ID: nht75-5.9

DATE: 07/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Robert Taft Jr.; U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of July 1, 1975, forwarding correspondence from Mr. R. H. Lawrence concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation.

By Act of Congress (Public Law 91-265), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was amended in 1970 to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of first purchasers so that owners of defective tires may be notified of any defect. The legislative history of this amendment makes it clear that the Congress recognized the need for regulations in the area. Earlier joint attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to notify purchasers of defective tires produced inadequate results even in cases where the manufacturer offered to replace the defective tires free of charge. The poor results were attributable to the fact that owners could not be directly notified of the defect.

The magnitude of the problem which the regulation seeks to alleviate is clear. Since the inception of the program in 1966 through 1973, there have been 1,427,670 tires recalled in 88 separate defect recall campaigns. In 1973 alone, there were 116,743 tires recalled in 11 defect recall campaigns.

With regard to the effectiveness of the recordkeeping regulation, our records indicate the percentage of tires being recorded is increasing, and should continue to increase when additional enforcement action is taken against manufacturers and dealers who do not comply with the regulation. Of course, what is most needed to make the regulation effective is the voluntary cooperation of retreaders and dealers in recording, reporting and maintaining the required information.

While this regulation indisputably places an added responsibility on retailers, we also believe that the burden is neither onerous nor unjustified in view of the danger to the consumer. NHTSA has continually attempted to improve and simplify the procedures for the registration of tires, the most recent example being the Universal Tire Registration Format issued on June 3, 1974. I have enclosed a copy for your information.

For these reasons, we are convinced that the requirement that dealers record the name and address of tire purchasers at the time of sale is reasonable and appropriate.

Mr. Lawrence also suggested that it is inappropriate to require tires to be graded on the basis of mileage, because different drivers may obtain different total mileages from identical tires. He appears to have misunderstood the meaning of the treadwear grades established by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. That regulation, issued pursuant to Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, requires new tires to be graded in each of the following performance areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The treadwear grade is based on the mileage which a tire can be expected to attain when tested on a specified course under controlled conditions and driving procedures. This grade is not designed to predict the actual mileage a consumer will obtain from a tire, because that mileage depends on many environmental factors, including the difference in driving styles to which Mr. Lawrence has referred. It is designed to permit to prospective tire purchaser to compare the performance of competing tires. For this reason, the treadwear grade is expressed as a percentage (of a nominal 30,000 miles), rather than as a mileage. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the regulation.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate

June 25, 1975

John Snow Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation

Please find enclosed a copy of correspondence I have received concerning tire registration requirements.

I would appreciate any comments and/or information you could provide that might help me in responding to my constituent.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Robert Taft, Jr.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

May 28, 1975

The Honorable Robert A. Taft, Jr. United States Senate

We are bringing to your personal attention the remarks of Federation member, Mr. Robert Lawrence, Mid City Tire & Alignment, 69 W. Church Street, Newark, Oh. 43055, appearing in the comment section of the Federation's economic survey with respect to elimination of tire registration requirements.

We believe there is much merit in the remarks made by Mr. Lawrence and we feel certain he will greatly appreciate hearing from you with reference to your thinking on this subject matter.

Thanking you for your cooperation, and with best wishes,

(Mrs.) Izetta B. Hoge Membership Services

Comments and Recommendations:

Please help tire dealers by eliminating tire registration. We spend a lot of time doing this and never have a result of any tires made in the lost 2 years.

Also grade labeling of tires for mileage is one of the (Illegible Word) thought our government has ever thought of How car you expect an 18 year old and 50 year old to get the some mileage.

Your Signature: R. H. Lawrance

Business Name: MID CITY TIRE & ALIGNMENT Street & Number: 69 W. Church St.

City or Town: NEWARK State: OHIO Zip: 43055

County: LICKING

ID: 8539

AIR MAIL
Mr. T. Kouchi
Director
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Kouchi:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency.

You refer to Mr. Rice's letter of December 30, 1992, which you interpret as saying that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You consider "that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You ask "if our idea is appropriate."

We confirm your interpretation with respect to drawing No. 1, which appears essentially the same as covered by Mr. Rice's interpretation. With respect to drawing No. 2, this lamp appears to be composed of a panel of LEDs flanked by two incandescent bulbs. When the LED panel alone is operated, or when it is operated in conjunction with either one or both of the incandescent bulbs the requirements applicable to three lighted sections will apply. However, each bulb is regarded as being a single light source so that if the bulbs are operated individually, only the requirements for single lighted sections apply. If the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform the same function, the requirements for two lighted sections apply. However, if the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform different functions, the single lighted section requirements apply and all other requirements such as contrast ratios (e.g., the l:5 for tail and stop lamps) must be met.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/23/93

ID: nht93-3.20

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: T. Kouchi -- Director, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-2-93 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 2, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency.

You refer to Mr. Rice's letter of December 30, 1992, which you interpret as saying that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You consider "that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You ask "if our idea is appropriate."

We confirm your interpretation with respect to drawing No. 1, which appears essentially the same as covered by Mr. Rice's interpretation. With respect to drawing No. 2, this lamp appears to be composed of a panel of LEDs flanked by two incandescent bulbs. When the LED panel alone is operated, or when it is operated in conjunction with either one or both of the incandescent bulbs the requirements applicable to three lighted sections will apply. However, each bulb is regarded as being a single light source so that if the bulbs are operated individually, only the requirements for single lighted sections apply.

If the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform the same function, the requirements for two lighted sections apply. However, if the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform different functions, the single lighted section requirements apply and all other requirements such as contrast ratios (e.g., the 1:5 for tail and stop lamps) must be met.

ID: nht69-2.34

DATE: 10/09/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz for R. Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1969, concerning lamp bulbs to be used in photometric tests.

In answer to your first question, photometric testing of lamps using 1034 and 1157 bulbs should be conducted with the minor filament operating at four mean spherical candlepower to determine conformance to SAE J573b. Bulbs utilizing three candlepower minor filaments would not be in conformance with SAE J573b; however, as provided by the enclosed interpretation issued August 12, 1968, on bulbs and bulb sockets, such bulbs may be used in lamp assemblies conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In accordance with the interpretation, such bulbs should be treated as special bulbs and should be tested at the three candlepower rating.

In answer to your second question, if photometric tests are conducted with a bulb operated at either three or four mean spherical candlepower ratings, it is not acceptable to interpolate (or extrapolate) the data to determine acceptability of the lamp in the other bulb rating.

ID: 2342y

Mr. Jim Evans
Quality Control Department
The Bargman Company
129 Industrial Avenue
Coldwater, MI 49036

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1989, with respect to whether the installation of "yellow" reflex reflectors on the rear of motor vehicles is permissible under Standard No. l08. Because the standard uses the term "amber" instead of "yellow", I shall refer to yellow as amber also.

As you note, the standard requires two red reflex reflectors to be mounted on the rear, but is silent as to whether additional reflectors, amber in color, are permitted. One of your customers has asked you to manufacture an amber turn signal lens that would have an amber reflex reflector area around the outer edge. The turn signal lamp would be adjacent to a lamp of apparently identical size and shape with a red lens and reflex reflector area, providing stop and tail lamp functions. The State of Michigan apparently allows only red reflex reflectors on the rear. You have asked whether reflectors of other colors may be mounted on the rear as long as the required red ones are present, and if it is illegal, whether Standard No. l08 may be amended to eliminate the confusion.

Because an amber reflector is not a required item of lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 specifies to be installed on the rear of a motor vehicle, its acceptability is subject to the general provisions of section S5.1.3. This states, in pertinent part, that no additional reflective device may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. It does not appear to us that an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflector would create an impairment. Under Standard No. l08, amber is a permissible color for rear turn signal lamps, and its presence on a reflector surrounding the lamp should not create confusion. Therefore, manufacture, sale, and installation of an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflector would not constitute a noncompliance with Standard No. l08.

However, an interpretation by NHTSA that its lighting standard does not forbid the installation of an amber reflex reflector does not mean that a State could not adopt and enforce a law prohibiting such a reflector. Under section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a State may impose its own safety requirements covering any aspect of performance that is not covered by Standard No. l08. We construe this provision narrowly, as allowing a State to regulate all lighting equipment that is not specifically required by Standard No. l08. Noting that Section CI 257.691 of the Micigan vehicle lighting code that you enclosed specifies that reflectors "mounted on the rear shall reflect a red color to the rear", the appropriate remedy would be to seek an amendment of the Michigan law. This agency presently has no plans to specify yellow as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08#VSA d:2/26/90

ID: nht91-4.21

DATE: June 17, 1991

FROM: Ivan Lee -- Deputy General Manager, Regulation Affairs, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS 214, Side Impact

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ivan Lee (A38; Std. 214)

TEXT:

We would like to request your assistance with an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

As you know, pursuant to the newly adopted side impact rule of FMVSS 214, all the light duty vehicle manufacturers are required to meet the yearly phase-in schedule, beginning with model year 1994.

To fulfill this requirement, Hyundai is making every effort to work out with the regulation as much as possible. But because Hyundai is limited carline manufacturer, we think Hyundai needs an alternative approach to comply with the requirement.

With the finalized schedule and Hyundai's alternative schedule listed in the table below, we would like to request your comments if Hyundai's alternative plan is acceptable or not.

94MY 95MY 96MY 97MY

Requirement 10 % 25 % 40 % 100 % Alternative Plan 20 % 20 % 50 % 100 % +/- % + 10 % - 5 % + 10 % 0

As you see in the table, compliance percentage of 1st year (1994) and 3rd year (1996) will exceed 10% more than requirement and 2nd year (1995) will be 5% short. However, as a whole, total compliance rate of alternative schedule is 15% more than requirement. We would appreciate if you would review Hyundai's plan and kindly provide us your opinion. Should you have any question, please feel free to contact Mr. Y.K. Moon of my staff at (313) 747-6600.

ID: 22938.ztv.wps

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Regulation & Homologation
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan





Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 2001, asking for an interpretation of "the photometric ratio requirement of tail lamp and stop lamp" of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586 FEB84, Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width. You seek our advice on "limiting the compartments to be lit of both tail lamp and stop lamp when computing the photometric ratio of various types of arrangement." You have enclosed a drawing that shows several examples of lamp arrangements.

Example 1 depicts a two-compartment design, one a stop lamp, the other a taillamp. The distance between the filament centers of the light sources in the two compartments is 200 mm. You ask whether the photometric ratio should be applied in this case.

As you wrote, paragraph 5.1.5.3 of SAE J586 states, in pertinent part, "If a multiple compartment . . . arrangement is used and the distance between optical axis for both the tail lamp and stop lamp is within the dimensions specified in paragraph 5.1.5.2, the ratio of the stop lamp to the tail lamp shall be computed with all the compartments . . . lighted." The distance between adjacent light sources specified in 5.1.5.2 for a multiple compartment lamp is 560 mm or less. In your Example 1, the distance is 200 mm. Therefore, the ratio of the stop lamp to the taillamp in your Example 1 must be computed with both compartments lighted.

Example 2 also depicts a two compartment lamp, one of which serves as a taillamp and the other, both a taillamp and a stop lamp function. The distance between the filament centers of the light sources in the two compartments is 200 mm. You ask whether both compartments should be included "when applying the ratio requirement."

The answer is yes. Because one of the taillamps is combined with the stop lamp in the same compartment, as you note, paragraph 5.1.5.3 first establishes a ratio that must be met by the dual-

purpose light source in that compartment. Then, because the adjacent compartment also serves as a taillamp, and the distance between the optical centers of the two light sources is 200 mm, the ratio of the stop lamp to the taillamp in the adjacent compartment must be computed with both compartments lighted.

Example 3 depicts a three-compartment lamp. The first two compartments are taillamps and the filament centers of the light sources are 200 mm apart. The third compartment is the stop lamp; the filament center of its light source is 250 mm from that of the light source in the adjacent taillamp compartment. You ask whether the ratio requirement should be satisfied. If so, "what compartment should we use? All of the three compartments, or [only the stop lamp and adjacent taillamp compartments]?"

You should use all three compartments in satisfying the ratio requirement. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 does not apply the ratio requirement in a multiple compartment lamp if "the distance between adjacent light sources does not exceed . . .410 mm for three compartments." Although the distance between the light sources in the first and third compartments is 450 mm, the distance between the first and second adjacent light sources is only 200 mm, and the distance between the second and third adjacent light sources is only 250 mm. Therefore, the ratio still applies.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/3/01

ID: nht74-4.48

DATE: 01/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Robert H. Mollohan; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of January 8, 1974, on behalf of Mr. James R. Alfred of Prideport, West Virginia, regarding regulation of tires for mobile homes.

Apparently Mr. Alfred has a misunderstanding of Federal regulation on sole and resale of mobile home tires. At the present time there is no Federal regulation that prohibits resale of mobile home tires. Remission Part 574 governs tire identification and recordkeeping but contains no restriction against sale or resale of used tires. A mobile home dealer who sells a new motor vehicle equipped with tires that were not on the vehicle as received from the manufacturer is considered a tire dealer and must comply with recordkeeping requirements of the regulation by reporting purchaser name and address to the manufacturer or his assigned. Likewise, if he sells a used mobile home equipped with new tires or newly retreated tires he is considered a tire dealer and must comply with the regulation in the same manner.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 entitled "Non-Passenger Car Tires" is applicable to mobile home tires but does not become effective until September 1, 1974. This standard specifies performance and marking requirements for new tires manufactured on and after the effective date.

A Notice of Proposed Rule Making entitled "Tire and Pin Selection and Rin Performance," issued July 29, 1971, is intended to require that new non-passenger car vehicles, such as mobile homes, be

P2 equipped with tires that meat specified safety requirements. This proposal has not reached final rule status and therefore the effective date has not been established.

ID: nht93-8.15

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Grabsky -- VML and Colonna Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/01/93 Est. from Larry Grabsky to John Wilman

TEXT:

This is reply to your recent letter asking our views on the use of decorative neon lamps, or of oscillating or revolving ones.

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. If this determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will question it. In addition, all lighting equipment added before the vehicle's first sale must be steady burning when it is used.

If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "render inoperative, in whole or in part" any lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law.

With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn signals in use we would consider that an impairment and a partially rendering inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on vehicles, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are unsure what you mean by "oscillating" but Standard No. 108, in general, requires lamps added before a vehicle's initial sale to be steady burning in use, unless otherwise permitted (such as turn signals and hazard warning signals, and automatic flashing of headlamps for signalling purposes). Installation of a non steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after initial sale could be viewed as a rendering inoperative depending upon the circumstances. Standard No. 108 does allow a motorcycle to be equipped with a modulating headlamp for daytime use. The modulation permitted is 240 +/- 40 cycles per minute. When NHTSA proposed to allow the modulating headlamp, some commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction

akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. We believe that the reaction is most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Thus, care should be taken in the use of supplementary lamps that are not steady burning.

As for revolving lamps, we believe that these are generally found on police and emergency vehicles such as ambulances and tow trucks. Whether it is permissible to equip a vehicle with these lamps and to use them is a question to be answered under State law.

ID: 9251

Mr. Larry Grabsky
VML and Colonna Corp.
2122 - 65th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11204

Dear Mr. Grabasky:

This is reply to your recent letter asking our views on the use of decorative neon lamps, or of oscillating or revolving ones.

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. If this determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will question it. In addition, all lighting equipment added before the vehicle's first sale must be steady burning when it is used.

If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "render inoperative, in whole or in part" any lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law.

With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn signals in use, we would consider that an impairment and a partially rendering inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on vehicles, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are unsure what you mean by "oscillating" but Standard No. 108, in general, requires lamps added before a vehicle's initial sale to be steady burning in use, unless otherwise permitted (such as turn signals and hazard warning signals, and automatic flashing of headlamps for signalling purposes). Installation of a non steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after initial sale could be viewed as a rendering inoperative depending upon the circumstances. Standard No. 108 does allow a motorcycle to be equipped with a modulating headlamp for daytime use. The modulation permitted is 240 +/- 40 cycles per minute. When NHTSA proposed to allow the modulating headlamp, some commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. We believe that the reaction is most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Thus, care should be taken in the use of supplementary lamps that are not steady burning.

As for revolving lamps, we believe that these are generally found on police and emergency vehicles such as ambulances and tow trucks. Whether it is permissible to equip a vehicle with these lamps and to use them is a question to be answered under State law.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/16/93