published May 17, 1973. Please amend this docket to give the conventional Brake Fluid sellers the right to exhaust stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date.

Very truly yours,

Cam Brame --

Quality Assurance Analyst

cc: M. J. Stepanek; B. Stubbs; R. Hasnerl; J. Howard

ID: nht73-1.4

DATE: 08/10/73

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

TO: Dow Corning Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1973, asking if there is a conflict between S5.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a and S5.2.1 of Standard No. 116.

There is no conflict. S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105a requires a label to be affixed to a new motor vehicle with the warning to use brake fluid from a sealed container. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 116 requires containers to be provided with resealable closures. A container with a resealable closure is "sealed" within the meaning of S5.4.3 if it is resealed after initial opening.

I enclose copies of both notices as they appeared in the Federal Register.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

July 27, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Office of Chief Council,

Attention: Larry Schneider

Dear Mr. Schneider:

I am a member of the Transportation Products Division Executive Board of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association. As a member also of the Brake Fluid Committee, I have been asked to determine the following information from your office. We need an interpretation of the specific meaning of the wording of the Federal Register, Volume 38, Friday, May 18, 1973, page 13017, paragraph S 5.4 regarding master cylinder reservoirs specifically where the reservoir "must be filled from sealed containers."

There is an apparant conflict with Federal Register Volume 36, June 24, 1971, paragraph S 5.2.1 in the 116 motor vehicle brake fluid standards in brake fluids. This states. "contents of six ounces or more must be in containers with resealable closures."

The conflict with many of our members is if the 116 motor vehicle brake fluids standards requires that the material be packaged in a container with a resealable closure, how does this then fit the wording of the previous Register, Volume 38, that it must be filled from sealed containers?

Is it possible that the Federal Register, Volume 38, is referring to fill from original containers or containers that have been immediately resealed after they are opened and when reused are the same condition as a sealed container?

It is very necessary that our CSMA group have an interpretation from you as to the seeming conflict. Our members need to know exactly how we can comply properly with both of these Federal Register issues.

For my own records, may I please have a copy or a xerox copy of the total wording of each of these Federal Register numbers for presentation to the CSMA Brake Fluid Committee. I would appreciate an early response to this request.

Very truly yours,

C. W. Todd -- Market Supervisor, Fluids, Emulsions and Compounds, Dow Corning

cc: Grace Fay -- National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Motor Vehicles Program;

Mike Baldwin -- Dow Chemical Company

ID: nht73-1.40

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mobil Oil Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

The sample label you enclosed appears to designate the contents as "Super Heavy Duty Brake Fluid", rather than "DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID" as paragraph S5.2.2.2(e) requires. Otherwise, it is adequate compliance with paragraph S5.2.2.2.

Sincerely,

Mobil Oil Corporation

June 1, 1973

T. Vinson -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUIDS

PACKAGE LABELING

DOCKET NO. 71-13

Dear Mr. Vinson:

You may recall that on May 23, we spoke about the Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid Standard No. 116, identified as 571.116, Docket No. 71-13; Notice 4 and previous Notices. I mentioned that there were some changes in labeling instructions in Notice 4 as compared to the instructions which appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, June 24, 1971, page 11989. I also mentioned that it would be virtually impossible to comply with the new labeling outlined in the May 17, 1973 Federal Register by the effective date of July 1, 1973.

You suggested that we might like to file a Petition of Reconsideration mentioning the two items which we discussed. Would you, therefore, please consider this letter as a Petition of Reconsideration.

1. Since it would be virtually impossible to prepare new graphics and lithography and have material packaged between now and July 1, 1973, and since the wording does not seem to represent a substantive change, we would like to make the labeling change in an orderly way. I would estimate this could be done in six to eight months after we know the exact wording to be used on the package.

2. The June 24, 1971 Federal Register carried as a caution, "DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS." The May 17, 1973 Federal Register carries the caution, "Do not refill container or use other liquids." It seems to me that the former wording is better than the latter. There is also a difference in the various Notices with respect to the use of upper and lower case letters. We would like to know exactly which words should be used before changing the graphics and notifying the can manufacturers to use new lithography on future containers.

You may be interested to see the marking on our current 16-oz Mobil Super Heavy Duty Brake Fluid package, so here is a copy of the art. When we redo the graphics, we will, of course, change the text in the upper half of the rear panel to reflect the newest SAE Specification J-1703c and the newest Federal Specification VV-B-680-B. We will also change the wording in the lower part of the back panel when we find out exactly what is wanted with respect to the caution and the use of upper and lower case letters.

