ID: nht79-2.30

DATE: 09/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 1979

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Co., Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.

Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet the adjustment requirements of pargaraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 23, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590 Reference: Your letter dated July 17, 1978 to Mr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America - NOA-30.

Dear Mr. Levin:

I have this date, received a copy of your letter, referenced above, concerning the testing of passive seat belt assemblies to FMVSS No. 208 or 209 requirements. I feel that your letter may need some clarification or I need some further interpretation.

The question posed was pertaining to para. S4.5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 208. Your answer to that question was yes, that seat belt passive systems are exempt from FMVSS No. 209 testing with the exception of those that are not required to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements.

My interpretation of the Standard is that the aforementioned paragraph replaces only the assembly performance requirements of FMVSS No. 209, which is a Static Test, with the Dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 208.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 208 states that the passive belt assembly must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 for retractor performance (para. S7.1 Adjustment). Therefore, all passive belt systems whether or not they are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements must conform to paragraph S7.1 (S4.5.3.3) of FMVSS No. 208. If my interpretation is not correct, then a retractor which will encounter more usage in a passive belt system, does not have to be tested for endurance per FMVSS No. 209 (i.e. resistance to environments, cycling and retraction force); but an active belt system which sees far less use, must meet those same 209 tests.

In view of testing programs presently in progress for several manufacturers an early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division

FP:mg

ID: nht95-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Motorcycle Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting an interpretation from NHTSA regarding the applicability to motorcycles of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Lamp requirements within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84.

When reviewing Table III of FMVSS 108 (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment) and its applicability to motorcycle turn signal lamps, we are referred to SAE J588, November 1984. SAE J588 not only specifies turn signal lamp requirements but also speci fies other related requirements such as the need for a turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if the turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 indicates the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow colored light.

All Kawasaki motorcycles designed for use on public roads and sold in the United States are equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of FMVSS 108. In addition, all Kawasaki motorcycles having turn signal lamps are equipped with an illumi nated pilot indicator lamp (yellow colored).

Table III within FMVSS 123; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification. However, FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for the turn signal pilot indicator lamp.

In future model years, Kawasaki would like to change the current yellow colored light that illuminates our motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps to a green colored light. However, when reviewing SAE J588 NOV84 and FMVSS 123, we cannot determine w ith confidence if it would be allowed.

When reviewing the language within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84, it seems evident this section was written with passenger cars in mind and not motorcycles. "5.4.3.3 - If the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for exam ple on the front fenders, they should emit a yellow colored light and have a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 mm." It is our belief the color and area requirements are specified within this section to insure visibility by the driver because the l ocation of the indicator lamp would be a greater distance away from the drivers eye than a indicator lamp located inside the vehicle on the dash panel.

FMVSS 123 does not need to address distance from the drivers eye, color, or size of the turn signal pilot indicator lamp because the location of the indicator lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the drivers eye.

Motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are, in most cases, located within the main instrument panel of the motorcycle with other instrumentation such as speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure gage or warning light, fuel level gage, and transmission neutral indicator. The main instrument panel on motorcycles is usually located between the handlebars and the headlamp. In some cases, motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are located away from the main instrument panel on the fuel tank, or wit hin a separate panel between the motorcycles fuel tank and handlebars. When considering these locations and their distance from the drivers eye, we believe any pilot lamp light color would be acceptable.

When reviewing current FMVSS requirements (FMVSS 108 / FMVSS 123), we believe we are not limited to using only a yellow color for the lamp of our turn signal pilot indicators because FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for turn signal indicator lamps. However, as indicated above, we are not entirely confident our interpretation of the requirements is correct because of the yellow color requirement specified within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84. Therefore, we are requesting your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our request.

If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext 2456.

ID: 08-001744 TPMS 4 questions (Wacker)--22 Jan 09 rsy

ID: nht79-1.44

DATE: 04/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Leyland Cars

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978, letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.

You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.

You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those item. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.

SINCERELY,

Engineering and Product Planning Division

British Leyland UK Limited

The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

JULY 17, 1978 Dear Madam,

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS FMVSS 101-80

B.L.Cars Ltd., manufacturers of Jaguar, Triumph, Rover, M.G., Austin and Morris passenger cars and Land Rover and Range Rover M.P.V.'s petitions for reconsideration of FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays under CFR 553.35.

We wish to adopt common specifications to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and EEC Directive 78/316 for the identification of controls and displays, and we find this is not possible with the two Regulations as currently written. We therefore request that FMVSS 101-80 be amended in the following respects to enable common specifications to be arrived at.

1. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by substituting for symbol shown in the line titled "Headlamps and Tail lamps" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/111-1975 for Master Lighting Switch, namely

if Separate Switch (Illegible Words)

Alternatively add the ISO symbol as an option.

2. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Manual Choke" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/11-1975 for Choke.

3. Amend Table 2, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Brake System" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/DAD 2 for Brake Failure.

These three amendments would be a step towards the accomplishment of the objective of the Notice published on 21st October, 1976 to identify these controls and displays with specified symbols which

(Graphics omitted) are internationally standardised. It is anticipated that the Brake System symbol will be adopted by ISO before the effective date of FMVSS 101-80; it has already been adopted by EEC and is under consideration by ECE.

An additional advantage would be to remove the anomaly present in FMVSS 101-80 which specifies the same symbol for two different functions namely Headlamps and Tail lamps control and High Beam telltale.

The preamble to FMVSS 101-80 says that some existing ISO symbols are not included in the final rule due to the fact that additional data are needed on their recognisability. The symbols we have requested to be adopted were produced by ISO in working parties in which representatives from the U.S.A. were engaged and these were the symbols which were considered by these working parties to be the most suitable for the purpose. We believe that there is now no better way to obtain universal recognition of these symbols than their adoption on vehicles in use in the U.S.A. and the rest of the world.

We request that this Petition be given urgent consideration because we have to act quickly to achieve the requirements by the effective date.

(Graphics omitted)

C. J. Goode Chief Engineer Vehicle Safety.

ID: 10495-ii

Mr. Steve Anthony
Product Manager
Structural Composites Industries
325 Enterprise Place
Pomona, CA 91768

Dear Mr. Anthony:

This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Container Integrity, which takes effect on March 27, 1995. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you manufacture CNG containers for OEMs. You further stated that some of your customers have requested that containers they purchase prior to FMVSS No. 304's effective date be labeled with a statement that they comply with FMVSS No. 304. Specifically, you asked whether your containers could be labeled with the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" or "DOT effective March 27, 1995." As explained below, prior to the effective date, you are prohibited from labeling a container with information that could appear to be a certification to the FMVSS.

In the preamble to the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304, NHTSA stated that

a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a certification is a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect. Therefore, until a standard is effective, manufacturers may not certify compliance with it (59 FR 49010, 49020 September 26, 1994).

Based on this discussion, you acknowledge that it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995. Nevertheless, you wish to specify information on the container that the container will comply with the soon to be effective FMVSS.

As discussed in our September 1994 notice, a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Any label on a product about meeting a standard tends to create the appearance of a certification. It is therefore our opinion

that, along with not using the symbol DOT, any such statement on a container label must affirmatively indicate that (1) no standard applies to the container, and (2) the statement is not a certification.

With these considerations in mind, your suggestion to include the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" would not be permissible because it might be read as constituting a certification. Moreover, the symbol DOT may not be included in your statement because its inclusion might be misinterpreted as implying that the container has been certified to an FMVSS that is in effect, since use of the DOT symbol is the usual method by which certifications are made.

You may, however, label a container with the following statement: "This CNG container would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, that takes effect on March 27,1995. However, since this container was manufactured before the effective date of FMVSS 304, it cannot be certified to comply with that standard. No FMVSS applies to the container."

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref: 303 d:3/2/95

ID: nht95-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Anthony -- Product Manager, Structural Composites Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/15/94 LETTER FROM STEVE ANTHONY TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10495)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Container Integrity, which takes effect on March 27, 1995. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you manuf acture CNG containers for OEMs. You further stated that some of your customers have requested that containers they purchase prior to FMVSS No. 304's effective date be labeled with a statement that they comply with FMVSS No. 304. Specifically, you asked whether your containers could be labeled with the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" or "DOT effective March 27, 1995." As explained below, prior to the effective date, you are prohibited from labeling a container with information that could appear to be a certification to the FMVSS.

In the preamble to the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304, NHTSA stated that

a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a certification is a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect. Therefore, until a standard is effective, manufacturers may not certify compliance with it (59 FR 49010, 49020 September 26, 1994).

Based on this discussion, you acknowledge that it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995. Nevertheless, you wish to specify information on the container that the contain er will comply with the soon to be effective FMVSS.

As discussed in our September 1994 notice, a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Any label on a product about meeting a standard tends to create the appearance of a certification . It is therefore our opinion that, along with not using the symbol DOT, any such statement on a container label must affirmatively indicate that (1) no standard applies to the container, and (2) the statement is not a certification.

With these considerations in mind, your suggestion to include the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" would not be permissible because it might be read as constituting a certification. More over, the symbol DOT may not be included in your statement because its inclusion might be misinterpreted as implying that the container has been certified to an FMVSS that is in effect, since use of the DOT symbol is the usual method by which certificati ons are made.

You may, however, label a container with the following statement: "This CNG container would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, that takes effect on March 27, 1995. However, since this container was manufac tured before the effective date of FMVSS 304, it cannot be certified to comply with that standard. No FMVSS applies to the container."

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10177

Mr. Paul Frink
Engineering Manager
Avionic Structures, Inc.
1429 North State College Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92806

Dear Mr. Frink:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206).

Your letter stated that your company manufactures a door and frame system designed for installation on a "recreational motor home," which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri-Mark assures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question.

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set forth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the noncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the defect free of charge.

For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is defined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3; see enclosed) as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off- road operation."

You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, the standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requirements of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this step area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206.

To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would "certify" compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the components of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of

Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" and "Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations," respectively. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:9/2/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: nht94-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Frink -- Engineering Manager, Avionic Structures, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 07/11/94 from Paul Frink to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 10177)

TEXT: This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206).

Your letter stated that your company manufacturers a door and frame system designed for installation on a "recreational motor home," which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri/Mark a ssures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question.

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. T he statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set f orth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the no ncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy t he defect free of charge.

For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is def ined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3; see enclosed) as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, th e standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requiremen ts of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this ste p area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206.

To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would "certify" compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the c omponents of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" n1 and "Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations," respectively.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1982-2.41

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weldon Incorporated -- Robert P. Donley (Columbus, Oh)

COPYEE: Raymond Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1981, regarding continuing compliance of lighting equipment after repairs.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?"

Repair of a vehicle in service is irrelevant to its certification. Certification is the assurance given by the manufacturer to distributors, dealers, and purchasers, that Federal standards are met by his product upon its sale when new. There is no requirement that the certification be valid for the life of the product.

"2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?"

This is a good question, and the answer is no. When repairs are necessary there is no Federal legal requirement that the lamp remain in conformance afterwards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not alter fully functional lamps in a manner that renders them nonconforming, or substitute nonconforming equipment. This prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner; his modifications are subject only to State and local restrictions.

"3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?"

As I stated earlier, repairs of used vehicles and equipment are not subject to conformance or certification. However, if a lamp is replaced in its entirety, the manufacturer of the replacement lamp is responsible for certifying conformity to Standard No. 108 because that standard covers replacement equipment of the types you mentioned ("e.g., stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp").

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 10, 1981

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

We are seeking an understanding of what would nullify the original certification of a motor vehicle lamp (e.g. stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp) to conformance with FMVSS 108 as result of a certain field repair.

A motor vehicle lamp is a mechanical composite of its housing, lens, bulb and miscellaneous other parts. The lamp is designed to conform with FMVSS 108 as originally designed and manufactured.

On the basis of an approved independent laboratory report (sample enclosed) a lamp is certified by the original manufacturer as being designed to conform with FMVSS 108.

Specifically, we would like answers to the following questions:

1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?

2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?

3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?

We respectfully request your reply by January 11, 1982. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Robert P. Donley President

[Text information omitted]

Sign off: 6:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996

ID: nht74-1.27

DATE: 03/14/74

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

TO: Ichikon Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25 to Mr. Charles A. Baker of this Office concerning the performance requirements of automotive lamp bulbs.

The answers to your specific questions follow.

"(1) At the present, have we need to comply the performance of bulbs with the requirements including the dimentional specification of SAE (Illegible Word) subreferenced in the current FMVSS 108 as well as lighting devices?"

The answer is no. The lamp bulbs installed in production lamps or lighting devices are not included in the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. The requirements apply only to the lamp assembly (the reflector, lens, and associated components other than the bulb) when tested with a selected lamp bulb that (Illegible Words) and the specifications of paragraphs S4.1.1.19 and S4.1.1.20 of Standard 108.

"(2) In the final rule, which of SAE J573d or J573e is applicable as the subreferenced standard of the bulbs?"

The proposal in Docket (Illegible Word) Notice 3 was in paragraph 57.6 which referenced the 1972 edition of the SAE Handbook. SAE (Illegible Word) was included in this Handbook, and is, therefore, the reference for test bulbs in the proposal.

"(3) Do you have a plan that such consideration will be taken into the rule making for proposed FMVSS 108A?"

No such consideration is necessary, because, as indicated above SAE J573d is only a specification for the test bulbs used for the photometric tests of the lamps.

We trust that these answers are satisfactory; however, please feel free to contact us in case of future questions.

Sincerely,

Not controlled

ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

February 25, 1974

Charles A. Baker -- Acting Chief Division of Lighting and Vision, National Highway Safety Bureau Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Baker, Subject: Performance Requirements of Automotive Lamp Bulbs

As you awaire, SAE Standard J573, Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units, was revised from J573d to J573e, and SAE Recommended Practice J1049, Service Performance Requirements and Test Procedure for Motor Vehicle Lamp Bulbs was newly issued on August, 1973 respectively.

These revision and new issue confuse us in respect the conformity to FMVSS 108 in production of the bulbs.

Then we would like to ask you the following questions regarding the interpretation of the current FMVSS 108 and the proposed FMVSS 108A.

(1) At the present, have we need to comply the performance of bulbs with the requirements including the dimentional specification of SAE J573d subreferenced in the current FMVSS 108 as well as lighting devices?

(2) On the otherhand, the final rule for proposed FMVSS 108A (Docket No. 69-19: Notice 3) is expected to issue in early 1974.

In the final rule, which of SAE J573d or J573e is applicable as the subreferenced standard of the bulbs?

(3) We think that SAE J573 was established in the nature of design standard and revised as the specification of bulbs for photometric test of lamps. We think further that SAE J1049 was issued as the survice use of bulbs.

Do you have a plan that such consideration will be taken into the rule making for proposed FMVSS 108A?

Your early reply would be highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Yoshio Horii, Manager -- Lighting Engineering Dept.