ID: nht79-2.36

DATE: 11/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/91 letter from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 8/20/90 letter from Oscar W. Harrell, Jr. to NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073); Also attached to 7/25/90 letter from George C. Shifflett to Oscar Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to 9/4/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster

TEXT:

November 26, 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your October 3, 1979 letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to permit the production of a limited number of school buses that do not comply with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The buses would be designed to transport severely handicapped students.

As you know, Standard No. 222 permits side-facing seats for handicapped students. However, the standard does not permit other variations of seating for the transportation of the handicapped. The agency's notice of July 12, 1976 (41 FR 28506) specifically limited its action with respect to handicapped student transportation to the provision of side-facing seats.

In your letter, you state that you intend to have forward and rearward facing seats surrounded by a cubicle to restrain children that are severely handicapped. Since only side-facing seats are acceptable as a variation from the standard's required seating, the standard cannot be interpreted in such manner that would permit the type of seats that you propose to install in your bus. Further, according to our regulation governing exemptions from the safety standards, it would appear that you would not qualify under any of the criteria that have been established. Therefore, it would not be useful to seek an exemption or waiver from the standards.

The agency has been confronted with the special problems for the handicapped many times and in a variety of vehicles. The NHTSA realizes the special needs of these individuals and further understands that these needs require the agency to be flexible in the enforcement of standards applicable to vehicles used by the handicapped. As a result the agency has stated in the past, that it will overlook some noncompliances in vehicles that are serving the special needs of the handicapped. The agency concludes that compliance with Standard No. 222 will not be enforced in certain circumstances for buses designed to transport the handicapped.

The above exemption from enforcement of compliance with Standard No. 222 is limited. The seating in such special buses must be distinctly different from that of typical school buses. For example, your placement of the seats in cubicles would provide such a distinction from normal school bus seats. The mere increase of seat spacing with the use of traditional school bus seats, on the other hand, would not qualify for freedom from compliance with the standard. With respect to your bus, the agency concludes that all other passenger seats beyond these constructed in the cubicles must comply with the standard. The agency further notes that the use of this type of bus is appropriate only for the most extreme cases of handicapped transportation and is not necessary for the transportation of all handicapped school children.

Although it would not be required by regulation, manufacturers should label these unique buses for the handicapped in some manner that will identify them as appropriate only for the transportation of handicapped students and not as a regular school bus. Such a label would be important in alerting both the Federal and State government officials to the fact that this is not a regular school bus and thus might be subject to different considerations with respect to the enforcement of compliance with safety standards. You should also check with State officials to ensure that they will permit the use of such buses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 3, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

REF: Telephone conversations of October 2, 1979, with Mr. Roger Tilton and Mr. Taylor Vinson

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Public Law 94-142 is precipitating requests for specially built buses to transport handicapped passengers. Some of these buses, because of their special needs, cannot meet certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We currently have a request to build two buses which are described by the enclosed sketch. These buses would have plexiglass shields in the front to protect the driver and special seating cubicles in the center portion of the bus with back to back seating and padded walls. These seats would also be equipped with seat belts. In the rear of the bus would be seating provisions for a matron and also a cabinet sink to be used for cleaning and caring for passengers who do not have control of bodily functions.

Our immediate need is to get an interpretation for these two buses which would render them to be in compliance with FMVSS 222. We feel the intent of this interpretation is established in paragraph S4 of FMVSS 222 wherein an exemption is provided for seating to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers.

Beyond the immediate need for these two buses there is a long range need to provide more flexibility for FMVSS exemptions or waivers for buses built to accommodate passengers which will be transported under the provisions of Public Law 94-142.

We will appreciate your early response to this immediate need and your comments concerning what action might be appropriate in handling more requests of this nature.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht79-2.37

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your November 29, 1978, letter asking several questions about test procedures conducted in accordance with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Your questions concern the impact and contact area test requirements of the standard.

First, you suggest that the head and knee impact tests should be conducted with only one impact allowed per seat back. The standard states in S5.3.1: "A surface area that has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S5.3." You apparently interpret "surface area" to mean an entire seat back.

The purpose of the above-cited sentence in S5.3.1 is to assure manufacturers that the agency will not hit the test seat in the identical spot twice during compliance testing. However, it is permissible for several tests to be run on a seat as long as the test device does not impact the same specific area previously contacted by the device in an earlier test. This test method is appropriate because it approximates accident conditions. A seat is likely to be impacted more than once in an accident when the seat immediately behind it is occupied by three passengers. Accordingly, the agency will continue to run multiple tests on a seat back but will never impact the same "surface area" more than once.

In your second question, you suggest that a test sequence is appropriate for contact area testing. The agency disagrees. The agency agrees that the head form and knee form impact tests are different tests for the reasons outlined in your letter. However, nothing in those reasons compels the agency to conclude that a test sequence would be appropriate for contact area testing. In an accident, the impact of children on a seat back may or may not be sequential in nature.

Therefore, the existing test method, which permits the agency to sequence tests in any manner, closely reflects actual accident experiences. Accordingly, the agency will not adopt a specific sequence in its test procedures.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

November 29, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: FMVSS 222

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek an interpretation regarding the sequence of testing required by FMVSS 222.

The testing sequence is important because many of the tests required by the subject standard have an interactive effect.

It is obvious that bus seats are an expendable item in a collision. This is attested to by the destructive nature of the requirements of the subject standard.

The head and knee impact requirements of the subject standard are both destructive in nature, and both have interactive effects not only with respect to each other, but also with respect to subsequent impacts within the head requirements or subsequent impacts within the knee requirements.

Because of the interactive effect of these requirements, not only on the immediate contact area, but also the surrounding area, it is not appropriate to conclude that a non compliance exists based on multiple impacts on any given seat. We believe this issue is addressed by S 5.3.1 which states "...a surface area which has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S 5.3". It is further addressed by S 5.3.2.2. This section states "When any point ... is impacted...". (Emphasis added). We interpret this singular language to indicate that for compliance test purposes, only one point should be impacted on any given seat. We therefore seek your confirmation of this interpretation.

It should be noted here, as a practical matter, that multiple impacts on a particular seat are appropriate so long as the resulting data do not indicate a non compliance. This is so because multiple impacts on a particular seat constitute a worst case approach; if the seat passes under these circumstances, then it can be assumed it passes if only one impact per seat is made. However, if an indicated non compliance is encountered, it must be verified by impacting a virgin seat in the same location.

The second issue relating to testing sequence is the 3 in2 contact area requirement vs. the HIC and Force Distribution requirements with the head and maximum force requirements with the knee. We interpret the contact area requirements to be distinctly different tests for both the head and the knee for two reasons:

1. S 5.3.1.2 and S 5.3.1.3 require different velocities for the two tests, and

2. S 6.8 requires that the head form, knee form and contactable surfaces must be clean and dry during impact testing.

We therefore seek your confirmation of this interpretation also.

The importance of these issues was raised recently during compliance testing now being conducted by NHTSA at Mobility Systems laboratories. We urge you to resolve these issues by interpretation prior to the issuance of the FMVSS 222 compliance test report on the Blue Bird All American bus currently at Mobility Systems.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

sw

ID: nht79-2.39

DATE: 06/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack of this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a "back rack carrier", and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.

Your questions and our answers are:

"1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?"

An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a "manufacturer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the "Back Rack", Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.

"3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment."

Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and after its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsibility to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any "additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable "SAE Standard on Recommended Practice". Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) of not "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply; a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.

The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some compliance problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.

Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 square inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requires.

The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimum effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.

As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those of SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be "readily visible" to use your phrase.

These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, and are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.

"7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?"

Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d, Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, Parking Lamps (Position Lamps) December 1970, directional lights (turn signals) SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minimum and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamps units SAE J 1132, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles (copies also attached).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1979

John Womack, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation

Re: The Back Rack T.M. Carrier by Ennova, Inc.

Dear John:

I have taken the liberty of forwarding this letter and the enclosure herewith to you so that you may channel same to the proper individual for inspection. Your involvement in this matter will produce better results than if I sent the material to the Department generally.

Our client, Ennova, Inc., seeks to market and arrange for the distribution of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier to dealers for installation on privately owned motor vehicles. Prior to the production of the carrier, I would like to determine if the Department of Transportation can detect potential regulatory obstacles or other problems with the product. In addition, I would be pleased to entertain any suggestions which the Department may have.

I have enclosed six (6) photographs (two with detailed measurements) plus a letter explaining the Carrier written by the designer. Those materials are for the sole use of the Department of Transportation in its consultations with the above-referenced lawfirm. The information and specifications contained within the enclosures will be divulged to the public only upon the Department's receipt of a carefully constructed, detailed and specific request for same. This request must meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act before the Department is obligated to release the requested information.

My questions in reference to the Back Rack T.M. Carrier are as follows: 1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?

3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? If so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act? In particular, does the Carrier violate in any manner the provisions of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

6. What is the minimum amount of ascertainable candle power required to be visible from each vehicular light subsequent to sunset? Must back-up lights be readily visible?

7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.

Please arrange for your Department to have someone consider the Carrier and these questions carefully. I would appreciate it if the Department would contact me personally or in writing with a concrete response to this inquiry within one (1) month.

If there are any procedures which I can follow to obtain a letter of approval indicating that the Carrier does not structurally violate any federal standard, please apprise me of same.

In addition, please forward me the name of the DOT representation assigned to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter.

John H. Latshaw, Jr.

ENCLS.

cc: RICHARD R. CHUTTER -- PRES., ENNOVA, INC.

PRODUCTION MODEL WILL BE 50 DEGREES

(Graphics omitted)

COPYRIGHT (C) Ennova. Inc. 1978

BACK RACK TM Carrier by Ennova

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.4

DATE: 03/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/21/76 letter from S.P. Wood to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TEXT:

March 28, 1979

Mr. Moe Pare, Jr. Director of Design Cars & Concepts, Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, Michigan 48116

Dear Mr. Pare:

This responds to your March 2, 1979, letter concerning the definition of the vehicle sub-classification, "convertible." your letter included several Figures of various vehicle designs and asked whether each would be considered a "convertible" by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof" or a "Hurst hatch roof" do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location (April 21, 1976, letter of interpretation enclosed). This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the "A" and "B" pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.

Given this interpretation, only the Fiat X-19 vehicle design illustrated in your Figure 5 would qualify as a "convertible." Each vehicle design in your other illustrations (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) include fixed, rigid structural components joining the "A" and "B" pillar sections of the vehicles and, therefore, would not be classified as convertibles. Likewise, the designs would not be considered "open-body type vehicles" (49 CFR 571.3) for the same reason; the structural member, whether hidden or not, would be considered part of the vehicle top. Also, I would point out that the "open-body vehicle" designation generally refers to multi-purpose passenger vehicles such as "jeeps" or "dune buggies."

I hope this clarification is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure (See 4/21/76 letter from S.P. Wood to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.)

March 2, 1979

Mr. Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Hugh:

Per our telephone conversation, I have become confused regarding the legal definition for a "convertible body". At one time I had felt that any vehicle with structure extending from "A" to "B" pillar would not be classified as a convertible; however, I am unable to locate documentation to that effect.

The only definition I can locate is carried in Part 571.3(b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards, which defines an "open-body type vehicle" (a term which is used interchangeably with "convertible" in FMVSS No. 208.S4.1.1.3.2. and No. 208.S4.1.2.3.2.) as a vehicle with no occupant compartment top or one which can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience.

By both definitions, I feel that Figure 1, showing a Mazda RX7 with a removable roof panel, does not qualify as a convertible. As this vehicle has roof side rail structures that go directly from "A" to "B" pillar and a full exterior roof stamping, this car, I feel, ought be classified as a coupe.

Similarly, the Renault Gordini (Figure 2) has a much larger opening (extending from "A" to "C" pillar); however, as the "opening" is still surrounded by roof structure (in plan view), I feel secure in assuming that such a vehicle is a coupe also.

Please look at Figures 3 and 4. These photographs show a 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix with a Hurst hatch roof, and a 1979 Chrysler Cordoba with an ASC (American Sunroof Corporation) hatch roof installation. These roofs are similar in that both rely on two "U"-shape openings cut into the roof in a manner that would allow an exterior "roof panel section" along the vehicle's longitudinal centerline. These roofs are installed on "coupe" bodies, but as part of this installation the entire "occupant compartment top" /refer to Part 571.3(b)/, from left, side DLO to right, side DLO, is never removed (either by the manufacturer or user). Again, using both mentioned definitions, I feel these vehicles fall outside the classification of a convertible or "open-body type vehicle".

Now examine Figure 5 showing a Fiat X-19 targa top. As is clear from the photo, this vehicle has "A" and "B" pillars with transverse (to the plan view centerline) structure extending from both "A" and "B" pillars, but clearly has a completely removable "occupant compartment top" with no structure at all between the "A" and "B" pillars (above the beltline). Using both above definitions, this car is clearly a convertible.

Figure 6 shows the roof structure employed on a 1977 Corvette. While this car does have centerline reinforcement member, it is not part of the exterior roof panel sections. Because this center member is not part of the roof panel, and is usually hidden from view, I feel this component takes on the character of a "central (in side view)" reinforcing member and is therefore more closely related to the conventional old style convertible chassis reinforcements than the vehicle's occupant compartment top.

Finally I have come to my real area of concern, shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9. These Cars & Concepts roofs have been granted U.S. Patent No. 4,138,155 which is based largely on the Cars & Concepts installation requirement that the entire occupant compartment top (from right, side DLO to left, side DLO) is completely removed. Similar to the Corvette, our roof also uses a hidden centerline structure which takes the place of the needed chassis reinforcements. Also similar is the "panel to panel" configuration used in our roofs (see Page 2 of Figure 6). These two removable panels comprise (virtually) the entire "occupant compartment top". A basic difference between our roof and that of the Corvette is that our roof has a full width exterior roof panel at the windshield header (as does the X-19), and Chevrolet never actually removes the entire occupant compartment top (including center reinforcement; this center reinforcement is part of the windshield header structure and is basic to the vehicle's construction) of the Corvette.

To summarize, it seems obvious to me that a Fiat X-19 is a convertible, while a coupe with a sunroof is not. It does not seem to me, however, that a car with a Hurst hatch which does not remove the entire occupant compartment top (roof panel) is a convertible. By the same token, a Corvette never exists without an overhead centerline reinforcement member, but the entire exterior roof portion is removable creating a vehicle that fits the N.H.T.S.A.'s criterion for an "open-body". Finally on the Cars & Concepts roof installation, the entire occupant section of a coupe is removed (at this stage it is clearly a targa type vehicle); then in place of chassis reinforcement, we add a centerline structural member and install a removable two piece occupant compartment top.

My question obviously is: between the Fiat, the Corvette, Hurst's roof, and our roof, which (if any) would the N.H.T.S.A. consider a convertible? Thank you for your consideration; please call with any questions.

Sincerely,

Moe Pare, Jr. Director of Design

MP/dma

cc: D. Draper

ID: nht79-2.40

DATE: 05/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1979, asking two questions with respect to certification of lighting equipment by use of the DOT symbol, as permitted by S4.7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether disassembled parts such as lenses, screws, or bulbs must also be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no; only the completed lamp assembly must be so certified.

You have also asked "in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifying it meets FMVSS?" The answer is yes. Although the lamp lens is not a required equipment item and not certified since it is only part of a lamp, the reflex reflector incorporated in it must be certified since the reflector is an item required by Standard No. 108.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

April 28, 1979

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

Dear Sirs,

According to your National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Sec. 114 a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to which FMVSS applies is required to be certified that it conforms to FMVSS. In the case of an item or motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

And from FMVSS No.108, Sec. 4.7.2. the symbol DOT may be labeled which shall constitute a certification that it conforms to FMVSS 108.

We are now labelling the DOT labels on our lamp assemblies, lamp units and reflex reflector assemblies of motor vehicle equipment for replacement.

The motor vehicle lighting equipments for replacement, however, are now delivered not only in the form of ass'y or unit but also in the form of disassembled parts such as for example, lenses, screws and bulbs, etc. Is it necessary for these parts also to be certified that they conform to FMVSS?

Also, in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifing it meets FMVSS?

We would appreciate very much having your comments on our above questions at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: nht79-2.41

DATE: 06/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1979, asking two questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is "if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer?" You have submitted a drawing approved by NHTSA in 1975, in which the center of the rear clearance lamps are within a zone extending from the edge of a truck to 13 inches inboard.

Standard No. 108 requires rear clearance lamps to be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle" (Table II). The zones installed on the truck drawing are at the extreme width of the vehicle at its top, and proper for the configuration shown. The widest part of a boat trailer, however, is at its fenders, but because of its configuration, clearance and identification lamps are necessarily mounted at the bottom of the vehicle rather than at its top. In this location they can be obscured by the load projecting over the rear of the trailer edge if mounted inboard of the fenders whereas outboard mounting renders this improbable. We conclude, therefore, that a mounting 13 inches inboard would not meet the requirement of Table II that clearance lamps be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle.

Your second question is whether "it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens . . . and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both lamps are lit."

The answer is no. Paragraph S4.4.1 clearly specifies that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp . . . ." The combination lamp you describe would appear to create an optical combination when both bulbs are lit.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

Trailer Manufacturers association

May 2, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Recently the enclosed information came to our attention where apparently since 1975, an interpretation has existed that the clearance lamps on commercial highway trailers may be up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a trailer.

Boat trailer manufacturers would like to take advantage of this same interpretation which would allow clearance lamps to be mounted directly to trailer frame siderails where both the lamp and wiring harness would be better protected than mounted to projecting fenders that owners invariably use as steps. These fenders do not project more than 13 inches, and are normally well forward of the rear of the trailer.

Please advise us if it is permissible to locate clearance lamps up to 13 inches inboard of the outermost extremity of a boat trailer.

A second question is if it is permissible to combine a clearance lamp function in a tail lamp fixture if a second bulb is installed in the tail lamp which, when lit alone, satisfies the photometric requirements for the clearance lamp shown through the tail lamp lens --- and further assuming that all tail lamp photometric requirements are met when the tail lamp bulb alone is lit and when both bulbs are lit.

Director of Engineering

Donald I. Reed

KEY

(Illegible Lines)

NOTES

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.42

DATE: 07/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1979, to Mr. W. M. Elliott of this agency requesting clarification of Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This Paragraph states:

"Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, as for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees in board."

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Is the decision to use another mounting location made at the discretion of the manufacturer?"

Yes. The manufacturer determines whether placement of the lamps in accordance with Standard No. 108 will indicate overall width or whether they are susceptible to damage if so placed, and there is no requirement that it obtain the concurrence of this agency in its decision.

"2. Are there any specific conditions that are required in order to consider it 'necessary' to mount clearance lamps in other location?"

No. The agency has established no criteria of necessity and questions on variations from front and rear mounting requirements are treated on an ad hoc basis.

"3. When the decision is made to mount the clearance lamps in another location, can a manufacturer use combination clearance/side marker lamps mounted on the side of vehicle to fulfill the clearance lamp requirements."

Yes, as long as the clearance lamp function is visible from the rear and indicates the overall width of the vehicle.

"4. Section S4.1.1.1 states that in 'such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard'. Does this mean that they need not be visible from 0 to 45 degrees inboard?"

No. SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification lamps, July 1972, requires clearance lamps to be visible at the H Point at 10 R and L, 20 R and L, 30 R and L, and at 45 R and L. Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 specifies that under the alternate mounting positions the lamps need not be visible at the 45 degrees positions. They must, however, be visible at the other positions. I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

June 19, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dept. of Transportation

Attention: W. M. Elliott

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, Paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 which states that "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to (Illegible Word) the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard".

Dear Mr. Elliott:

We would appreciate some clarification as to the proper application of the paragraph above which is Section S4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

More specifically, it would be most helpful if you might be able to provide information that would help us answer the following questions:

1. Is the decision to use another mounting location made at the discretion of the manufacturer?

2. Are there any specific conditions that are required in order to consider it "necessary" to mount clearance lamps in another location?

3. When the decision is made to mount the clearance lamps in another location, can a manufacturer use combination clearance/sioemarker lamps mounted on the side of vehicle to fulfill the clearance lamp requirements?

4. Section S4.3.1.1.1 states that in "such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard". Does this mean that they need not be visible from 0 to 45 degrees inboard?

Any insight (official or otherwise) that you might be able to provide regarding these questions would be most appreciated. If you or someone in the department would like to contact us, feel free to telephone collect at 716/665-6214, ext. 32.

Thank you for your consideration.

A. L. Bragg Laboratory Manager

CC: J. BENNETT; R. TARR; C. POWLEY

ID: nht79-2.43

DATE: 12/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing out discrepancies in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and as published in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations."

You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" erroneously incorporates the paragraph of the Federal Register amendment notice finding that good cause had been shown for an immediate effective date. The error does not appear, however, in the official version of Standard No. 108 which appears in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The footnote reference to "S4.4.2" and the reference to "S3.1" in the interpretation do appear, however, in the Code of Federal Regulations. Originally, there was a paragraph S4.4.2 prescribing the testing sequence of combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers, referenced by footnotes in Tables I and III. As you may recall, there was a Standard No. 108a scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1973, which omitted S4.4.2 with its footnote reference, and added detailed performance and testing requirements for flashers under a new paragraph, S4.6. When Standard No. 108a was revoked, S4.4.2 was never reinstated as a requirement, though the footnote references to it still appear in Tables I and III as you have noticed.

With respect to the reference to "S3.1" appearing in Note 2 to Standard No. 108 in the Code of Federal Regulations, this is the S3 which appeared in the December 16, 1967, version of

Standard No. 108 cited by the Note. When Standard No. 108 was amended effective January 1, 1972, S3.1 became S4.1. Thus, the continued reference to S3.1, though confusing, is correct in its context.

Your final comment is that the amendments to Tables I and III, affecting headlamps, as published on July 27, 1978, have not been picked up by the agency's publication "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." You are correct. We hope that recent steps taken by this agency will end the problems that have been experienced with this publication. However, I must emphasize that the only legal version of Standard No. 108 is that appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, currently revised as of October 1, 1978, plus amendments and corrections published in the Federal Register since that date.

We appreciate your calling these mistakes to our attention. Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 21, 1979

F. Berndt, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Discrepancies in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Upon recent review of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we have found a few discrepancies between the Standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations compilation.

The Federal Register of June 15, 1978, amended Section S4.1.5. There was a paragraph printed after Section S4.1.5 which we believe was not intended to be part of the Standard; however, the compilation has this paragraph included as part of the Standard. Are we correct in assuming that this paragraph is not part of the Standard?

The Federal Register of July 27, 1978, amended the Table I headlamp requirements. The compilation does not reflect this amendment.

Table I of the compilation is footnoted to "See S4.4.2"; however, there is no Section S4.4.2 in the compilation. The reprinted Standard in the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, also has the same mistake. What is the correct footnote?

The second paragraph under "Interpretation", following Section S5.2, in both the compilation and the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, refers to paragraph S3.1; however, there is no such paragraph in either document. What is the correct reference?

We trust that you will have these areas reviewed and advise us of your findings. We have attached the appropriate pages from the compilation and the Federal Register for your reference.

Very truly yours, MACK TRUCKS, INC.;

Thomas F. Brown -- Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

Attach.

ID: nht79-2.44

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. B. Leiby

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1979, to the Department asking about the legality of wiring the rear hazard warning signals so that they automatically flash when the gear shift lever is placed in reverse.

We are able to give you guidance about applicable Federal law only. The Federal requirements for new motor vehicles are set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.108). As you probably know, the hazard warning system and the turn signal system typically use the same lights. There is no provision in the standard which prohibits a manufacturer from wiring the rear hazard signals/turn lights so that they flash when the vehicle gear shift is in reverse. Please note, however, that the standard (S4.6(b)) requires the separate rear tail lamps to be steady burning. Thus, those lamps may not be wired so that they flash.

As for modification of used vehicles, contact the State in which the modified vehicle would be licensed and operated to determine if it has any applicable vehicle-in-use laws.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

SINCERELY,

7 February 1979

Dear Sir,

I am working on a concept which if legal and feasible, will, I believe, reduce accidents in parking areas.

The concept concerns the utilization of blinker lights normally used for highway emergency purposes to be wired to the backup lights circuit so that when the gear shift lever is placed in reverse, the red tail lights will automatically blink thus providing extra warning to oncoming drivers in parking areas.

Can you provide information as to the legality of the above concept, and please include any related factors.

Thank you.

Lawrence B. Leiby

ID: nht79-2.45

DATE: 05/09/79

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

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason with respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.

You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that:

"The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd."

You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking for headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cd permissible under 579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.

SINCERELY,

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 29, 1979

Subject: Headlamp Lens Marking

Reference: Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978

Dear Sir:

With reference to the headlamp lens marking, the latest S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 as amended in Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of FR Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978, provides as follows;

Quoted " S 4.1.1.21 The lens of each headlamp designed to confom to SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1974, manufactured on or after July 1, 1979, shall be marked with the symbol ------------ -------- ." unquoted

The NHTSA's basic intention of establishing the above lens marking code is to give consummers a means of identification to determine which the photometric and beam pattern design specified in either SAE J579c or SAE J579a does apply to the headlamp and also to enable them to replace original headlamp with headlamp of compatible photometric properties, we believe.

In addition, it can be said that the headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c is substantially different also in the upper and lower beam patter distribution as well as being different in the upper beam photometric maximum output, when compared with the headlamp of SAE J579a, we think.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Attn. Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dated January 29, 1979

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your definite confirmation and our interpretation is as follows;

The headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd.

If you have another interpretation of this code to this matter, please kindly let us know soonest possible because we have to change lens moulds to provide our headlamp with the proper marking.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

M. Iwase Chief, Overseas Technical Section Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

PS: POSTAGE STAMP ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REPLY BY AIR.