ID: nht79-1.34

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 9 1979

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice president - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office in which you requested an interpretation of S4.1.1.19 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.1.1.19 states:

A lamp manufactured on or after January 1, 1974 and designed to use a type of bulb that has not been assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not listed in SAE Standard J573d "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968, shall meet the applicable requirements of this standard when used with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed-in bulb shall meet these requirements with the bulb operated at the bulb's design voltage.

It is noted that this paragraph consists of two sentences. You have asked whether the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence are the same "lamp" and "bulb" of the first sentence.

The answer is no. The first sentence would require testing, at the bulb's design voltage, of bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps but not of bulbs used in, for example, taillamps; the former, though listed in J573d (Table 2), is not assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating since these bulbs emit shaped beams while the latter are both listed in J573d and have assigned mean spherical candlepower ratings. However, if the latter is used in the sealed lamp, it is tested at the bulb's design voltage rather than using the rated mean spherical candlepower. Furthermore, the rulemaking history of the paragraph clearly indicates that the two requirements are separate. As the agency noted in the preamble to the proposal, "The proposal specifies that when no rating has been assigned by the bulb manufacturer or the SAE or if the lamp is sealed and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall be operated at design voltage" (emphasis supplied) (38 FR 16230).

You noted that your question relates to the voltage required by Standard No. 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that utilizes a European halogen bulb that meets ECE Regulation 37.

Since J579c requires the test voltage to be 12.8 volts for all the sealed beam bulbs, the photometric tests should be at 12.8 volts and not at the so-called "system voltage" of 12 volts.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590 September 24 1979

Dear Mr Vinson

Request for Interpretation

With reference to S4.1.1.19 of FMVSS 108, are the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence the same as these two items referred to in the first sentence, that is to say, is the bulb of the second sentence one to which the two conditions attaching to the bulb of the first sentence also apply?

This question relates to the voltage required by FMVSS 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that comprises, in part, a "sealed-in bulb" that is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/rev.1/Add.36 Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the several European governments. Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht79-1.35

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7, P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 15, 1979, asking for an interpretation of S4.3.1.1.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that dimensional changes in refrigeration units on the front of commercial trailers mean that clearance lamps are no longer visible at 45 degrees inboard if they are mounted as they have been in the past. You have proposed three alternate solutions to the problem.

S4.3.1.1.1 provides in pertinent part that "clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first proposed solution is that "The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45 degree inboard visibility requirements waived in accordance with S4.3.1.1.1."

We believe that this is preferable to your other suggested solutions that utilize angle-mounted combination lamps. Standard No. 108 appears to prescribe alternate requirements for location and visibility of clearance lamps--preferably on the front and visible throughout 45 degree angles, but if not, elsewhere than the front and where they need not be visible through the 45 degree angles. Your first proposed solution comprises elements of each of Standard No. 108's alternatives, and while it is not expressly permitted by Standard No. 108, it does not appear to violate it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 15, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

Recently there have been dimensional changes in the refrigeration units used on the front of commercial trailers and these new dimensions restrict the visibility of the front clearance lamps. These new refrigeration units are up to 80 inches wide, 83 inches high and extend out from the front of the trailer up to 23 inches. These larger units restrict the mounting location of the clearance lamps on the front of the vehicle.

With this obstruction the in-board 45o visibility angle cannot be met if the clearance lamps are mounted as they normally have been.

Section S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard states, "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45o in-board".

Our interpretation of Section S4.3.1.1.1 would allow for three possible solutions to the problem described earlier.

The methods are as follows:

1. The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #1.

2. A combination lamp meeting the requirements of both a side marker lamp and a clearance lamp mounted at 45o could be installed on the corner of the trailer and again the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #2.

3. The front clearance lamps could be omitted completely from the front of the trailer and a lamp meeting the combination requirements for a side marker and clearance lamp could be mounted on the side of the trailer at the front. This lamp would then meet the requirements for a side marker lamp having 45o visibility each side of the center line and having light directly to the front of the vehicle. The 45o in-board visibility requirements would again be waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #3.

