ID: 22525.ztv

Mr. Harold Holeman
C5 Creations
2 Renee Lane
Newark, DE 19711





Dear Mr. Holeman:

This is in reply to your email of December 26, 2000, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Your first question is whether "the standards as set forth in FMVSS 108 require that bumper bras or bumper masks have openings around the running lights, parking lights, turning signals, etc.?"

Standard No. 108 does not regulate bumper bras or masks per se. However, lighting equipment is required under Federal law to comply with all requirements of Standard No. 108 when accessory equipment such as bumper bras are installed by regulated persons, whether the equipment is installed as original equipment or aftermarket equipment. The one exception under Federal law is a bra or mask installed by the vehicle owner; if this creates a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, the owner is responsible under any applicable local laws rather than Federal law.

Your next question is "If the bra material is transparent and does not noticeably diminish the luminescence of the lights is the bra design within code without having cutouts for the lights?" Paragraph S7.8.5 prohibits "any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens" when the headlamps are activated. We view a transparent bra as an "other feature" and prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, a transparent bra could not be installed by a regulated person (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) without violating Standard No. 108, but could be installed by the vehicle owner, provided that it does not violate local laws.

You then ask "Is there a test that should or can be performed to show that the intensity of the running lights is adequate even when covered by the bumper bra?" The photometric tests for each of the lamps covered by Standard No. 108 are essentially those of the Society of Automotive Engineers, which have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. These are laboratory tests rather than tests conducted on the vehicle itself. They could be conducted with the transparent bra or mask material cut to fit the lens. Any diminution in light output must not result in photometric output falling below the minimum levels specified for test points in any individual standard.

Like you, we are not aware of any transparent bra or mask on the market. In general, we do not favor covering the lens of any lamp with other material. Dirt and grime may accumulate to the point that candela is reduced below the minimum specified in the standard. Further, it may not be easily removable by washing the cover.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/19/01

ID: 86-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

This responds to your February 19, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards prohibit commercial businesses from using fiberglass on the exterior of school buses. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue minimum performance standards for school buses. Our safety standards do not specify the materials to be used for the exterior of school buses. However, the materials chosen by a manufacturer must be strong enough to enable the bus to meet the requirements of those standards. Among those requirements are the rollover protection ones of Standard No. 220, fuel system requirements of Standard No. 301, and strength requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, for body panel joints on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Manufacturers of new school buses using fiberglass for school bus exteriors must certify that their vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 19, 1986

Ms. Deadra Holm U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Holm,

We have discovered the presence of fiber glass in the outer skin of the Van Conversions manufactured by the Collins Industries Inc. of Hutchinson, Kansas. While, admittedly, we see little if any, safety hazard associated with the practice, we do forsee the possibility of legal actions "down the road" if children are seriously injured and the presence of this material is exposed.

Our school bus specifications require compliance with the National Minimum School Bus Standards as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the manufacture, sale and operation of pupil transportation equipment. My question is: Does the use of fiberglass in the manufacture of Type II school buses conflict with any known FMVSS?

An early response will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation

ID: 2706y

Mr. Dennis T. Johnston
Senior Executive Engineer
Product Engineering and
Regulatory Affairs
Sterling Motor Cars
8953 N.W. 23rd Street
Miami, Florida 33172

Dear Mr. Johnston:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that therefore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the trunk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understanding that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated.

After reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d:l0/5/90

ID: 9646

Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D.
Executive Director of Laboratories
International Testing Laboratories
578-582 Market Street
Newark, NJ 07015-2913

Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking," whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever- increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:109 d:5/12/94

ID: nht79-1.17

DATE: 11/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India

Dear Mr. Keshav:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Francis Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam". You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.

Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between the headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

RD 39363 Date: 2nd September 1979.

Mr. Fransis Armstrong, Director Office of the Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We refer to FMVSS Part 571, S108 Table IV/SAE J 588c 4.2 standand. As per the standard the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamp and head lamp should be 4 inches. We have come across some vehicles sold in U.S.A. wherein this dimension is satisfied only in the straight ahead driving position i.e. when the handle bar is kept straight. In such vehicle, since the turn signal flasher lamps are fitted in the front on the non steered portion of the vehicle, the distance between the turn signal flasher lamp and the head lamp is almost zero when the handle bar is turned to the full lock position. Please let us know whether this is permissible as per the regulation.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

M. S. KESHAV MANAGER - RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

ID: nht94-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin M. Sackoff -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/7/94 FROM MARTIN M. SACKOFF TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC - 9646)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S 4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S 5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking, " whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that te st, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire i s continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things wil l happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although , obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction

2

described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

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

ID: nht93-3.29

DATE: April 29, 1993

FROM: Bob Jones -- Director of Engineering, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. (IMS)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

COPYEE: C. Flanigan; G. Anesi; R. Dumas

TITLE: Re: Compliance to FMVSS 220 with a Raised Roof Minivan

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-93 from John Womack (Signature by Ken Weinstein) to Bob Jones (A41; Std. 220)

TEXT: Although School Bus Rollover Protection does not apply to minivans, many states and/or municipalities are including this requirement in their bids for vehicles which are equipped to serve the handicapped.

We have tested and met the requirement with the OEM roof; however we are now faced with a new challenge as we are being asked to make available a raised roof model. We know how to build the roof, how to reinforce it with a cage, but what we don't know is how to do a FMVSS Bus Rollover Test.

I am enclosing a drawing of our prototype roof, including its steel cage support system and a photo copy of an installed roof. As you can see from the drawing, the raised roof starts at the 'A' Pillar with a plus 2.0 inches, builds up to 4.0 inches then 9.0 inches and finally at the 'D' Pillar it is plus 12.563 inches.

