ID: 86-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/86

FROM: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY; DEAN HANSELL -- LAW OFFICE OF DONOVAN LEISURE

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 103 AND 104

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/29/86, TO STEPHEN J WAIMEY FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4) STANDARD 103 AND 104

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We write on behalf of Porsche to verify our understanding of a portion of FMVSS 103 (Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems) and 104 (Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems). Our question concerns the method of determining the areas to be included in calculating the percentages required to be wiped or defrosted under FMVSS 103 and 104.

Porsche is considering a windshield design that would be 5% smaller than the "A" area, as defined by the angles set forth in SAE J903c (Passenger Car Windshield Wiper Systems) and SAE J902b (Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems). Our understanding is that, for the purpose of determining compliance with the percentages of the "A" area required to be wiped or defrosted under FMVSS 103 and 104, the percentages are based on the actual windshield size (less a one inch border) rather than the theoretical size that is derived from an abstract application of the specified angles in the SAE procedures.

Our conclusion is based on statements contained in SAE J903c, which is incorporated into FMVSS 104, S4.1.2, and SAE J902b, which is incorporated in FMVSS 103, S4.2. Both SAE J903c and J902b provide that "the areas used in determining the percentage of [wiped or defrosted] area are

those areas on the exterior glazing surface which are not within 1 (one) inch of the edge of the daylight opening." Thus, it is only the area that falls on the windshield itself, and excluding a one inch border at the outer edge of the exterior glazing surface, that need be used in calculating the appropriate percentages.

If our interpretation is correct, then any part of Area A (as determined by the given angles) that falls outside the windshield's physical area is immaterial.

A prompt response would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Yours truly,

ID: 86-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 3/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon -- Vehicle Inspection Services, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 22, 1985 letter to our office concerning Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked several questions about the provision in @ 103(d) which permits a State to establish higher safety requirements for motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. In a January 31 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that you were interested in how @ 103(d) applies to vehicles procured for school transportation purposes.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehcile equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Your first question asked whether vehicles "directly owned" by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions fall within the category of vehicles procured by the State or its subdivisions for its own use. The answer is yes, if the governmental entities have purchased the vehicles for their own use. While governmental entities may specify additional safety features in their own vehicles, keep in mind that section 103(d) does not permit them to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

Your second question, referred to buses that are owned and operated by a private contractor who has contracted with Massachusetts or its political subdivisions to provide pupil transportation to and from public schools. You asked whether "vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions" are considered "vehicles procured for the State's own use." The answer to your question is yes.

NHTSA addressed this question in an interpretation to the New York Department of Transportation in May 1976 (copy enclosed). In that letter, we concluded that a contractual arrangement between a State and a private contractor for the supply and operation of school buses for public school transportation is a "procurement" of those vehicles for the State's own use. The agency made this determination after reviewing the legislative history of @ 103(d), which indicated that Congress intended the term "procured for its own use" to refer to established practices used by governmental entities for obtaining goods and services. Those practices have included contracting for services from a private contractor who owns or leases the materials involved. Therefore, the State's provision of public school transportation is a service which can be obtained by contract from a private contractor, and those vehicles provided by the contractor would be considered "procured" for the State's own use. Massachusetts may therefore set requirements for those vehicles which impose a higher standard of performance than Federal standards, if the additional safety features do not prevent the vehicles from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

As stated in our 1976 interpretation, however, vehicles "procured for [the State's] own use" would not include vehicles provided by a private contractor to transport students to private schools. Therefore, in response to your third question which asked whether the State may prescribe nonidentical safety standards for privately-owned school buses that transport children to private schools, the answer is no.

We note that your questions about @ 103(d) referred to motor vehicles which operate intrastate. Whether a vehicle operates in interstate commerce is not a condition affecting the applicability of @ 103(d) to the States. We believe that Congress intended the Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, and did not limit the Act's requirements to vehicles which cross State lines. Further, as a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacturer to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. In addition, whether or not the vehicles cross State lines, their use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. Thus, the effect of @ 103(d) on State standards is not conditioned on vehicle usage in interstate commerce.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hestate to contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Registry of Motor Vehicles

November 22, 1985

OCC 1599

Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for RULEMAKING, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood: Thank you for your prompt and thorough response to my recent telephone inquiry regarding the transportation of school pupils. I am sure you understand the problems that arise when one attempts to dovetail Federal laws, rules and regulations with State laws, rules and regulations and then intelligently advises and/or directs others.

As I mentioned on the telephone, I have, and am sure will continue to have, questions in this regard and certainly appreciate your cooperation.

Attached is a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Section 1392. My concern is how you interpret the third sentence. Specifically, what is meant by "equipment procured for their own use"? Does this mean that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may prescribe standards higher than a Federal standard on vehicles operated intrastate under the following conditions:

1. Directly owned by the Commonwealth or by any of its political subdivisions;

2. Vehicles privately owned while under contract with the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions;

3. Vehicles privately owned and operated transporting persons for hire.

Thank you for giving consideration to this request for information.

Very truly yours,

Peter M. Koparon, Director -- Vehicle Inspection Services

Enc.

ID: 86-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to equip a motorcycle with an auxiliary lighting device described in your letter. The device is mounted on an optional trunk and performs the functions of a supplementary taillamp and stop lamp, though its maximum intensities in either mode is less than the minimum required by Standard No. 108 for each such mode.

Under paragraph S4.1.3. a device such as you have described is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. From your diagram and information, it does not appear that these supplementary taillamp and stop lamp functions will impair the effectiveness of the primary ones, and therefore paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 18, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, this decorative device will be mounted on the rear face of an optional motorcycle rear trunk. Emitted light color of this extra lighting device is red, and its size is smaller than the tail & stop lamp required in FMVSS No.108. Its function is interlocked with a tail lamp. Its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the tail lamp. When the stop lamp is lit, it increases the luminous intensity, but the maximum is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the stop lamp.

We would like to ask you whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamp.

We believe that this device have a good effect on the safety by increasing the visibility from upside.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting

ID: 86-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William F. Slye

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William F. Slye 51 Stebbins Ave. Brockton, Mass. 02401

Dear Mr. Slye:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1986, to the Department of Transportation with reference to whether the 1985 Buick Century that you purchased on September 18, 1985, should have been equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp.

The requirement for the new lamp applies only to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 (regardless of model year designation), and therefore would not apply to a vehicle which was sold after that date but was manufactured earlier. The manufacturer's certification located in the driver door post area of your car will indicate the month and year of its manufacture, which we assume was earlier than September 1985. If our assumption is correct, your dealer was correct in informing you that it need not install the lamp at its expense. However, because of the demonstrable value of the lamp in reducing the frequency and severity of rear end collisions, you may nevertheless wish to have the lamp installed.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

51 Stebbins Avenue Brockton, Mass. 02401 March 31,1986

U.S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

According to the March/April, 1986 issue of the American Automobile Association magazine, "The U.S. Department Transportation requires the third brakelight on all cars made or sold in the United States after Sept. 1, 1985." This statement appears in an article entitled "Car Light, Car Bright", authored by Leslie Janet Woolf.

I purchased my new 1985 Buick Century on Sept. 18, 1986. It does not have the extra light. The dealership says that the rule applies only to 1986 cars, and that the statement "sold after Sept. 1, 1985 does not apply, or is in error. Based on this interpretation, the agency will not install the light at its expense. If their interpretation is incorrect, I don't feel that I should have to pay for their error.

I would appreciate a ruling on this matter as soon as possible. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

William F. Slye

ID: 86-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Michael A. Doherty; NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Doherty, Esq. -- Kassel, Neuwirth and Geiger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michael A. Doherty, Esq. Kassel, Neuwirth & Geiger 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like a clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.

Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, I would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: "Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section." This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).

The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provided by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by that dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.

With this background, I will now address each of your statements, in the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.

1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicable UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR 5575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.

Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to "register" tire designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR 5575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing all of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.

2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of the manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.

Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of the manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).

3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT at least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.

Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2).

4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requirement that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.

5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requirement that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.

6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is already registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.

Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practices by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.

7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a new tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.

Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2).

Should you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 18, 1986

Steven Kratsky, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 900 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Registration with the Department of Transportation ("DOT:) of Uniform Tire Quality Grading ("UTQG")

Dear Mr. Kratsky:

We are the registered agent of Hankook Tire Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Korea ("Hankook") a manufacturer of tires imported into the United States.

Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation with Mr. Nelson Gordy and you, this will confirm that the procedures for providing UTQG information to the consumer and registering it with the DOT are as follows:

1. To register each new tire design (pattern code), or each change in the applicable UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, Hankook must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire pattern code and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth the three paragraphs of 49 C.F.R. 575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.

2. Such brochures must be sent to U.S. dealers of Hankook and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy Hankook tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.

3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT at least thirty (30) days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.

4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT.

5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT.

Steven Kratsky, Esq. Page 2

6. If Hankook intends to market a tire that is already registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to the DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.

7. If a private brand tire has a new tire pattern code, Hankook is not required to register the tire with DOT -- the U.S. distributor of the private brand tires is required to register.

If the foregoing does not accurately and completely state the procedures related to registration of UTQG information with DOT, please advise us in writing at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Michael A. Doherty

ID: 86-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bob Carlson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bob Carlson 8305 29th Avenue, N.W. Seattle, WA 98117

This responds to your January 23, 1986 letter inquiring about Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your projected sale of aftermarket windshield wiper systems for trucks.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, applicable to new motor vehicles. As you note, this standard applies to trucks, as well as other types of vehicles. In your letter, you ask which performance requirements apply to wiping systems for trucks.

Under S4. Requirements, new trucks are required to have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets the requirements of S4.1.1. The frequency requirements in S4.1.1 apply to trucks, but the wiped area requirements of S4.1.2 apply only to passenger cars. Trucks must also have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965, except that the effective wipe pattern is considered to be "the pattern designed by the manufacturer for the windshield wiping system on the exterior surface of the windshield glazing." Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer establishes the wipe pattern of the system.

If a new truck equipped with your wiper system did not comply with Standard No. 104 due to some aspect of that system, the sale of that truck to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St S W Washington, DC 20590 Mail Code NOA-30

RE: Wiper System Requirements

Gentlemen:

My name is Bob Carlson. I am a salesman for Sea-Tac Ford Truck Sales, Inc; a heavy duty truck store in Seattle, Washington. I am currently developing a new "after market" wiper system for the "L" Series Louisville Ford truck line (literature enclosed).

While I have read FMVSS 104, SAEJ 903A and SAEJ 198, there appears, at least to me anyway, some overlap and confusion as to what test standards will apply to my wiper system developed for use on heavy duty Louisville trucks. therefore request your guidance as to specifically what parts all these federal safety standards will apply. Specifically I will need to know what, if any, a,b,c, zone-wiped area coverages should a person use to check the windshield wiper system. Paragraph S2 in FMVSS 104 states that the standard applies to trucks. However, in Paragraph S 4.1.2, the recommended test procedures and areas specified relate to passenger cars (see tables 1-C FMVSS 104). Now the question becomes. given the fact that you have specified angles in tables 1-4, what then does a person use, if any, for trucks? Do I use the angles specified in the table from J 198 or what?

If the answer is very simple due to the fact that I have misread something or whatever, I would appreciate a phone call either at home or at work using the following numbers:

work: (206) 763 9100; 1-800-426-8305 hours: 8:00 A.m. to 6:00 p.m. PST home: (206) 783 7590 hours: 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. or 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. PST

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Bob Carlson 8305 29th Ave N W Seattle, WA 98117

ID: 86-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Sidney K. Saksenberg -- Manager of Regulatory Affairs, CSA Limited, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Sidney R. Saksenberg Manager of Regulatory Affairs CSA Limited, Inc. P.O. Box 690347 Houston, Texas 77269-0347

This responds to your November 12 1985 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance concerning the packaging requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 Brake Fluid . You asked whether the brake fluid container 'you enclosed would comply with the standard. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

By way of background information, I must explain that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on your letter and enclosure.

The sample container you enclosed is plastic and has a resealable screw cap. The cap is attached to a plastic band, or ring, encircling the opening of the container, and the attachment is broken when the cap is twisted open. The cap itself is lined with an inner seal which you have indicated is impervious to the packaged brake fluid.

Standard No. 116 specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids and their containers. Paragraph S5.2.1 of the standard sets forth specific requirements for container sealing of brake fluid packages:

Each brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil container with a capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided with a resealable closure that has an inner seal impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The container closure shall include a tamper-proof feature that will either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.

The container you enclosed appears to be provided with a resealable closure, i.e., the twist-off cap, and an impervious inner seal. The cap's tamper-proof feature is the attachment to the plastic ring that would be broken (and thus "destroyed or substantially altered") when the cap is initially opened. Although not required by the standard, you have taken the commendable extra step of including a statement on the cap that warns purchasers not to accept the container if the seal is broken, we would suggest that you ensure that the warning is clearly legible.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 12, 1985

To: John Messera (NES-32) Nat. Hwy. Safety Adm. 400 7th St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Messera:

With reference to our recent phone conversation:

Enclosed find several bottles and caps we would like to use to package DOT-3 Brake Fluid.

I would like an opinion as to the acceptability of these bottles and caps for packaging DOT-3 Brake Fluid.

Sincerely yours,

Sidney K. Saksenberg Manager of Regulatory Affairs Enc.

SKS/rdc

ID: 86-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: W.L. Hammer, P.E. -- Equipment Engineer, Wisconsin Electric Power Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W.L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 620 S. 76th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1986, asking for an interpretation of the stop lamp and turn signal requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986. No. They apply to original equipment stop lamps on vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973 and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.6), and to original equipment turn signal lamps on vehicles other than motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978 (S4.1.1.7). However, they also apply to stop lamps and turn signal lamps manufactured after September 1, 1978, which are intended as replacement equipment for the original equipment manufactured between the inclusive dates. This is not exactly clear from a reading of the two paragraphs and we are considering a clarifying amendment to the standard. In summary, these paragraphs do not apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986, but they could apply to certain lighting equipment being manufactured today.

You also comment that S4.1.1.6 is silent as to the minimum luminous lens area required for stop lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which you recall as once being 12 square inches, and you ask if a final sentence has been omitted pertaining to wide vehicles. There has been no omission: SAE Standard J586b Stop Lamps, June 1966, the standard referenced in S4.1.1.6, never specified a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for wide vehicles. The requirement for wide vehicles today is found in paragraph 3.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970. This establishes a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches for single compartment lamps. However, paragraph 3.1 allows manufacturers of wide vehicles to mount a maximum of two lamps and/or compartments per side closer together than 22 inches providing that each compartment and/or lamp meets single compartment photometric requirements and has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 29, 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: 49CFR571.108 PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.6 STOPLIGHTS PARAGRAPH 4.1.1.7 TURN SIGNALS

I have been reading 571.108 as published in the 1984 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations. At first glance, Paragraphs 4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7 appear to only pertain to certain vehicles manufactured between 1972 and 1978 and not to those made before or after those dates. On a second glance, these paragraphs refer to a design option to meet SAEJ586b or 588d, or to meet SAEJ575d. Do these paragraphs apply to vehicles manufactured in 1986;

Also, in the case of Paragraph 4.1.1.6, a 3.5 square inch rule pertains to vehicles less than 80 inches in width, but there is no comment made for those vehicles over 80 inches in width. (I seem to remember it once was 12 square inches). Has a last sentence pertaining to vehicles over 80 inches been omitted:

A written reply is not required. A phone call would be satisfactory.

Sincerely,

W. L. Hammer, P.E. Equipment Engineer (414) 259-4152

ID: 86-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Governmental Affairs Subaru of America, Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken, NJ 08109

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the Part 581, Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle with an adjustable suspension height control system is tested at the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position. You stated that the very reason that adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) would be defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As discussed below, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.

As noted by your letter, section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. For example, the vehicle is at unloaded vehicle weight, the front wheels are in the straight ahead position, etc. The standard does not, however, include a test condition specifically addressing suspension height.

Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to "the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position."

This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumper Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.

We appreciate your concern that the very reason that the adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited reasons along those lines in a notice published in the Federal Register (49 FR 34049) denying petitions for rulemaking to establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles other than those covered by Part 581. If the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karen Finkel -- Executive Director, National School Transportation Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Karen Finkel

Executive Director National School Transportation Association P.O. Box 26 Springfield Virginia 22152

This response to your March 3, 1986 letter to our office concerning requirements applicable to front seat restraining barriers on school buses. You asked whether the barriers meet the same Federal motor vehicle safety standards as the school bus seats. Specifically you are interested in barrier-seat separation and barrier performance requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, establishes requirements for school bus seats and restraining barriers. Included in Standard No. 222 are paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.3 which specifically apply to restraining barriers on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Since restraining barriers function to compartmentalize passengers in the same manner as school bus seats, the requirements of Standard No. 222 for barrier-seat separation distances and barrier strength are similar to the spacing and strength requirements for school bus seats. For example, S5.2.1 specifies that the distance between a restraining barrier's rear surface and the seating reference point of the first seat to the rear of the barrier must not be more than 24 inches. Also, under S5.2.3, barriers are tested for compliance with the forward performance requirements in the same manner as school bus seats. Both must withstand similar forces while maintaining component integrity. Force/deflection curves for seat backs and restraining barriers must fall within the zone specified in Figure 1 of Standard No. 222, and seat back and restraining barrier deflection must not exceed 14 inches. Further, restraining barriers and seat backs must meet the same impact zone requirements (S5.3) of the standard. Additional requirements for restraining barriers are specified in Standard No. 222. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your convenience.

You asked whether the front seat barrier is secured to the floor of the school bus in a different manner than the seats. Standard No. 222 does not specify how school bus restraining barriers or seats are to be secured to the floor of the bus. Manufacturers are free to select the manner of securing barriers and seats to the bus floor as long as those structures meet all applicable requirements of our safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact our office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 3, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

A member of the National School Transportation Association has requested a legal opinion as to whether the front seat barriers on school buses have to meet the same federal motor vehicle safety standards as the seats.

He's specifically interested in distance, flexibility-rigidness, the angle of the barrier and whether the barrier is secured to the floor in a different manner than the seats.

Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you need any further information.

Sincerely,

Karen Finkel Executive Director

KF/sb

cc: Robert Christian