Very truly yours,

J. W. Lane, Manager --

Product Promotion, Technical

Publications and Packaging

Attachment

DRY BOILING POINT EXCEEDS 450 F (232 C)

Mobil Registered

super heavy duty brake fluid

Surpasses SAE Specification J-1703b, conforms to Federal Specification VV-B-680-A, and to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, DOT 3 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid.

KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN

A non-volatile super heavy duty fluid for use in all types of auto and truck hydraulic brake systems where vehicle manufacturer specifies SAE J-1703b or DOT 3 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid. Mixes perfectly with any automotive hydraulic brake fluid approved by vehicle manufacturers or which meets SAE Specification J-1703b, Federal Specification VV-B-680-A, or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, No. 116, DOT 3. Minimum wet boiling point 284 F (140 C). Do not spill on vehicle finishes.

CAUTION -- COMBUSTIBLE MIXTURE N.Y.F.D.C. OF A. NO. 1095

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY, Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

Distributed By Mobil Oil Corporation, New York, N.Y.

ID: nht73-1.41

DATE: 06/28/73

FROM: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Transportation Sash Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, requesting that we clarify the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. You indicate that you purchase block size glass and cut it to suit your customers.

The requirements to which you refer are found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (49 CFR @571.205). They require each item of glazing material to be labeled with certain information, that specified in section [Illegible Number] of ANS @26.1-1966, which includes the manufacturer's trademark, the symbol AS or the words American Standard, a model number, and a reference, in the form of a number, that indicates the type of glazing material. All glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must be labeled with this information, which can be stencilled onto the material if it is removed during the cutting process.

In addition to these identifying markings, each item of glazing material must be certified as conforming to the Federal standard. Prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) certify glazing that is designed for use in any specific vehicle by including with the above markings the symbol DOT and a code number assigned to the manufacturer by this agency. Glazing that is not designed for a specific vehicle is certified pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), which includes, as you indicate, the use of a label or tag affixed to the glazing material that states that the material conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers other than prime glazing material manufacturers, such as those, like yourself, who cut larger sheets to size, are required to certify in the same fashion; that is, in accordance with section 114, and may certify by labels or tags affixed to the material.

I have enclosed a copy of the marking requirements of Standard No. 205 for your information. If you wish to obtain a copy of the American National Standard @@26.1-1966, you should write to the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.

ID: nht73-1.42

DATE: 05/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Signum Plastics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1973, requesting that you be assigned a "DOT" code number for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials". You state that you purchase acrylic plastic sheet from Thailand and Japan, and indicate that you are sole importers of this material.

Under paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205, the assignment of a code number is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers, who are those manufacturers who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. As you import only acrylic sheet, you are not a prime glazing material manufacturer, and the assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate.

I have enclosed a copy of marking requirements for glazing materials. Paragraph S6.2 requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to apply a code number, which is obtained upon written request to this agency, to that glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper. The code number requirement does not apply to glazing sheets not designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper. If you plan to import glazing material that is designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper, the prime manufacturer of that material, whether foreign or domestic, must apply for and receive a DOT code number.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

April 26, 1973

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are requesting assignment of a D O T number, relative to Standard No. 205.

We purchase acrylic sheet plastic from Thailand and Japan, and are the sole importers of this material, as evidenced by the enclosed labels.

We are in the process of getting a registered trademark for this label.

Very truly yours,

SIGNUM PLASTICS --

Jack Molesworth, Partner

Encl.

ID: nht73-1.43

DATE: 09/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sekurit-Glas Union GmbH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, requesting information regarding the marking requirements in FMVSS No. 205 for automobile safety glass.

With respect to your request for a copy of the marking requirements, they may be found in paragraph S6. of the enclosed copy of the standard, and in section 6 of American National Standard Z26.1 - 1966. The latter standard can be obtained by writing to the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.

Information on various State requirements should be obtained from Mr. Armond Cardarelli, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

You ask whether marking requirements can be met using a specific format you include in your letter, and refer to "Approval" and "Supplemental" markings. It is not clear to us to what you refer, as we prescribe neither "approval" nor "supplemental" markings in the standard, and perhaps we will be better able to answer any questions you may have after you have had an opportunity to review the requirements.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

July 19, 1973

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref.: Markings of Safety Glass

Dear Sirs,

According to the FMVSS 205 all the safety glasses built in cars have to be marked. Beside the prescriptions of the Department of Transportation there are other special prescriptions for each state (for instance California). Please could you send us an exact list of all these special specifications.

Could you send us as well the concerned regulation or a list from which we can take the form and the contains of the markings.

Is it sufficient to write as Approval Markings

DOT . . . /M . . . /AS

and all other denominations, as for instance laminated, Kinonglas-Kristall-HI-BFG, plate in the Supplemental Markings?

We would be very grateful if you could answer our letter as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

SEKURIT-Glas Union GmbH

i.V. i.A.

ID: nht73-1.44

DATE: 07/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Philips Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 4 and June 22, 1973, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials". Your letter of June 4 asks which glazing materials may properly be used in motor homes under the Federal standard, and whether State laws which provide otherwise are invalid under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your letter of June 22 asks what requirements apply for glazing materials used in travel trailers.

Our records indicate that we wrote on July 5, 1972, to Mr. Robert T. Sanders of Philips Industries, in response to a letter from him concerning glazing requirements for chassis-mount and slide-in campers, trailer, and motor homes. Standard No. 205 has been amended since that date (on November 11, 1972; 37 FR 24035) and this letter reflects some of the changes in the standard made by that amendment.

The requirements for glazing for use in motor homes, which under NHTSA definitions now includes chassis-mount campers as well as traditional motor homes, are essentially those specified in ANS Z26 for trucks, with certain exceptions. Thus, for windshields, AS 1 or AS 10 materials may be used. For windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, and AS 11 materials may be used, and AS 3 may be used in the unusual situation where any such window is not requisite for driving visibility. All other windows may be AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, AS 4, and AS 8 materials. Additionally, windows other than windshields and those to the immediate right and left of the driver may be: AS 3, AS 5, AS 9, and AS 12 where not requisite for driving visibility; AS 6 where not forward-facing; AS 7 and AS 12 where neither at levels requisite for driving visibility nor forward-facing.

I would add that the term "forward-facing" is not limited to windshields or behind-the-cab windows, as your letter implies, but applies to any window that is mounted in a plane transverse to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. It includes as well, for example, windows placed above the windshield, and any transverse interior partition.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)) does prohibit, as you indicate in your letter, any State or political subdivision of a State from establishing or continuing in effect with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of the vehicle that is not identical to the Federal standard. The question raised by your letter is whether a State law which prohibits the use of glazing materials in locations of motor vehicles where they are specifically permitted to be used by the Federal standard is violative of section 103(d). It is our view that such a law is violative of section 103(d), and is invalid, as we believe that the use of a particular glazing material in specific vehicle locations is an aspect of performance that is covered by Standard No. 205. You are correct in adding, however, that under section 103(d) a State (or subdivision thereof) may require a higher standard of performance than that established by the Federal standard in vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. You may, of course, refer to this letter in your discussions with any State authorities regarding these issues.

The interpretation in your letter of June 22 that Standard No. 205 does not apply to glazing materials for use in travel trailers is correct.

Yours truly,

June 4, 1973

Richard Dyson --

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

This has reference to the telephone conversation I had with Mike Pescoe, relating to the use of safety glazing materials in motor homes.

According to our interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, #205, with its recent amendment, any window except the forward facing windows (windshield) and behind-the-cab windows and side windows directly adjacent to the driver may be manufactured of any glazing materials AS-1 through AS-13 as specified in ANS Z26.1-1966.

It is also our understanding that since the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for safety glazing has been already established, no State or political sub-division of a State shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

It is also our understanding that the Federal or the government of any State or political sub-division can establish a safety glazing requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such glazing imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal Standard.

I would appreciate your comments on the above.

Sincerely,

Krish Kudva --

Manager, Product Engineering, PHILIPS INDUSTRIES, INC.

June 22, 1973

Richard Dyson U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Further to my letter dated June 4, 1973, relating to the use of safety glazing materials, I would appreciate your comment on the following interpretation besides what has already been listed in that letter.

What is the correct interpretation of glazing requirements for travel trailers? I understand that travel trailers do not require safety glazing.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,

Krish Kudva -- Manager, Product Engineering, PHILIPS INDUSTRIES, INC.