I have included excerpt pages from the FMVSS 220 Laboratory Test Procedure which, I believe, demonstrates our need for an interpretation as to how we should meet the legislation with this raised roof configuration.

Because we are less than 10,000 pounds GVW, our force plate will be 5 inches longer and 5 inches wider than the van roof. We must keep the force plate transverse axis level and make contact with the roof at not less than two points. The longitudinal axis of the force application plate may deviate from the level or horizontal position; however, deflection readings are to be taken as close to the four corners of the force application plate as possible and then extrapolated to provide corner readings.

When we evenly distribute the vertical force, we are going to get an unusual load path. The compression is going to be in the 41 inches to the rear of the 'B' Pillar. We would almost need a complete collapse of the roof before the load cylinders located at the front outboard positions on the plate register.

After reviewing the enclosed material, we would be most appreciative if you would offer us your interpretation of how we can satisfy this standard in a meaningful way.

I will be out of the country from May 4 to May 25. In my absence, you can address any questions or correspondence to Mr. Rocky Dumas at our New Mexico headquarters.

I thank you for your consideration and look forward to discussing the subject with you upon my return.

ID: nht76-3.42

DATE: 03/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titan Trailer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Titan Trailer Corporation's March 2, 1976, question whether certain bulk grain and feed meal trailers manufactured by Titan qualify as bulk agricultural commodity trailers that are permitted until June 30, 1976, to meet emergency and parking brake requirements other than those specified in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sections S5.6 and S5.8 provide that a trailer manufactured before June 30, 1976, that is designed to transport bulk agricultural commodities in off-road harvesting sites and to a processing plant or storage location, as evidenced by skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs that minimizes damage in field operations, is entitled to a specified option.

From the descriptive material enclosed, it appears that the Titan models 92 and 24 are designed for field use and conform to the criteria of skeletal construction that accomodates a harvest container, despite the fact that the container is permanently attached to the frame that surrounds it. It is not clear that the trailers are not more than 28 feet in length, or that the design positions air lines and reservoirs to minimize field-related damage. Assuming that the length, air lines, and reservoirs do meet these criteria, it appears that the trailers would qualify for the manufacturer option under S5.6 and S5.8.

YOURS TRULY,

Titan Trailer corp.

March 2, 1976

Frank Burndt Acting Chief Counsel

On December 5, 1975, the NHTSA published an amendment to FMVSS 121 on page 235 of volume 40 of the Federal Register. This amendment exempted certain bulk agricultural commodity trailers from the parking brake requirements which had heretofore necessitated the use of spring brakes.

We manufacture a hopper trailer designed exclusively to haul bulk agricultural products. These trailers are frequently drawn through fields at harvest time by farm tractors - the conditions upon which the spring brake exemption was granted.

Several of our competitors, manufacturing similar hopper trailers, have told potential customers that these trailers are included under the spring brake exemption.

We would like to receive an official communication from your office as to whether or not these hopper trailers are covered under the spring brake exemption granted to agricultural commodities. To assist you in making this decision, we have enclosed photographs and a sales brochure pertaining to our hopper trailers.

Since our material orders and our sales will be strongly influenced by your response, we would greatly appreciate a prompt reply to this letter. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 662-3941 should you have any questions.

Thomas M. Tucker Assistant Manager

ID: nht74-2.48

DATE: 07/26/74

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

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

COPYEE: L. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 11 in which you asked what standards will be applied to stop and turn signal lamps after September 1, 1974.

Parking, stop, and turn signal lamps are required by Section S4.1.1.11 and S4.1.1.12 to meet the grouped photometric minimum candlepower requirements specified in Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 108. Prior to September 1, 1974, multiple compartment or multiple lamps need only meet the group value total specified in Figure 1 for a single compartment or single lamp. After that date, however, the higher candlepower values for two and three compartments or lamps specified in Figure 1 are applicable.

Docket 69-19; Notice 3, published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1972, only proposed that SAE (Illegible Word) and (Illegible Word) be referenced in FMVSS No. 108. Until such time as Standard 108 is further amended, SAE J586b, June 1966, and J588d, June 1966, are applicable to stop lamps and turn signal lamps, respectively.

If the new revisions to the SAE standards are included as an amendment to Standard 108, sufficient lead time will be provided to allow the manufacturers to make any changes necessary to meet the new requirements.

Sincerely,

Not Controlled

ATTACH.

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

July 11, 1974

E.T. Driver -- Director Office of Operating Systems Motor Vehicle Programs,

U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: A lamp with two or three lighted compartments used in Stop Lamp and Turn Signal Lamp.

Dear Mr. Driver

According to S 4.1.1.12 in MVSS No. 108 a lamp with two or three lighted compartment is required to meet the minimum photometoric values at each test point specified in table 2 of SAE Standard J575d.

However, after September 1, 1974 a Stop Lamp has to be complied with SAE J586c by P.R. dated October 25, 1972 and SAE J508e for Turn Signal Lamp and further the standards of a lamp with two or three lighted compartments will be applied to a lamp with two or three lighted compartments and by F.R. dated April 9, 1974 the F.R. dated October 25, 1972 has been postponed.

Please let us know what standards will be applied to Stop, Turn Signal Lamp after September 1, 1974, the standards as they are now or the proposal as it is being planned will become effective.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours, H. MIYAZAWA -- Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Dept.

ID: nht94-5.41

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin M. Sackoff -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/7/94 FROM MARTIN M. SACKOFF TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC - 9646)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S 4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S 5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking," whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction

2

described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

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