ID: nht95-6.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inche s. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On Septemb er 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: 1984-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stapleton Public Schools

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ben Barbie Stapleton Public Schools P.O. Box 125 Stapleton, Nebraska 69163

Dear Mr. Barbie:

This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.

The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1, 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.23

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ron Gustafson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking about requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.

All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.

You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agency prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.

In addition, you would be required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 et seg.) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.

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

ENCLS.

June 28, 1987

Furudals Bruks Kursinternat 790 70 FURUDAL Sweden

National Highway Safety Administration

To Whom it May Concern:

I am interested in receiving information concerning rules, regulations, requirements, procedures for testing, etc. concerning child safety seats in automobiles. There is interest in introducing a such a product in the USA. Therefore I would like to know of any minimum requirements (re: design, construction, materials, etc.) as well as any permits or licenses regarding those requirements. Also if there are any US testing organizations, procedures, or standards for this type of product please inform me. Thank you.

Ron Gustafson RON GUSTAFSON

ID: aiam1365

Dear Mr. Jacobs: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to 'U.S. Bureau o Safety' expressing your view that 'the automobile industry should ... have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance.'; I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 11 *Power-operated Window Systems* which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition 'off' position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1762

Dear Mr. Gobeille::#Please forgive the delay in responding to you letter of November 19, 1974, which requested an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *brake Hoses*, as applied to short lengths of vacuum brake hose.#To fit the information required by S9.1 of the standard on short lengths of hose, you have suggested a labeling format consisting of the required information presented in two lines,#>>>'each in block capital letters and numerals at least one eighth inch high, placed adjacent to one another and separated by the minimum space necessary to assure clarity. The label would occupy no more than three eighths of an inch on a hose approximately two inches in circumference (5/8 inch OD)'.<<<#Because the two lines would be close enough to prevent confusion with any optional labeling which might appear on the opposite side of the hose, it appears that the format you have described complies with the requirements of S9.1 of Standard No. 106-74. #Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0981

Dear Mr. Monk: This is in further response to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Mrs Virginia Knauer, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, *Warning Devices*.; As you already know from Mr. E.T. Driver's letter of January 24, 1973 and previous correspondence from my office and the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued the standard as an equipment item that would be suitable for use in all types of vehicles, from trucks to passenger cars.; In issuing the standard, we were concerned with the great variety o devices presently available, which can create confusion and misunderstanding to the motoring public. We were also concerned with wind stability, and your comments were most useful in our consideration of this aspect of the requirements. FMVSS No. 125 is an attempt to achieve a standardized device having a proper balance of the factors affecting shape, size, cost, visibility, wind stability and weight. These are minimum standards and the manufacture and sale of devices that exceed these requirements is not prohibited.; Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1484

Dear Mr. Kato:#This is in reply to your letter of April 23, 1974 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 101, as proposed in the *Federal Register* on September 27, 1973. You reference that portion of Paragraph S4.3.3 which states 'If illumination of controls and displays not listed in Paragraph S4.1 is provided, its intensity shall be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph'.#The basic requirement of S4.3.3 is that 'A control shall be provided to adjust the intensity of control and display illumination. . . .' We interpret the basic requirement as applying to *all* control and display illumination, not just illumination of the minimum number of controls and displays specified in Tables I and II. Thus if the manufacturer chooses to provide illumination for *any* control or display, even those not related to safety such as the radio or clock, its intensity shall be variable in accordance with Paragraph S4.3.3.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5321

Dear Mr. Stewart: This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994 regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape. You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam3436

Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of June 8, 1981, concerning Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, on the abrasion test procedure of the standard should have referred to section 5.1(d), instead of to section 5.2(d).; You also suggested that in the process of clarifying the standard' abrasion requirements, the agency should consider possible modifications to sections 4.2(e) and (f) of the standard. In the process of reviewing the abrasion test requirements, the agency will also examine those other sections to determine what changes should be made.; Finally, you raised the issue of whether the standard, as with othe national and international standards, should have a requirement that conditioned webbing must retain a certain percentage of its unconditioned strength and must also meet the minimum strength requirement for unconditioned webbing. The agency is not aware of any data indicating that our current conditioned strength requirements are insufficient.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel