ID: nht88-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: RICHARD W. WARD -- VICE PRESIDENT; K-D LAMP COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO RICHARD W. WARD, V. P., K-D LAMP CO., FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in reference to your letter of Aug. 19, 1988 to Paul Scully regarding the exclusion of reflex reflector area when calculating minimum square inch lens area. Apparently your letter has caused a future customer of KD Lamp Co. to reconsider and rej ect the use of a Turn Signal Lamp of ours which has a lens area of 8 square inches. The following information and enclosed documentation is offered for your evaluation, and I respectfully request your reply to clarify the requirement of minimum square i nch lens area for Turn Signal and Stop Lamps.

In S1. of Purpose & scope FMVSS 108 the standard covers requirements for original and replacement lamps. When a new lamp is designed the requirements of 108 in effect at that time are naturally incorporated into the design. The present requirements of 108 shown in Table #1 for vehicles 80 or more inches wide indicates the applicable SAE standard is J-588e Sept. 1970 for Turn Signal Lamps and J-586c Aug. 1970 for Stop Lamps. Both of these SAE standards in section 3.2 require a minimum lens area of 8 s quare inches (rear lamps) for a single compartment lamp. The device in question meet the J-588e and J-586c, however, our customer has interpreted your letter that 12 square inch minimum lens area is the requirement. Their conclusion is based on the 2nd paragraph of your letter wherein you make reference to S4.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108 and 12 square inch lens area.

It is our position that S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS 108 is not the present requirements but rather an exception or a permissable use of an old SAE J-588d June 1966 and J-586b June 1966 for lamps used on vehicles manufactured between 1973 and 1978 (ref . page 28238 Fed. Reg. Aug. 6, 1986). If the full context of S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 is taken into consideration it is apparent the intent, particularly the words "may also be designed", of these sections is to cover vehicles of older manufacture.

After your review of the above and attachments, I would appreciate your comments so the immediate problem as well as any future questions in this regard can be resolved.

Thank You.

ID: 1984-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Services Division United States Testing Company, Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You asked several questions about the requirements applicable to Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor utilizing a tension reducer device. The particular device you are concerned about is, according to your letter, activated by the vehicle door. With the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

By way of background information, this agency does not grant approvals of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 209 specifies requirements concerning minimum and maximum retraction force. Requirements are specified for both initial retraction force and retraction force after a test sequence which includes lengthy retractor cycling. See sections S4.3(j), (k) and S5.2(k).

As you know, retractors have traditionally had only one rather than two tension modes. Standard No. 209 does not prohibit a design with two tension modes. However, as written, the standard's requirements do not distinguish between tension modes.

We agree with your suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in the standard. However, we do not agree with your suggestion that the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force and the low tension mode for maximum retraction force. Instead, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range. For testing purposes, of course, a single retractor could only be fully tested for one of the two modes, since testing for both modes would involve twice the amount of cycling required by the standard.

Your letter states that since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, you believe that only cycling tests without lock-ups should be performed in testing. While we appreciate this argument, the standard, as written, does not permit that exception. Section S5.2(k) states in relevant part:

attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. The locking mechanism of an emergency locking retractor shall be actuated at least 10,000 times within 50 to 100 percent extension of webbing during the 50,000 cycles....

Since the standard does not distinguish between tension modes, lock-ups should be performed in testing for both the low and high tension modes.

As already noted, the retractor in question represents a new design which was not specifically considered in drafting Standard No. 209. If the standard as written creates problems, the manufacturer may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to establish special test procedures.

Your letter suggests that there may be a conflict between section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209's 0.2 pound retraction force requirement (section S4.3(j)). However, section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 only applies to automatic belt systems, while section S5.3(j) of Standard No. 209 only applies to active belt systems. Therefore, there can be no conflict.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 12, 1983

Mr. William Smith National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th St., S.W. Room 5320 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smith:

Some questions have been raised pertaining to the requirements relating to retraction force and lock-up distance on Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractors utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism). This particular device is activated by the vehicle door; with the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

The purpose of measuring retraction force is to insure that two (2) separate requirements are met.

1. Retraction force is high enough to sufficiently retract the webbing to its normal stowed position (Minimum Requirement).

2. Retraction force is not so high as to cause discomfort to the user (Maximum Requirement).

Since the referenced tension reducer is activated solely by door position, and the user has no manual control of the tension reducer operation, a question is raised pertaining to retraction force requirements.

We feel that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. That is; High Tension Mode -minimum retraction force requirements and Low Tension Mode - maximum retraction force requirement.

However, this raises another question on FMVSS 209 minimum requirements for retractor force for Type 2 Assemblies (0.2 lbs.). In FMVSS #208 proposed requirements for Comfort and Convenience, slack is allowed to be introduced in the webbing (S7.4.2.) provided that it is cancelled when the adjacent door is opened. This appears to be in contradiction of the 0.2 lbs. retraction force requirement of FMVSS 209 when utilizing a tension reducer type of retractor. Therefore, it seems, that since the tension reducer type of retractor is designed strictly for comfort, and not to induce slack, only 50% loss in retraction effort requirement after cycling should be pertinent.

The purpose of retractor cycling is to determine if the retractor will perform satisfactorily during repeated use and that spring tension does not change significantly as well as its ability to lock-up.

Since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, we feel that only cycling tests without lock-ups need be performed in accordance with FMVSS #209.

The low tension mode is the portion of the retractor that will perform during impact conditions and therefore should require standard cycling with lock-ups.

Therefore, we feel an interpretation of the adequacy of the minimum retraction force requirement pertaining to Comfort and Convenience type mechanisms is necessary. Also do both tension modes have to satisfy the Retractor Performance requirement of FMVSS #209.

We would appreciate your review of the above comments and your interpretation of same.

Very truly yours,

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President FP/na

ID: nht76-2.41

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing an opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated "December 5, 1975". (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).

The 1969 letter informed you that "if one compartment or lamp [in a multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.". The letter also stated that "lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States." Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.

There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.

The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table 1 of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is "in addition to the minimum required number" as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.

We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 on lens color.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We recently received a copy of Mr. James C. Schultz's opinion of December 3, 1975, to Ford Motor Company regarding the color of unlighted taillamps. This interpretation appears to conflict with the enclosed interpretation of October 21, 1969, we requested from NHTSA on a similar subject.

In answer to a question we raised on multicompartment lamps, Dr. Robert Brenner informed us that, "if one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2". He also stated that "lamps on a vehicle, and not required by this standard, are generally subject to regulation by the states". These statements appear to mean that once a manufacturer meets the minimum requirements for taillamps for FMVSS No. 108, any additional lamps he chooses to add do not fall under that standard. With respect to the unlighted color of the minimum required lamps, we agree that we are preempted. However, in the case of the Ford lamp, the taillamp section in question was an additional one to which Ford, as an afterthought, attached an amber filter. This lamp was not needed to comply with the federal standards for taillamps, and was an additional lamp not governed by the federal standards as stated in the October 21, 1969, NHTSA interpretation. We, therefore, request that you reconsider whether the interpretation in your letter to Ford Motor Company was overly broad.

The color requirements of the Vehicle Code were amended last year and Section 25950(b) referred to in Ford Motor Company's letter now reads as follows:

"All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear."

"This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot-candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted () and, with respect to vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1974, only such lamps that are in addition to the minimum required number and are visible to the rear may be white or amber when unlighted."

Until 1961, the Vehicle Code color requirements applied to all lamps, whether lighted or unlighted. In that year, the Legislature amended the Code to permit rear lamps to be white when unlighted in view of the General Motors and Chrysler taillamps which, for styling purposes, had white lenses to blend in with the chrome trim on the rear fenders and bumpers. At that time, the visibility problem with the white lenses was not initially apparent. It was then found that, in at least one design, the white lens reflected so much sunlight during the daytime that it washed out much of the effectiveness of the red stoplamp and turn signal. The white lenses were not objectionable on lamps that supplemented the regular red lensed rear lamps, but they were not satisfactory as a total replacement for those lamps.

Even though we recognize NHTSA's preemption in allowing a manufacturer to use any unlighted lens color he wishes for the minimum required rear lamps, we have a strong objection to that position. Observations of stoplamps in the daytime have shown that those with white lenses are less effective in attracting another person's attention than a lamp of the same output with a red lens. It might be argued that this problem of reduced signal effectiveness does not apply to taillamps, since they are only lighted at nighttime. However, during high brightness day-time fog when lights were required on vehicles, the red taillamps are so dim that the white or amber lens covers become a safety hazard due to the high brightness masking of the red light.

We have no technical objection to a rear lamp lens being any color darker than red, because this would improve the contrast of the red signal against its background. We are highly concerned about the use of lenses that are lighter than the required red because of their effect in washing out the signal in daylight. Standard No. 108 already acknowledges this difference with respect to turn signals where amber is required to have more candlepower output than red for equivalent daytime effectiveness. You might wish to make observations yourself in comparing the daylight effectiveness of the red lens on the Monarch with that of the amber lens when the taillamps are turned on. Daytime observations of the white lens on the various Cadillac year models illustrate varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the slant of the lens and the taillamp intensity.

We would appreciate hearing from you with respect to a clarification of the two interpretations. We also ask that NHTSA consider amending Standard No. 108 to prohibit taillamps and stoplamps from having a lens cover of white, amber, or any other color that has a lighter contrast with the signal than the red lens.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht92-2.32

DATE: 11/13/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCEL, NHTSA; UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: Due to some information received by the ministry that there are some companies who were dumping some defected and regected tyres in the area and for the safety of vehicles passengers the Ministry of Commerce & Industry had issued the Ministrial Degree no 3/1982 requiring that all imported vehicles tyres must be brand new and complying with international standards and that every shipment of such tyres must be accompanied by quality certificate issued by independent officially recognize body as an authority which has an ability of testing and prooving the quality of these tyres in accordance with these standards.

Accordingly we have received the certificates of quality from many authorized agencies from different countries and most of these certificates are valid for aperiod of time (One year - two years)

For U.S.A. we have not been able to obtain such certificate and the only certificate we are receiving now from a company named Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) which issued certificate for each shipment separetally and which does only visual test and not actual labrotary testing.

In order to obtain information concerning regulations and standards for motor relicles we have contacted the USA embassy in kuwait who has supplied us with standards NO, 569, 571.109, 571.110, 571.117, 571.119, 571.120, 571.129, 574.1 - 6, 575.1 - 7, 575.101 - 104, which have been issued by your administration.

This responds to your letter concerning United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is considerably different in the United States than in other countries. For example, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. The Safety Act, on the other hand, establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this process, the tire manufacturer, not a governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with applicable safety standards.

The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance without charge.

With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions:

1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the "DOT" mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The "DOT" symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards.

2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the "DOT" mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the "DOT" symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted.

3. Is the "DOT" symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the "DOT" symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States.

4. Is there a validity time for the use of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation.

6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the "DOT" symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the "DOT" symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the "DOT" symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines.

I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.

ID: 86-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Dingledy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking several questions about the effects of an amendment to the buckle force requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Buckles used on child restraints manufactured on or after February 16, 1986, must release with a minimum of 9 pounds force and a maximum of 14 pounds force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981, and February 15, 1986, were required to release with a minimum of 12 pounds applied force and a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured before January 1, 1981, were required to release with a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. You asked with which buckle release force requirements replacement buckles provided by your company should comply. Assuming that the replacement buckles are to be installed by you or dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, the answer is that the buckles may, at your option, comply with either the release force requirements applicable to child restraint buckles as of the date of manufacture of the child restraint or with the current buckle release force requirements.

Standard No. 213, like all of our safety standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, does not apply to the equipment after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Please note that these prohibitions do not apply to the child restraint owner rendering inoperative some element of design installed on his or her child restraint. Hence, replacement buckles that are sold to and installed by child restraint owners are not required to comply with the provisions of Standard No. 213.

However, if you as a manufacturer, or any dealers, distributors, or repair businesses were to remove complying buckles from a child restraint and replace them with buckles that did not comply with Standard No. 213, this would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). This result arises because buckles with the specified release force levels were installed on an item of motor vehicle equipment (the child restraint system) in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (Standard No. 213). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies that each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) subjects the violator to a potential $ 1,000 civil penalty.

Assuming that you or your dealers and distributors will be installing the replacement buckles, section 108(a)(2)(A) gives you an option of which release force requirements the replacement buckles must meet. In connection with several other standards that have been amended, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated its opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business does not knowingly render inoperative an element of design by replacing components installed in satisfaction of a safety standard with other components used in newer items of the same type in satisfaction of the same standard, even if the newer version of the standard imposes less stringent performance requirements. See, for example, the enclosed opinion issued when Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, was amended; 42 FR 26279, May 23, 1977. In this context, this opinion means that child restraint manufacturers may install replacement buckles that either:

1. comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213 as of the date the child restraint was manufactured; or

2. comply with the current requirements of Standard No. 213.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

COSCO INC.

OCC 0062

Steve Kratsky -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

January 16, 1986

Dear Mr. Kratsky,

I am interested in receiving clarification about the FMVSS 213 amendment for reduction of pressure required to operate buckles on child restraints. This amendment, effective February 16, 1986, will require child restraints to have buckles with a release pressure of not less than 9 or more that 14 pounds, instead of the original 12 pounds minimum.

My questions regarding the provision of replacement buckles for child restraints are as follows:

1. Which type buckle will need to be provided for child restraints manufactured prior to January 1, 1981?

2. Must we provide 12 pound minimum pressure buckles for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will continue to be in compliance with the FMVSS 213 standard in effect at time of manufacture?

3. Must we provide buckles meeting the amendment requirements for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will be in compliance with the current FMVSS 213 standard as amended?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Carol Dingledy -- Communications Supervisor

ID: nht76-2.19

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1976, in which you ask several questions concerning Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Your first question asks whether a California regulation requiring 20-inch minimum seat spacing in school buses would be preempted by the requirement for 20-inch maximum seat spacing in Standard No. 222.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in section 103(d) that any state or local law or regulation on an aspect of motor vehicle performance covered by a Federal standard must be identical to that Federal standard. Although the NHTSA requirement is phrased in terms of maximum spacing while the California standard concerns minimum spacing, the aspect of performance in question is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that a California standard on seat spacing regulates the same aspect of performance and to the degree it is not identical to the Federal standard, it would be preempted.

Your second question asks whether the seating reference point, as specified in relation to the "H" Point used in SAE Standard J826b, varies with the size of different individuals. The seating reference point, as defined by the NHTSA in Part 571.3 allows the manufacturer some discretion in selecting a point that approximates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh. While the NHTSA definition does refer to the SAE procedures for "H" point location that includes the specific measurements you cite, the manufacturer retains discretion to vary this point slightly as long as he can show that the point selected continues to simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh of the passengers for whom the seat is designed.

Finally, you note in your letter that compliance with the seat spacing required in Standard No. 222 might entail relocation of the side emergency exit, because Standard No. 217 requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." The seat spacing requirement arguably could occasion the realignment of the side emergency door, but this does not have to be the case. The manufacturer is free to adjust seat spacing to be properly aligned with the emergency exit. The NHTSA's intent in this requirement is to provide an emergency exit opening extending at least 2 feet rearward of a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back. The agency would not prohibit the use of doors wider than 2 feet as long as a minimum 2-foot opening is provided rearward of the reference plane and the latch mechanism is operated by a device located within the required 2-foot opening.

SINCERELY, Crown COACH CORPORATION

October 7, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Programs Office of Chief Council

SUBJECT: Federal Standard 222-School Bus Seating and Crash Protection

We are presently trying to establish a seating floor plan to conform to your standards. So far, we know of only one manufacturer that may produce a seat meeting your requirements, namely American Seating Company.

The point in question is the establishment of some manufacturing tolerance between seats. Standard 222 states the maximum spacing from the seats, Seating Reference Point (SAE "H" Point), is 20 inches. This distance is equal to the minimum California standard of 25 inches from seat back to the back of the seat in front. This would leave no manufacturing tolerance. We know that Federal Standards take precedence, but the State could put a limitation on minimum spacing. American Seating has told us that they are using 20 inches +/- 1/2 inch. as a target. They will also have a tolerance on the thickness of their seat, which would affect seat spacing.

Another question on the "H" Point as specified in SAE Standard J826 - the distance up from the seat to the "H" Point is 3.84 Inches and from the "H" Point to the seat back is 5.28 Inches. Would not these dimensions change with respect to different percentile figures?

The location of the seats and tolerances create another problem which cannot be solved until something has been firmed up; that is, the location of the side emergency exit.

Standard 217, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 4, states "A vertical transverse plane tanget to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." This means the door has to float with the seat locations. Also suppose the door is larger in size than the Standard states, this would penalize the manufacturer of the bus body, having to redesign side walls to accept different door and window locations.

We have been in contact with Mr. Tim Hoyt of your Docket Writer Section, who has been very helpful, but cannot answer our specific questions, and recommends we contact your Department for clarification of the Standard and specific answers to our problems.

If you need any clarification on our questions please phone and we will try to explain more fully.

Ray Hartman Vice President-Engineering

ID: nht92-8.37

DATE: March 2, 1992

FROM: Nathan W. Randall

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Nathan W. Randall (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I am planning to start a business assembling classic automobile replicas for individual collectors. My intention is to construct approximately four-to-eight vehicles annually. Each vehicle will be constructed around a new, previously unused, NASCAR-style tubular-steel spaceframe chassis. This chassis features a safety engineered cockpit surrounded by designed crush zones to absorb impact energy, heavy steel inner door frames, roll bar, and a safety fuel cell located to minimize the possibility of rupture.

Each vehicle will utilize a new and previously unused body, and new unused components for braking, steering, suspension, cooling, fuel delivery, etc. In compliance with EPA emission requirements for rebuilt vehicles, these vehicles will incorporate previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations from previously certified configurations.

These vehicles will be fully compliant with EPA regulations for rebuilt automobiles and the Colorado State Motor Vehicle code.

My situation appears to be analogous to that of the Porsche replica builder in the "copy" interpretation letter (see attachment) provided by the NHTSA Compliance Office. As I understand the "copy" interpretation letter, your agency would tend to view my automobile as "used", even though its body and chassis are previously unused, because its running gear is not new. Also, due to the safety design incorporated into the vehicle, plus the low level of production, you would not consider my vehicles to contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety.

I understand that I will be viewed as a "manufacturer" of used motor vehicles and will be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in my product.

Please review the above facts and tell me if I have correctly applied the "copy" interpretation letter to my situation.

If I can answer any further questions you may have, please call me at (719) 593-5533.

Attachment

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1980, asking about the applicability of Federal regulations to the Porsche replica which you plan to build.

You have explained that the vehicle will be constructed from new parts except for the front suspension and axles, engines, and transmissions which will be taken from Volkswagens of the mid-1960's. Your present intention is to construct a total of 200 vehicles on an annual basis of 24 units.

As Mr. Vinson discussed with you on the telephone, you will be a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles because you are the assembler of the machine. The regulation of vehicles assembled from both old and new parts is a complex subject. Because such vehicles appear to comprise an infinitesimal portion of motor vehicle production, we have not developed a comprehensive set of regulations specifically designed for them. Each case is treated individually on the basis of the facts as we understand them. For example, the combination of a new body and the chassis of a vehicle previously in use has been considered a "used" vehicle to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards (which cover only new vehicles and equipment) do not apply. Similarly, the agency has again that even where a new frame is involved, if the vehicle is to be assembled by the ultimate owner who has a choice of new or used components (such as suspension, engine, radiator and tires and wheels) compliance appeared impossible and common sense required that it be treated as "used."

We have taken a more formal position in situations that are somewhat analogous: combining new and used components in refabricating trucks (glider kits) and in trailer manufacturer, fact situations covered by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.7(c) and 7(f). Where a new cab is installed, the resultant vehicle will be considered "used" if the engine, transmission, and drive axles (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. Similarly, a reconditioned trailer is "used" if, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axles, wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and (1) was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to its Vehicle Identification Number and (2) that is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicles.

You will see from the above that the agency tends to view as "used" a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused. We therefore would consider your vehicle as one that is "used." The list of safety related designs you intend to incorporate in your vehicle, plus the low level of production, indicates that it should not contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety. As a "manufacturer" of a motor vehicle, however, new or used, you would be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in your product.

There is one final possibility. If your vehicle is intended primarily for competition purposes with special features such that it cannot be licensed for on-road use, it would no longer be a "motor vehicle subject to our jurisdiction.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: DECORATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING DEVICES NOT SPECIFIED BY STANDARD 108 (MOTORCYCLES)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-21-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. ATTACHED; [OCC-3190]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rec tangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately 11 1/2 inches) . Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum i ntensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the

standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not ap pear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental dev ices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A sto p signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indic ate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. 108, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediate ly flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensi ty of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensi ty greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an a uxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this

would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: aiam4593

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2369

Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et* *seq*) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 *Seating Systems*, No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, No. 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages* and No. 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplies 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et* *seq*) if a noncompliance of safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel