ID: nht88-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT W. STUCHELL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-30-88, TO MR. VINSON FROM, ROBERT W. STUCHELL, OCC-1973

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1988, to Mr. Vinson of this Office as to the existence of Federal or State regulations "governing sale and/or use of lighted signs of any shape placed on the inside of the rear window of aftermarket cars. Suc h signs would not be connected with any new car purchase."

The Department of Transportation has no restriction on the sale of signs for use inside motor vehicles. Nor are there any Federal regulations that would prevent an owner from installing or using such signs. However, if the sign were of such a nature th at it is intended to be installed by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business, the installer must insure that its installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any device installed on the vehicle pursuant to a safety standard. For exampl e, if the sign is installed on a passenger car equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp, the sign must not block the light from the lamp, or operate in a manner so as to cause confusion with it. Its installation must not affect the wiring of the oth er lighting equipment. Other safety problems such a sign might create are a partial blockage of view through a rear view mirror, or the creation of light on the rear window, resulting in glare in the rear view mirror.

We are not in a position to advise you as to the acceptability of the device under State law. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203 for advice.

ID: nht88-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/88

FROM: GLENDA SWANSON LYLE -- DIRECTOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DENVER COLORADO; JACK MCCROSKEY -- DIRECTOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT D DENVER COLORADO

TO: LARRY COOK -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 TO JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO MARVIN ORNES FROM R.E. MORGAN; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 TO R ROGERS FROM R.E. MORGAN, RE GOODYEAR M ILEAGE TIRES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cook:

Thanks so much for talking with me this morning. The issue, as I'm sure you will recall, concerns the disparity between the "labeling" and the "use" of tires the Goodyear Corporation leases to Denver's Regional Transportation District for use on its fle et of approximately 750 transit buses.

By way of brief background, let me say that the RTD is an independent unit of local government, established by the Colorado General Assembly, and governed by a fifteen-person Board of Directors. The Directors, who are elected by the voters of the distri ct for four-year terms, have full legal responsibility for operating the District. The Directors hire a General Manager who is given day-to-day authority and who reports to the Board. I'm enclosing a small booklet giving some of the District's operatin g statistics for 1987.

The District provides three types of service:

1. Local. These buses operate primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. However, these buses do operate for short portions of their routes where the limits range from 40 to 45 and even up to 55 miles per hour.

2. Express. These buses operate mainly--70% to 80% of the time--on local freeways where the speed limits are 55 miles per hour. Some small portion of their routes may be in 65 mile per hour limits.

3. Regional. These operate primarily in freeways where the limits run from 55 to 65 miles per hour.

2

My most pressing question for now concerns the Express buses. The tires Goodyear furnishes RTD for Local and Express use are called DXT and XT tires. The DXT tires have a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour marked on them; the XT tires have a maximum spe ed of 55 miles per hour on them.

RTD is currently using the DXT (35 miles) and the XT (55 miles) almost interchangably on the Express buses. (That is, RTD is using tires marked maximum speed 35 miles on routes where much, probably most, of the travel is at 55 miles per hour).

I am enclosing one memo and one letter, both of which are purportedly from Goodyear, saying that this practice may be acceptable. Please note that neither document is on Goodyear stationery and that neither document has the full signature of the author, or gives the author's official position in the company.

Some of us here at RTD are very much worried about the use of tires contrary to their labeling on buses carrying 40 to 70 passengers. We are also concerned by RTD's liability should an accident owing to tire failure occur.

Could you please, at your earliest possible convenience, let us know your view of the possible safety hazards and our possible legal liabilities. We would also like, should you be in a position to give it, your advice on what we should do. Should we co ntinue to use the tires contrary to their labeling? Or should we act to bring usage in conformity to labeling.

We look forward to your reply. We think quick action is essential.

Cordially,

ENCLOSURES

(Regional Transportation District Report omitted.)

ID: nht88-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/11/88 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM LOUIS F KLUSMEYER, OCC - 2275; Std. 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Klusmeyer:

This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1988, to Mr. Vinson of this office with reference to a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" concept.

As you presently envision the implementation of this concept, an amber lamp would be activated when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator pedal, and would be extinguished automatically when the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator ped al. You believe that the optimum location appears to be immediately adjacent to the center highmounted stoplamp. You believe further that this location has already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, and ask whether it is precluded by Standard N o. 108.

Your belief is based upon the Federal Register notice of October 1983 adopting the center highmounted stoplamp, which stated that "Other types of lamps or added functions such as deceleration signals may be desirable and should be investigated." However, this was in the context of alternatives to adoption of the center lamp, and relates to the agency's statement in the same paragraph that "with additional research, more nearly optimum specifications for stoplamp configurations may be developed." Indeed, the agency made it quite clear in prohibiting combining the center lamp with any other lamp or reflector (paragraph S4.4) that no added functions were contemplated or desirable.

Under paragraph S4.4 therefore, a deceleration lamp and the center stop lamp could not be combined. S4.4 would not prohibit an amber lamp adjacent to the center lamp. However, paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits optional lighting equipment if it would impair th e effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Your letter indicates that the deceleration signal is deactivated by renewed pressure on the accelerator pedal (and not by pressure on the brake pedal) so that a following driver would be presented with both amber and red signals, creating the possibility of confusion, and hence impairment. You have not indicated whether the deceleration lamp would be steady-burning or

2 flashing, but we believe the possibility of confusion would increase were the lamp flashing. However, were the lamp to be extinguished when the brake pedal is applied (which activates the stop lamps), then the possibility of confusion would be substan tially lessened. With respect to deceleration warning systems, last year the Flxible Corporation determined that a system installed on its buses created an impairment, and hence a noncompliance with paragraph S4.1.3. The company then conducted a notific ation and remedy campaign (87V-089) as required by statute. The company concluded that its flashing amber deceleration lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stoplamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

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: nht88-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: AL CUNNINGHAM -- CHIEF ENGINEER WESTBAR CORPORATION

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF SAE DEFINITIONS AS THEY APPLY TO FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO AL CUNNINGHAM, CHIEF ENGINEER, WESTBAR CORPORATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: We are writing your office requesting official clarification of definitions referred to in SAE J588e as it applies to FMVSS 108. The definition in question is, 2.2 "Multiple Compartment Lamp" and the term used in 3.1 "Single Compartment Lamp".

With this request, we are furnishing two lamps as examples, one identified as 3504 exp. and the second as 3504. The first sample (3504 exp.) has a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of hou sing. This lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp. Would the sample submitted as described above be defined as a single compartment lamp?

The second sample has a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class "A" reflex side and rear. Would the sample, as submitted and described, be defined as single compartment la mp?

Thank you for reviewing our requests. We look forward to receiving your interpretation of these definitions as they apply to our questions and samples furnished.

Enclosures - 2 samples

ID: nht88-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/88

FROM: WENDELL D. KEGG -- TIRE WHEEL CONSULTANTS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/1/8/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WENDELL D. KEGG, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 109

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am confused by the FMVSS 110 Standard. As I read Paragraph S4.3.1 covering inflation pressure on the vehicle placard, the tire cannot by inflated beyond that maximum pressure embossed on the tire. Subparagraph S4.3.1(c) is not clear.

Can a vehicle manufacturer specify a higher inflation pressure in a spare tire application than that which is embossed on the sidewall of the tire?

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/15/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. IWASE -- MANAGER TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/30/80 TO DIETMAR M HAENCHEN FROM FRANK BERNDT; LETTER DATED 02/22/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM M IWASE RE INSTALLATION OF TAIL AND STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

TEXT: Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1988, asking whether location of a stop and taillamp on a deck lid would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In your opinion this is acceptable because the vehicle complies with the trunk lid closed. You have also asked, alternatively, whether the deck lid is an acceptable location for turn signal lamps.

Section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires lighting devices to be mounted on "a rigid part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair". In past interpretations the agency has stated that a deck lid is "a rigid part of the veh icle", and that compliance with the standard will be determined with the deck lid closed. Thus, it may be used for mounting lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108. However, Table IV specifies the location for rear lamps. Stoplamps, taillamp s, rear turn signal lamps, and rear reflex reflectors must be mounted "as far apart as practicable". Although the determination of practicability is initially made by the vehicle manufacturer, the agency in its enforcement efforts would consider whether lighting equipment mounted on the deck lid meets the requirements of Table IV. On the other hand, the separation requirement is not specified for backup lamps and license plate lamps.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a 1980 interpretation that addressed a similar question. As you will note, the agency raised some safety concerns in that letter which could also pertain to your design.

Operation of a motor vehicle in the United States is subject to the laws of the individual States, some of which may prohibit operation of a vehicle when its turn signals and stop lamps are not visible.

In summary, we urge you to consider the issues described above, including those raised in the 1980 letter, in deciding whether to proceed with this design.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPT. 17, 1988

FROM: MARK JANSEN -- CHEVY DUTY PICKUP PARTS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER TO MARK JENSEN, CHEVY DUTY PICKUP PARTS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: I own and operate a small parts store specializing in parts for 1947-1966 Chevrolet and GMC pickup trucks. I have many requests for parklamp and taillamp lenses for these pickups that are not currently available. I would like to have these lenses reman ufactured and am requesting information concerning requirements and restrictions before proceeding.

These will be reproduced exactly like the original lenses, which I assume would have been approved by the D.O.T. Must the reproduction lenses also be supplied to the D.O.T. for approval? If so, how is this accomplished? Is there a charge for this serv ice? Will be anxiously awaiting your reply.

ID: nht88-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/18/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM HEROSHI KATO, OCC-2048

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kato:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, as it applies to so-called "one-piece" instrument panels and console assemblies. Your request for confidential treatment of the photographs and diagrams you enclosed with your letter of vehicle models "A" and "B" was granted by the agency on June 21.

The areas of the vehicle interior to which your question relates are the instrument panel, which generally speaking, is subject to the standard, and the console assembly, which is not. Most of our letters relating to these areas dealt with vehicles whos e console assemblies were separate structures distinguished by "gaps," or indentations. However, you ask about a vehicle interior that has no obvious gaps or separation between the dashboard and the console assembly (hence its "one-piece" appellation). Instead, the longitudinal floor-mounted structure that lies between the front seats of the vehicle rises gradually at an upward slant towards the vehicle's dashboard, and joins with the vehicle's dashboard without any obvious gaps or spaces, as though t he dashboard and center console were of one piece. At the top of the instrument panel is an overhanging surface above a setback area. This overhanging surface protrudes rearward in such a way that a vertical line tangent to the surface strikes the bott om of the one-piece structure at a point near the floor of the vehicle, between the front seats.

Paragraph S3.1 of Standard No. 201 sets the head impact protection requirements for instrument panels. These requirements apply primarily to the upper portions of the instrument panel. Paragraph S3.1 states, "Except as provided in S3.1.1, when that are a of the instrument panel that is within the head impact area is impacted" by a head form, the deceleration of the head form shall be within specified limits. S3.1.1 sets out five exceptions to the instrument panel performance requirements, two of which (S3.1.1(a) and S3.1.1(e)) are relevant to your design. The first of these, S3.1.1(a), provides that the requirements of S3.1 do not apply to console assemblies.

We believe your letter raises two primary issues. The first is whether a console assembly in effect ceases to be a console assembly for the purposes of the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201, and as a consequence becomes subject to those requirements, when it is part of a one-piece design and adjoined with the dashboard. While we concur with your assessment that the answer to this question is no, we note that determining the dividing line between a dashboard and an adjoining conso le is difficult where there is no intervening gap or indentation.

That brings us to the second issue, which is how to determine the rearmost surface of the instrument panel in a vehicle using a one-piece design such as yours. S3.1.1(e) of the standard provides that "(a)reas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel" are not subject to the head impact protection requirements of the standard. You suggest that the rearmost surface is the overhanging surface at the top of the instrument panels on your two vehicles and that the console is the area below that overhanging surface. While we are not prepared to pick the dividing line between the instrument panel and the console, we agree that those overhanging surfaces are the rearmost points of the instrument panel. A vertic al line tangent to those overhanging surfaces strikes the one-piece structure at a point that is clearly part of the longitudinal structure running between the seats, i.e., that is clearly part of the console, and therefore excluded by S3.1.1(a) from the head impact protection performance requirements of Standard No. 201.

Notwithstanding the direct reference in S3.1.1(a) to console assemblies, the agency has not defined the term either in Standard No. 201 or elsewhere. In the October 27, 1986 letter to which you refer in your letter, we told your associate, Mr. Shimizu, that we regarded a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor and [lying] primarily between the vehicle seats" to be a console assembly. However, no attempt was made to define what was meant by "low-lying" or "console assembly" or to apply the latter term to structures such as yours that join with the vehicle's dashboard without any obvious gaps or spaces.

Given that console assemblies are excluded from the requirement in S3.1 for instrument panels, it is important to determine the boundaries of the instrument panel. S3.1.1(e) is helpful in this regard. S3.1.1(e) has the effect of limiting the head impac t protection requirements of the standard to the upper portions of the instrument panel.

With respect to the instrument panel for model A, we conclude that the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is the overhanging surface that is above the setback area. Any area that is rearward of a vertical line tangent to the overhanging surface on the one-piece instrument panel and console assembly is located on a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor and lying primarily between the vehicle seats"--i.e., it is located

on a console assembly. Since, for the purposes of S3.1.1(e), the relevant area is the rearmost surface of the instrument panel, areas of the instrument panel on model A that are below this rearmost surface are excluded from the head impact protectio n requirements of the standard.

Similarly, with respect to model B, the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is the overhang at the top of the panel. Any area rearward of this surface would be part of the "console assembly," as we have used that term in our letter to Mr. Shimizu. Accordingly, areas of the panel lying below the point at which a vertical line is tangent to this surface are excluded from S3.1. Generally speaking, the upper portions of the instrument panel of both models A and B are subject to S3.1 and would theref ore have to meet the head impact protection requirements of the standard.

In conclusion, we concur with your belief that there should be a reasonable way to distinguish a console assembly from an instrument panel. Your letter has highlighted a possible need to clearly define either "instrument panel" or "console assembly" in Standard No. 201, and also an issue as to whether there is a continued need for the exemption for console assemblies found in S3.1.1(a) of the standard. We will further consider these issues and may initiate rulemaking to possibly define console assembl y or to remove the current exemption in S3.1.1(a) of the standard.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/23/88

FROM: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TO: RUTH SKLUZACEEK -- IOWA DIRECTOR OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION OFFICE

TITLE: THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 (@ 321.424) OF THE CODE OF IOWA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBER T A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARR Y LYNN SPEICH FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Ms. Skluzaceek:

Please be advised I represent the above named Defendant, who was charged with the violation of Section 321.424 of the Code of Iowa, which is Sale of Lights-Approval, which basically states that no person shall have for sale, sell or offer sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, or use upon any such vehicle any headlight, auxiliary or fog lamp, rear lamp, signal lamp, or reflector, which reflector is required hereunder, or parts of any of the forego ing which tend to change the original design or performance, unless of a type which has been submitted to the director and approved by the director.

I also refer to you Section 329.428 of The Code of Iowa which authorizes the director to approve or disapprove lighting devices and to issue and enforce rules establishing standards and specifications for the approval of such lighting devices, etc.

The bottom line herein is the above named Defendant had headlight covers such as described in the information I have enclosed, which is pages 210 and 211 from an auto parts catalog.

I am wondering as to whether or not these headlights or covers are approved by the State of Iowa, and if so, would you please be so kind as to set forth the fact these headlight covers are an approved device. If they are not approved, please kindly s o state.

If you are looking for further information concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. As I have stated, for your assistance, I am enclosing pages 210 and 211 from an auto parts catalog, as well as a copy of the ticket issued to the young man.

For your information, the Hearing is set on this ticket for the 29th day of September, 1988, at 1:00 P.M.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you very much.

Yours very truly,

ENCLOSURES