Before making any recommendations to our customers regarding the possible solution to this problem, we would like to have your comments.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering

CJN/aj

Encl.

ID: nht79-1.36

DATE: 11/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1979

Mr. T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd 2-9-13, Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Fujita:

This is in reply to your letter of October 17, 1979, asking for an interpretation for Paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.7 says in effect that a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp may be closer to each other than 4 inches "if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps."

You have asked whether a motorcycle turn signal lamp should "satisfy the values specified in S4.3.1.7 or half those values. The answer is, the values specified in S4.3.1.7. Half those values would be "less than two and one-half times the sum specified ..." and impermissible under S4.3.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 17, 1979

Att.: Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Photometric requirement of a motorcycle front turn signal lamp which is mounted closer to the low beam headlamp than 4 inches.

Dear Mr. Finkelstein,

Section 4.3.1.7 of FMVSS No.108 specifies as follows;

S.4.3.1.7

The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

When we apply this provision to a motorcycle turn signal lamp, we would like to have your opinion as to which one of the following requirements the lamp should satisfy.

A: the values specified in S.4.3.1.7

B: half the values of that specified in S.4.1.3.1.7

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

MF/mo

ID: nht79-1.37

DATE: 04/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 3 1979

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your letter of January 23, 1979, concerning a new design belt system for rear seat lap belts that you would like to use in future vehicles. You ask if the proposed design would comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No 208.

The answer to your question depends in which seating position in the rear seat of the vehicle the proposed belt system would be used. The new design would not comply with paragraph S7.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 if installed at outboard designated seating positions in the rear seat. That paragraph requires lap belts to adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male. In some cases your proposed design would not adjust automatically to fit a 95th-percentile adult male.

The proposed design would comply with the standard, however, if installed in the center seating position of the rear seat, since paragraph S7.1.1.2 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed at any designated seating position other than the outboard positions of the front and second seats shall adjust either by a retractor or by a manual adjusting device.

Since your new belt system design would currently be precluded for outboard designated seating positions, you may wish to petition for amendment of Safety Standard No. 208. Any petition should include an adequate description of the belt design, including: (1) seating positions for which the belt system would be applicable, (2) advantages of the system, (3) size of the belt system hardware, and (4) problems, if any, associated with automatic retraction of the belt system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants your request for confidentiality of the new belt system design described in your letter. Please notify us if the design becomes public in the future. Also, please note that if you petition for rulemaking in this area, the details of your belt design would probably have to be disclosed to the public, at least in general terms.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.38

DATE: 01/24/79

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 24 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P. O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Gerth:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1978, asking whether a manually adjustable seat belt anchorage for the upper torso portion of a 3-point safety belt is permissible under Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You state that this new anchorage is adjustable over a certain range and is intended to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants.

We have reviewed the drawings and specifications enclosed with your letter and determined that the proposed adjustable anchorage design would not be precluded by Safety Standard No. 210 if the design meets the following two conditions: (1) the anchorage complies with the zone location requirements of the standard in any of the positions to which can be adjusted, and (2) the anchorage complies with the strength requirements of the standard at all times, even when the adjusting mechanism (bolt) is in its loosened status. There is nothing in the standard that prevents the use of adjustable anchorages, per se.

From discussions with your engineers, we found that the proposed design would require the use of a tool to tighten the adjusting bolt. We are concerned that this feature could reduce potential increases in belt use. For example, if driver A adjusts the belt anchorage to its lowest position, will driver B readjust the belt when he enters the car if the two drivers are of different sizes and the lowest position is uncomfortable for driver B? If the readjustment requires the use of a wrench to loosen and retighten the anchorage bolt, will driver B simply choose not to wear the belt? We believe that a manually adjusting anchorage that does not require the use of tools would be a preferable design in terms of potential seat belt use.

The agency is of course very interested in any seat belt design that will increase comfort and convenience and, thereby, seat belt use. Therefore, we encourage innovative designs. Please keep us informed about the progress of your work on your new anchorage system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants your request for confidential treatment of the drawings included in your letter (enclosures 1, 2 and 4). We have preliminarily determined that the drawings and specifications contain privileged commercial information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Docket Section Room 5108 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Standard 210; Seat Belt Anchorages - Request for Interpretation

Gentlemen:

Statistics released by the NHTSA on December 15, 1978, again reflect the very low seat belt usage rate in the United States inspite of their known effectiveness. Earlier surveys have shown that approximately 50% of persons refusing to wear seat belts do so because they perceive them to be uncomfortable and inconvenient to manipulate and wear.

In an effort to overcame this wide spread public perception, our parent company, Daimler-Benz A.G., has devised 2 manually adjustable anchorage for the shoulder portion of the 3-point safety belt. The anchorage is adjustable over a range of 90mm and is designed to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants ranging from the 5 percentile female to 95 percentile male.

Daimler-Benz has tested this device and has concluded that it conforms to the strength requirements of standard 210. However, it is not entirely clear if such a device per se is permissable under the Standard.

We are including with this communication a written description of the device, and several drawings and photographs. We request your review of the material and advice if the manually adjustable seat belt anchorage is, in fact, permissable under Standard 210. If additional information is requested, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

In closing we would like to draw your attention to enclosures 1, 2 and 4 which we consider to contain proprietary information which would be damaging to our competitive interests if released to the public. We request that these enclosures be withheld from the public docket in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b)(4).

Yours truly,

Enclosures

"Proprietary"

We request that the information designated 'proprietary' in the enclosure be treated by the agency as confidential and be exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) (4) because such information is a trade secret and contains privileged commercial information. Knowledge of this information to competitors could result in significant competitive damage to Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

Enclosure 3

Description

The upper safety belt anchorage consists of an "M" shaped base plate (1) which is attached with screws at points (6) and (7), and tabs at point (5) to the "B" pillar, and which holds the adjustable retaining plate (2) in place on which the mounting nut (4) for the belt sash is spot welded, and which also holds the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3).

The base plate (1) has, depending on the adjustment travel of the seat belt sash (8), an elongated hole (1a) in the middle to permit a screw (9) to pass through and fasten the belt sash to the retaining plate (2).

Within the elongated hole (1a) three indexes (10),(11), & (12) are arranged in pairs to receive the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3) and hold the retaining plate (2) in place. Because of the way the retaining plate (2), and the arresting device (3) are configured, it is assured that when loaded the arresting device (3) will lock into place as there is no arm between the projection (13), and the indexes (10),(11), & (12) which could cause a moment to be exerted on the arresting device (3). An additional pre-condition for the uninterrupted functioning of the arresting device (3) is that the restraining plate (2) to which the arresting device (3) is attached, does not lift off the base plate when loaded. This is achieved with the threaded (9) connection to the retaining plate (2), and by means of two tabs (2a) which, when loaded, rest against the B-pillar. This assures that the arresting mechanism (3) is loaded only by shear forces.

PS:Wkr 11/9/78

ID: nht79-1.39

DATE: 03/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 16 1979

Mr. Charles D. Hylton, III Director, Editorial Services National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. 1343 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Hylton:

This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1979, asking whether tire dealers are responsible for supplying point-of-sale information concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQG) (49 CFR 575.104) to prospective tire purchasers.

Subpart A of Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, provides in section 575.6(c) (49 CFR 575.6(c)) that,

"Each manufacturer of motor vehicles, each brand name owner of tires, and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall provide for examination by prospective purchasers, at each location where its vehicles or tires are offered for sale by a person with whom the manufacturer or brand name owner has a contractual, proprietary, or other legal relationship, or by a person who has such a relationship with a distributor of the manufacturer or brand name owner concerning the vehicle or tire in question, the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to each of the vehicles or tires offered for sale at that location ..."

The UTQG Standards, contained in Subpart B of Part 575, specify the information which must be furnished to prospective purchasers by vehicle manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and tire brand name owners (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)).

Thus, the Consumer Information Regulations place the responsibility for providing UTQG point-of-sale information to prospective tire purchasers on manufacturers and brand name owners rather than directly on tire dealers. The means by which tire manufacturers and brand name owners assure that UTQG information is provided for examination will be determined between these suppliers and their dealers and distributors.

You should also note that, in light of the 30-day stay granted by the U.S. Court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of B.B. Goodrich Co. v. Department of Transportation, the effective dates for all requirements of the UTQG regulation, with the exception of paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(iii) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(iii), are now March 31, 1979 for bias-ply tires and October 1, 1979 for bias-belted tires. Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), the sidewall molding requirement, and paragraph (d)(1)(iii), the first purchaser requirement, now become effective October 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 31, 1980 for bias-belted tires.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.4

DATE: 01/16/79

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

TO: R. D. Phillips

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard D. Phillips Attorney At Law P.O. Box 66 Ludowici, Georgia 31316

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your December 15, 1978, questions about the status of school buses subject to recall for antilock malfunction now that the "no lockup" requirement of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been invalidated in the cases of trucks and trailers. You also ask whether the antilock systems in question must be reconnected, whether the vehicles would thereby be made more or less safe, and what the effect of continued disconnection might be on liability considerations.

I have enclosed the agency's official interpretation of the effect of the invalidation on the operational status of vehicles equipped with antilock. In the case of vehicles subject to recall, we stated that section 154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414) mandates an "adequate repair," and that, in the NHTSA's view, the benefits of "no lockup" performance mandate the offer of repair and reconnection.

The letter also states that disconnection, consistent with regulations of other authorities and the instructions of the manufacturer, would not violate the Vehicle Safety Act. While the NHTSA finds that the repair would provide desirable "no lockup" performance, we are unable to counsel you on the Long County Board of Education's liability if the system were not reconnected.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht79-1.40

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 21 1979 NOA-30

Mr. J. C. Eckhold, Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1979, asking whether Ford may ship to distributors and dealers vehicles with bumper guards, needed for compliance with Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), placed inside the vehicles for installation prior to sale of the vehicles to consumers. You state that the bumper guards, which would be attached by dealers and others making use of pre-processed mounting holes in the vehicle bumpers, would reduce railroad car capacity, if installed prior to shipment. You also suggest that absence of reference in the Customs regulations (19 CFR Part 12) to readily attachable components needed to comply with regulations issued under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901), may lead to complications in the importation of vehicles prior to installation of readily attachable bumper components.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to the shipment of vehicles with readily attachable bumper components stored in the vehicles for later installation, provided the components are attached before the vehicles are offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Further, regulations governing importation of motor vehicles (19 CFR 12.80) apply only to compliance with Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571, and the question of compliance with Part 581, therefore, should not arise.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 3, 1979

Mr. Richard J. Hipolit, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This is to request an interpretation of Part 581, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as to readily attachable and detachable equipment that constitute portions of the bumper system on passenger cars subject to the "Phase II" requirements of Part 581 that become effective on and after September 1, 1979.

Unlike regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Part 581 does not expressly provide that a vehicle which conforms to the criteria of the bumper standard with readily attachable equipment installed -- such as bumper guards --is deemed also to be in conformity when shipped with the readily attachable equipment placed in the vehicle for installation by dealers or others prior to the first retail sale (by means of designated, pre-processed installation points on the vehicle, e.g., bumper guard mounting holes pierced in the bumper).

A number of practical problems can be expected to arise in the absence of appropriate interpretation of Part 581 to deal with the realities of manufacture and distribution. As Mr. D. G. McGuigan informed you last week, Ford has determined, for example, that substantial and wasteful transportation complications can be avoided on one of its 1980 model passenger car lines by shipping front and rear bumper guards inside the vehicles, to be installed by dealers prior to retail sale. That situation involves both tariff restrictions and limitations on the capacity of tri-level rail cars. For 1979 models of the cars in question, shipped without bumper guards, each tri-level rail car can accommodate 18 vehicles. The same capacity would be available for 1980 models if bumper guards were not installed until the vehicles reached their final destinations. If bumper guards are installed at the factory, however, only 15 units could be carried on each rail car, and the resulting three unit reduction in carrying capacity would increase Ford's requirement for rail car use, I am informed, by approximately 151 rail cars per month.

Similarly, in view of the fact that imported cars may be transported to this country with readily attachable equipment placed inside the vehicle to help minimize transit damage on the high seas, we foresee the possibility of unintended complications also arising for imported vehicles if the readily attachable equipment issue is not dealt with. Part 12 of Title 19, the Customs Service regulation jointly developed by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, expressly recognizes and deals with readily attachable equipment for Safety Act purposes, but there appears to be no parallel provision concerning regulations, such as Part 581, established under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

We believe that the requested interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of Part 581 and is in the public interest because it will serve to avoid economic waste in the manufacture and transport of passenger cars while preserving for retail purchasers the protection that the performance requirements of Part 581 are intended to provide. Because production of 1980 models are in the process of manufacture and shipments expected to begin in the next two weeks, we should appreciate this request receiving expedited attention.

Sincerely,

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

ID: nht79-1.41

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porshe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1979, requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether the rear window defogger switch, which emits a dim light for control location and a brighter light upon activation, is considered a control or a telltale.

Although the switch might be regarded as a control, telltale, or both, it is regulated as a control insofar as its illumination is concerned. Therefore, its illumination must be continuously variable as specified in S5.3.3 of the standard.

S5.3.3 provides that

Each passenger car . . . manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1, and each passenger car . . . with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display.

The rear window defrosting and defogging system appears in the control list of S5.1 and in Table 1, but not in the display list of S5.1 or in Table 2. Therefore, the control illumination requirements of S5 apply to the defogging switch and the display illumination requirements do not.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

UNITED STATES COMPLIANCE OFFICE

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of the Chief Counsel

May 25, 1979

Subject: PART 571, FMVSS 101-80, Docket 1-18, Notice 13 Control Location, Identification and Illumination

Dear Sirs:

In Table 1 of the above docket, the rear window defrosting and defogging system control shall be illuminated.

S 5.3.3 reads: "Light intensities for controls etc. and their identification shall be continously variable. . ."

In the same paragraph it reads: "The light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions."

In one of our cars, the Porsche 928, the dashboard illumination and a dim light inside the rear window defogger switch are activated when the ignition is turned on. The dim light within the defogger switch is meant to help to locate this control. Upon activation of this switch the light intensity of the defogger switch is increased to show that the rear window defogger switch is in the "on" position. Both light intensities, dim to locate the control, and brighter for activation, are not variable.

Please clarify if w should consider the light in the rear window defogger switch a "telltale" or a "Control" and if we are in compliance with the 2 different light intensities.

We enclose 2 pictures from the owner's manual to show the location and activation of the switch.

Thank you in advance for your clarification.

Gerhard C. Waizmann

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht79-1.42

DATE: 10/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether a "barely discernible" light on the headlamp control, which is activated when the ignition is turned to the "on" position, complies with the requirements of the standard. Under S5.3.3, "any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable . . . ." Since the light in question is not activated when the headlamps are activated, it need not meet the intensity requirements of S5.3.3.

SINCERELY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JULY 27, 1979

Kathy Demeter Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Dear Kathy,

It is imperative that we obtain a response to the attached request for interpretation. We would appreciate its expeditious handling.

Charles F. Finn

ENC.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JUNE 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Gentlemen:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays as it applies to the headlamp control.

Presently, as a courtesy to the driver, Volkswagen provides a barely discernible light on the headlamp control. This light is activated when the ignition is turned to the "On" position. This facilitates finding the switch in the dark.

It is our interpretation that this light complies with the standard as specified in Sections S5.3.1 and S5.3.3 and therefore is not required to be variable.

John Carson and Nelson Erickson of the NHTSA, in phone conversations with a member of my staff, indicated that they thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct and believed that there already was an interpretation rendered by the Chief Counsel's office on this matter. Volkswagen would be desirous of obtaining this document.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations