ID: 20132.ztv

Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara
Project Manager
Regulation and Compliance
Engineering Administration Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Ishehara City
Kanagawa Pref.
250-1192 Japan

Dear Mr. Aihara:

This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1999, presented at a meeting with NHTSA representatives that day, asking for an interpretation of S5.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am sorry that we were unable to provide you a response by July 6 as you requested in your letter of June 28 to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Your company has developed a new rear turn signal lamp, consisting of an outer plastic lens, an inner cap, and an uncolored filament bulb. The color of the lens is "pale (light) pink color, and, this plastic material complies with the requirements of SAE J576c . . . excluding the color requirement." You tell us that the trichromaticity coordinates of the plastic material used in the outer lens do not fall within either the red or the white areas of the chromaticity chart of SAE J578c. However, when illuminated, the lamp provides an amber color that fall within the coordinates specified in SAE J578c. You have asked whether this design is acceptable under S5.1.2 relating to plastic materials used in optical parts of motor vehicle lighting devices.

Although this does not affect our answer to your question, please note, in Standard No. 108, that SAE Recommended Practice J576c of 1970 has been replaced by SAE J576 JUL91 as the applicable standard for plastic materials used in lighting devices. However, J578c remains the Federal standard for color.

We regret to inform you that this design is not acceptable. Although S1, Scope, of SAE J578c states that "The specification applies to the overall effective color of light emitted by the device," regardless of the color of its lens, both SAE J576 JUL91 and Standard No. 108 apply the color requirement to plastic components of lamps as well. S5.1.2(e) of Standard No. 108 requires the trichromatic coordinates of the plastic samples, tested according to that paragraph, to conform to the requirements of SAE J578c. Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 also require conformance of plastic samples to the chromaticity coordinate requirements of SAE J578c. This standard specifies color coordinates only for red, white, yellow (amber), green, and blue. Because the lens of your lamp does not meet any of the coordinates of SAE J578c, Standard No. 108 does not permit its use.

At the meeting, we noted that the iner lens was a greenish color. It, too, must comply with the color coordinate requirements of paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.2 of SAE J576 JUL91.

At that time, you also asked if it were acceptable to use a plastic fabricated from the mix of two resins, each of which complied with the requirements of SAE J576. You cannot assume, when two complying resins are blended, that the resulting plastic will also comply with SAE J576 JUL91, and we recommend that you test the blended plastic to ensure that it meets all the specifications of S5.1.2 and SAE J576 JUL91. This would be the case whether it was the intent to create a new color, or whether the rejected molded parts are reground and plastics of differing compositions are mixed and recycled into newly-molded lamp lenses. As we said in the preamble to the 1995 final rule amending S5.1.2, "it is incumbent upon the vehicle or equipment manufacturer . . . not to change the composition of the plastics materials [obtained from the plastics manufacturer] in a manner that would cause it to be noncomplying." 60 FR 46066, copy enclosed.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.8/27/99

ID: nht76-3.44

DATE: 01/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Wagner Electric Corporation's October 21, 1975, question whether a trailer would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to provide a reservoir "that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system," if the reservoir provided is either of two service brake system reservoirs on the vehicle, equipped with a pressure protection valve directly adjacent to each reservoir. The drawings enclosed in your letter indicate that the "protected tank" that is normally provided, separate from the service brake system, would be eliminated and either of the service brake system reservoirs would be used to satisfy S5.2.1.1 in the event of a parking brake application.

Your interpretation of S5.2.1.1 is correct. That section calls for a reservoir of air as an energy source that is used to release the vehicle's parking brakes after an automatic or manual application. In requiring that this reservoir be "unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system," the NHTSA means that a single failure of the service brake system would not result in loss of this air supply. With the pressure protection valves located as described in your enclosures, it appears that the system would comply with Section S5.2.1.1.

This "single failure" requirement must be distinguished from the requirement of S5.6.3 that the energy source for application of the parking brake be "not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system." The NHTSA has interpreted this requirement to require an uninterrupted energy source despite loss of all air pressure from the service brake system. We recognize that the language of the two passages is substantially identical, and should be changed for clarity.

In a recent proposal to revise the parking brake requirements of the standard (40 FR 56920, December 5, 1975), the NHTSA inadvertently failed to make this distinction clear in its newly-proposed definition of "parking brake system" and intends to publish a correction of the proposal in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

October 21, 1975

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: 49 CFR 571.121

Dear Sir: The early or first generation systems for FMVSS 121 complying trailers have completed almost a year of evaluation. Serious consideration for more economical systems has naturally evolved in this period of time.

In comparing tractor air brake systems and trailer air brake systems it is apparent that a good level of safety is provided on two axle tractors which employ only service reservoirs, i.e., do not have an isolated reservoir for the parking brake system. This introduced the probability that a (Illegible Word) axle trailer could benefit from a similar system schematic.

Our review of FMVSS 121 indicates that the equipment requirements are minimal - in keeping with the NHTSA policy of issuing performance oriented requirements. The system to be discussed later in this document meets all of the equipment requirements and will satisfy the related performance criteria.

In addition, all of the benefits for commercial or non-regulated necessities are maintained.

For introductory purpose we have reproduced the section from FMVSS 121 that deals with trailer equipment requirements:

S5.2.1.1 A reservoir shall be provided that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system.

On single axle trailers utilizing one service reservoir, a separate reservoir or protected reservoir compartment for parking brake control is clearly required to meet S5.2.1.1.

Tandem axle trailers afford other opportunities for system considerations. The system shown on Figure 1 introduces a new set of operating parameters which will in fact eliminate the expense of adding a third (parking brake control) reservoir on tandem axle trailers. We interpret S5.2.1.1 to mean that a single loss of air pressure in the service brake system following pressurization of the reservoir system to 90 psi shall not prevent a single release of the parking brakes.

The system shown on Figure 1 provides a separate reservoir and anti-lock system for the service brakes on each axle. Failure of system A will not reduce the pressure in service reservoir B or vise versa. The presence of one service reservoir pressurized to 90 psi will permit a full release of the parking brakes when the supply line is pressurized to the maximum 45 to 48 psi. The supply line pressure will be limited to this value by the pressure protection valve [which has an integral check valve] in the supply line immediately adjacent to the failed service reservoir. The four parking chambers will then receive a pressure of approximately 66 psi as delivered by the amplifying relay valve which receives air from the intact service reservoir.

This evaluation is based on the venting of one trailer service reservoir to atmosphere after the system is charged to 90 psi. We consider this to be the most extreme service brake system failure which can occur on the trailer. Note that a pressure loss in both service reservoirs would require two service brake system failures. Functional requirements following multiple service system failures is not required in any other section of FMVSS 121 and is not required in S5.2.1.1. We, therefore, conclude that the system shown on Figure 1 meets the intended requirements of S5.2.1.1.

The proposed system provides an opportunity to reduce the cost of the brake system required on tandem axle trailers. A comparison of the proposed system, which is Figure 1, with the existing system as shown on Figure 2 will show that the modification entails the addition of two check valves, one tee and three short lines to the amplifying relay valve and permits the elimination of the large parking brake reservoir, reservoir drain cock, supply line to the reservoir, and the cost of installing the reservoir on the vehicle. All of the parts shown on the schematics are currently being supplied for production FMVSS 121 trailer systems. The cost reduction can not be accurately defined by Wagner, but we estimate that the saving could range from $ 20.00 to $ 30.00 per vehicle depending on variable labor costs, reservoir cost, and vehicle configuration.

We encourage any NHTSA comments or questions regarding the system shown on Figure 1 and the requirements of S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS 121. It has been customary for requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel's office which seek system or product "endorsement" to be answered by stating that the requesting party should be able to make that determination themselves.

In the instant case, we have made the determination that the dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers (Figure 1) is functionally acceptable and in compliance, and are therefore reporting it as such.

The dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers will be entering production in the immediate future. We would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and are anxious to answer any questions or supply additional information.

If you have any concern for the performance of the dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers or its compliance with respect to FMVSS 121 an early response from you will avoid the possibility of economic loss to the depressed trailer industry if, for some reason, they would have to reconvert this more economical system to earlier configurations.

Very truly yours,

John W. Kourik -- Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 1

DUAL SERVICE - TWO RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 1

DUAL SERVICE - TWO RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

(Graphics omitted) FIGURE 2

DUAL SERVICE - THREE RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

ID: GF000573

Ms. Laurie T. Baulig
General Counsel
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Ms. Baulig:

This is in response to your letter of January 14, 2005, in which you requested a clarification regarding a recent technical amendment to paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119.

On January 4, 2005, we published a technical amendment which, in part, revised paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 (see 70 FR 299). Specifically, the amendment changed the metric value of tire speed restriction threshold from 88 km/h (55 mph) to 90 km/h (55 mph). Prior to the amendment, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 required that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire was 88 km/h (55 mph) or less. Now, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire is 90 km/h (55 mph) or less. In both instances, S6.5(e) requires that the actual speed restriction be shown as follows:

"Max speed __km/h (__mph)".

The amendment was intended to make FMVSS No. 119 more consistent with established tire industry protocol and labeling technology, and did not substantively change the standard.

You ask whether amendment to S6.5(e) requires that each tire manufactured after February 3, 2005 (the effective date of the amendment) be marked with the revised maximum speed restriction of "Max speed 90 km/h (55 mph)," if previously marked "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)," Our answer is no.

The January 4, 2005 amendment to S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 revised only the threshold below which all tires must be marked with their actual speed restriction (emphasis added). That is, the tire manufacturer could continue marking tires with the speed restriction of "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)", if that is the correct speed restriction, or other lower values, when appropriate.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc    Motomu Shinohara
      Secretary General, JATMA
      No. 33 Mori Building
      3-8-21 Toranomon, Minato-ku,
      Tokyo, 105-0001 JAPAN

ref:119
d.3/16/05

ID: nht78-1.25

DATE: 06/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Norris Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 7, 1978, letter asking whether a final-stage wheel manufacturer is permitted to mark a rim in accordance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard currently specifies that rim marking shall be done by a rim manufacturer, not a final-stage wheel manufacturer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously determined that a rim manufacturer is the responsible party for rim marking. The language of the standard is specific in this requirement. The agency, however, is reviewing the standard with a view to its possible modification along the lines suggested in your letter. Should the agency decide to amend the standard, a notice proposing such change would first be published in the Federal Register. A final rule would only be issued following analysis of comments submitted by interested parties.

SINCERELY,

Action: Norris Industries Petition, FMVSS No. 120

Acting Director Vehicle Safety Standards

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Reference: Subject petition dated January 7, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 120 that will require the final assembler of a wheel to apply the specified rim markings.

Norris Industries is a major supplier of rims to the custom wheel industry. The rims are assembled with various designs of center member by the custom wheel manufacturer chiefly for the replacement and after-market trade. Multiple use of these wheels for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles requires that labeling be in accordance with Standard No. 120. The final product which is a "single piece" or "unitized" wheel is permitted optionally to be labeled on the disc rather than the rim. This is readily done when the rim manufacturer is also the final wheel manufacturer.

The present interpretation of the standard requires rim markings to be applied by the rim manufacturer. The location of the markings on the rim is dependent upon the specific disc design used, and varies considerably among final wheel manufacturers. This presents a hardship in maintaining adequate supplies of the correct rims for each manufacturer as stated by Norris.

The Norris petition (or request) to place the requirement for rim marking on the final assembly manufacturer and to release the rim manufacturer from the requirement constitutes a major change in the standard and would require a rulemaking procedure. The scheme would not work for demountable rims which never become part of a manufactured wheel assembly. From this standpoint the Norris petition must be denied.

However, as an optional alternative, it would seem reasonable to expect that the final wheel manufacturer, purchasing rims from another manufacturer, with markings per S5.2(d) and (e) would be able and qualified to provide the certification and labeling required of the rim in S5.2(d) (b) and (c), on the strength of his purchase specifications and contract.

This option would relieve the difficulties now encountered by Norris and probably others in similar situations. The standard would have to make it clear that the rim manufacturer is responsible for the required rim identification markings unless the final wheel manufacturer assumes the option.

Unless there are legal objections to this concept, we would be pleased to work with you in developing a "statement of interpretation" or an "adjustment of language" as appropriate for the situation. Please advise us if amendment of the standard is found necessary. We believe that certification and labeling of the wheel assembly by the final manufacturer is reasonable and appropriate, and should be permitted by the standard.

A. Malliaris

Reference petition dated 3/7/78

CC: F. KOCH

NORRIS INDUSTRIES

(Illegible Word) WHEEL DIVISION

2-20-78

Administrator NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Norris Industries, on January 7, 1978, requested a change in the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 to require the assemblers of the auto wheels to stamp the required information on the rim portion of the wheels.

Please advise us if this request is still to be considered and may we be informed of the decision as promptly as possible.

Please accept our thanks in advance of this information.

Don H. Pendergrass

CC: J. CROWLEY; C. MOORE; P. RYAN (S.E.M.A.)

NORRIS INDUSTRIES

(Illegible Word) WHEEL DIVISION PETITION

January 7, 1978

Administrator NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Norris Industries has supplied Automobile Wheel Component Parts to Members of the Custom Wheel Industry since 1961. These parts are then used as component parts for Custom Wheels. The majority of these customers are Members of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 requires that at least three pieces of information be stamped on the weather side of the rim by the rim manufacturer. Because our customers are the wheel assemblers, a common location of the stamp on the weather area of the rim is not acceptable to all. The size of our finished goods inventory, necessary to serve this industry, is such that it would be nearly impossible to have the various sizes of rims stamped in the locations that would be acceptable to all of our customers on hand at all times.

This is a request that the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 be changed to require the assemblers of the wheels to stamp the required information on the rim portion of the wheels.

We trust this request is reasonable and may be acted upon without undue delay.

Donald H. Pendegrass Plant Manager

CC: J. CROWLEY; C. MOORE; P. RYAN (S.E.M.A.)

ID: 22597

Mr. Frank Maloziec
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473





Dear Mr. Maloziec:

This responds to your letter requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, "Light Vehicle Brake Systems." Specifically, you ask whether your Electric Parking Brake (EPB) complies with Standard No. 135. The issues you raise are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and subsequent telephone conversation with this office.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135 provides: "Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement." The term "parking brake" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle." Thus, the parking brake must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. It also must have a "solely mechanical means to retain engagement," meaning that although the parking brake may be applied and released by non-mechanical means, it must be held by solely mechanical means. It cannot be held by non-mechanical means, such as fluid, air, or electricity.

In your letter, you state that the EPB "differs from the traditional mechanical parking brake mainly by the command used in applying the brake and the way the applied force is transmitted to the disc brakes." The EPB "can be engaged or disengaged by pushing a button fitted in the console." When the "electronic control unit (ECU) which manages the system receives an input command from the console mounted button, [it] gives a signal to the electric motors (one for each rear disc or as an alternate, one motor for both rear discs). The motors then apply the brake force via the calipers on the discs."

Since the EPB applies the brake force via calipers on the discs, it is of a friction type. In a conversation with Mr. Dion Casey of this office, you stated that although the EPB is actuated by

electrical means, it is retained by mechanical means. Additional information you submitted by fax on March 16, 2001, provided more details on the two design approaches under consideration. In that fax, you stated, "In the case of a non-reversible mechanism, the self-braking work gear itself guarantees the engagement of the parking brake. In the case of the reversible mechanism, it would be necessary to use a ratchet gear to lock the electric motor." It appears, therefore, that the EPB is "a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement," and would be permitted under the provisions of paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135.

In response to an analogous interpretation request from General Motors Corporation, we agreed that S5.2 of Standard No. 105 permits the parking brake to be applied and released by electrical or other non-mechanical means so long as the engagement is held by solely mechanical means. We interpret S5.2 of Standard No. 135 similarly.

I hope this answers your question. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:135
d.4/19/01

ID: 11674MLV

Mr. Scott Junk
Junk Design
873 Deep Creek
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Dear Mr. Junk:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 1996, concerning a new product called "Head Rest Travelers." Your letter explained that the product "is a lycra slipcover that fits over the existing headrest in a car to change the headrest into a stuffed character." You asked if there were any regulations that apply to this product. In particular, you expressed concern that, because the product extends three to six inches from the existing headrest it could reduce visibility.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized under 49 CFR Chapter 301 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 CFR Section 30112 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Federal law establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Your product may be affected by five safety standards: Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors," Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints," Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials."

These five standards apply only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. If your product were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including these five, with the product installed. However, based on the information you provided, it appears that your product is intended to be an item of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. '30122. The provision provides:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not, however, apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. The agency, however, recommends that owners not make modifications to their vehicles which would degrade the safety performance of the vehicle, such as installing a product that degraded the field of view of a vehicle's mirror system.

Your letter also asks about "safety restrictions." In addition to the foregoing, your product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products which have safety defects. Therefore, if your product proved to contain a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

We also recommend that you check state regulations. Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:202 d:4/23/96

ID: nht87-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/87

FROM: RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC

TO: ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICH ARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

It was good to hear from you today and I'm glad that you are proceeding in a proper manner regarding the single-pulse signal enhancement feature that you propose to market for use in certain stop signal lamps.

As we discussed, there should be no intensity problem with the use in W, W2 and W3 types because there is no maximum intensity written into the standards for those lamp types. The lamp design intensities also generally far exceed what the three "W" stan dards call for, so any masking of the reflector in the lamp by the photo tube should not prevent adequate performance.

The flash energy formula described in SAE J1318 APR86 (S2.11) may be used to determine compliance with the maximum intensity requirement of SAE "U" type supplementary stop lamps. In J1318, class 1 directional lamps (table8) require 50 candela-seconds of flash energy at H-V. The same functions type lamp and test location in SAE J595 AUG83 (table 1) requires 300 cd intensity. This is a ratio of 1:6. It therefore follows that the maximum from flash energy in an SAE "U" type with a 60 cd limit should be 10 candela-seconds.

When you can obtain a test report that indicates the candela-seconds in an SAE "U" lamp, I would like to see a demonstration of the tested arrangement for assurance that there is no "discomfort" glare at that level. This is primarily because we have a t otally new concept here and we want to be on the safe side. Same goes for use in school bus type "W2" lamps. The momentary light will be paler than the limit for red specified in SAE J578d color standard, but if it is not within the limit for white, it will be an acceptable color.

You said that there is no problem with setting higher or lower intensities if necessary, so you should be able to proceed with your formal request for authorization after the test and demonstration go as anticipated.

Sincerely,

ID: 1983-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. A. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany

Dear Mr. Wuddel:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1983, to August Burgett of this agency. With reference to the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permitting semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamp systems, you have asked whether a headlamp assembly would be allowed which also incorporated a European H1 or H2 bulb, "for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it."

It is our understanding that the H1 bulbs are commonly used in European lamps as the principal lighting source, and that H2 bulbs are used in high intensity supplemental front lamps. Therefore, use of one of these bulbs in a replaceable bulb headlamp would create, in effect, a system of four headlamps. The agency recently denied a petition by Volkswagen for a four-lamp system at this time using the standardized replaceable light source (copy enclosed), because of unresolved issues. We therefore are currently unable to allow a system such as you propose with the H1 or H2 bulb in a common housing with the standardized replaceable light source, creating in effect a four-lamp headlamp system. Further, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and there is the distinct possibility that this could occur through incorporation of the H1 and H2 bulbs.

Use of the H1 and H2 bulbs in separate and independent units for driving or fog lamps remains permissible, subject to regulation by the individual American States, as these items are not covered by Standard No. 108.

You may be interested to know that Volkswagen of America has recently petitioned us for rulemaking that would allow use of the H4 bulb instead of the standardized replaceable light source in replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A decision is pending whether to grant this petition.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

Mr. A. Burgett Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. USA - Washington, D.C. 20590

BV Wu/Mei 7509 09-09-1983

Dear Sir,

Since optional headlighting systems are allowed according to FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 81-11, Notice 3) on certain promises, we intend to develop a semi-sealed headlamp assembly with two adjacent reflectors, moulded as one part, and a lens covering both reflector sections. The lens and the dual reflector would be sealed. The outward reflector would be equipped with a standardized replaceable bulb (Ford bulb) for the required upper and lower beam, and the inward reflector would be equipped with a european replaceable bulb type "H1" or "H2" for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it. The optical axis of the system would be parallel. On surface of the lens area for upper and lower beam there would be three aiming pads by which a common aiming adjustment of both the upper/lower beam and the auxiliary driving or fog lamp beam could be carried out.

We would like to learn whether such a headlamp assembly would be allowed or it is required that the aiming adjustment must be possible for each reflector.

Please find attached sketch.

Yours sincerely

Westfalische Metall Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co. i. A. Wuddel Headlamp Assembly

*Insert diagram here

ID: nht94-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: C. N. Littler -- Administrator Regulatory Affairs, MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES (MANITOBA, CANADA)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to FMVSS P571 @ 121

ATTACHMT: Attached to Letter Dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to C. N. Littler (A42; STD. 121; VSA 103D)

TEXT: I am writing to request a NHTSA legal opinion regarding New York State enforcement of a brake stopping distance standard which is not identical in nature or substance to FMVSS 121.

In effect, NYSDOT is currently inspecting and placing out of service privately owned motor coaches which do not stop within 22.2 feet and 20 mph. FMVSS 121 requires a stopping distance of 35 feet at 20 mph on a road surface having a skid pad number of 81. Not only is the New York standard not identical to the Federal standard, (as required under the provisions of Sec. 103(d) of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966), it is also unduly restrictive.

Recently, the Bus Association of New York met with members of NYSDOT to attempt to resolve this problem. This meeting unfortunately only resulted in an impasse, whereby NYSDOT requested that the vehicle manufacturers write letters to the NYSDOT Compl iance and Enforcement Branch requesting exemptions to the New York standard.

We do not feel that this approach is appropriate. This issue is not one of a technical nature. It is, in fact, a legislative issue in that New York State is not in compliance with a Federally mandated standard.

Your assistance in providing a legal opinion with respect to this rather urgent matter would be greatly appreciated. I have attached for your reference copies of the standards and statute above named. Please do not hesitate to call me at 204-287-427 4 or FAX 204-453-7356 should you or counsel's office staff required further information. With kindest regards, I remain,

ATTACHMENTS: NEW YORK STATE TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht94-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: Littler, C.N. -- Administrator Regulatory Affairs, Motor Coach Industries, Manitoba, Canada

TO: Versailles, Mary -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to FMVSS P571@121

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/1/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To C. N. Littler (A42; VSA 103(D))

TEXT: I am writing to request a NHTSA legal opinion regarding New York State enforcement of a brake stopping distance standard which is not identical in nature or substance to FMVSS 121.

In effect, NYSDOT is currently inspecting and placing out of service privately owned motor coaches which do not stop within 22.2 feet and 20 mph. FMVSS 121 requires a stopping distance of 35 feet at 20 mph on a road surface having a skid pad number of 81. Not only is the New York standard not identical to the Federal standard, (as required under the provisions of Sec. 103(d) of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966), it is also unduly restrictive.

Recently, the Bus Association of New York met with members of NYSDOT to attempt to resolve this problem. This meeting unfortunately only resulted in an impasse, whereby NYSDOT requested that the vehicle manufacturers write letters to the NYSDOT Compl iance and Enforcement Branch requesting exemptions to the New York standard.

We do not feel that this approach is appropriate. This issue is not one of a technical nature. It is, in fact, a legislative issue in that New York State is not in compliance with a Federally mandated standard.

Your assistance in providing a legal opinion with respect to this rather urgent matter would be greatly appreciated. I have attached for your reference copies of the standards and statute above named. Please do not hesitate to call me at 204-287-427 4 or FAX 204-453-7356 should you or counsel's office staff required further information. With kindest regards, I remain,

Attachments

(STANDARDS AND STATUTES OMITTED.)