ID: nht75-6.41

DATE: MAY 09, 1975

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MR. SICKS -- FACHNORMENAUSSCHUSS KRAFTFAHRZEUGE - FAKRA

COPYEE: F. W. SCHWARTZ

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4-16-75 TO NHTSA DOCKET SECTION FROM MR. PETZOLDT AND MR. SICKS, FACHNORMENAUSSCHUSS KRAFTFAHRZEUGE

TEXT: This is in response to your Petition for Reconsideration of the amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 promulgated in the Federal Register on March 31, 1975.

We shall advise you of our decision in this matter after reviewing your petition.

ID: nht75-6.42

DATE: 09/24/75

FROM: J. C. ECKHOLD -- DIR., AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE, FORD MOTOR CO.

TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION IN RELATION TO CONDUCTING FMVSS 301-75 TESTS WITH PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM

TEXT: In preparing for compliance with 1978 California SHED evaporative emission requirements (presently under consideration by EPA for application in all areas), Ford Motor Company (Ford) is considering modifications to the fuel tank vapor venting system. At this time, Ford's primary design direction for certain of its 1978 vehicles is to incorporate a pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube between the fuel tank vapor separator/rollover valve and the carbon canister (see Attachment).

When the engine is operating, this pressure relief valve will be open and the fuel tank will vent in a normal manner through the carbon canister. When testing according to the procedure set forth in FMVSS 301-75, the pressure relief valve would be closed, contrary to its normal open position when the engine is operating, and such closure would prevent venting of vapor from the fuel tank into the carbon canister. As a result, vapor pressure could build up within the fuel tank during FMVSS 301-75 testing, and indeed would do so if the fuel tank were exposed to elevated ambient temperatures during the substantial time period (in some instances several hours) required to ready the test vehicle for the rollover test following an impact test. If such pressure built up, it (taken together with the hydrostatic pressure of the Stoddard solvent in the tank) might force open the vacuum/pressure valve in the fuel tank cap and permit leakage through that valve (cap).

Such leakage would not occur in an accident involving a rollover because, in such a situation, vapor pressure would not build up in the fuel tank, and therefore, the vacuum/pressure valve in the cap would not open. Any rollover of the vehicle that may occur would happen immediately after the collision, before vapor pressure build-up. Hence the vacuum/pressure valve (cap) would remain closed after rollover. More particularly, just before the accident, the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve would be open, preventing vapor pressure build-up.

Accordingly, Ford proposes to perform tests relating to compliance with FMVSS 301-75 with the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve open, the better to simulate actual usage conditions. Before testing in this manner, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance from the Administration that it regards as appropriate the maintaining open of this pressure relief valve during rollover tests, and would conduct in that manner its rollover tests of those Ford vehicles equipped with such a valve.

As you are undoubtedly aware, in addition to design and development work, a test program required to obtain emission certification covers a period of many months. Therefore, since Ford has only a limited time in which to develop a 1978 evaporative emission system complying with the SHED requirements, an early response to this letter is urgently requested.

ATTACHMENT

PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM

(Graphics Omitted)

ID: nht75-6.43

DATE: 10/17/75

FROM: JOHN B. WHITE -- ENGINEERING MANAGER, TECHNICAL INFORMATION DEPT., MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION

TO: MR. SCHWIMMER -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-75 TO JOHN B. WHITE FROM FRANK A. BERNDT.

TEXT: This is in regard to our telephone conversation of yesterday concerning truck tires brought into the U.S.A. to be mounted on vehicles which are to be exported outside the U.S.A.

Please verify that tires imported for this purpose need not conform to FMVSS 119, Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars or Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping.

This decision affects a current tire shipment, so therefore we would appreciate your prompt reply.

Thank you.

ID: nht75-6.5

DATE: 04/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: New York Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1975, asking whether, consistently with Federal law, the New York Commissioner of Transportation may waive a safety rule which is based on a Federal safety regulation. You indicate that New York has rules which permit waivers of New York requirements. The case in point involves a waiver given to a bus owner who, because his vehicle was to be used only in the transportation of nursery school children, requested that the allowable occupant weight be set at 100 pounds rather than 120 pounds. The waiver was provided by giving the owner-operator of the vehicle a valid certificate of inspection.

The facts of the case, particularly how the vehicle in question is equipped and labeled, are not altogether clear from what you have told us. It appears that the manufacturer of the bus has labeled it with a gross vehicle weight rating that, contrary to the Federal certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567(g)(3)), does not equal the unloaded vehicle weight plus 120 pounds times the number of designated seating positions in the bus.

It appears from your correspondence that the certificate of inspection issued by the New York authorities fulfills purposes that differ from those of the Federal certification regulations. There is no Federal requirement that the State inspection rules incorporate the Federal requirements, as long as they do not conflict with the Federal safety standards or associated regulations. However, if the manufacturer has violated the Federal law, he is subject to its sanctions, and nothing the State can do would "forgive" the violation. If our assumptions concerning the facts of the case are correct, the State is free to deal as it sees fit with the fact that the bus does not conform to the Federal regulations.

Sincerely,

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

February 7, 1975

Karen Kreshover, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: pre-emption of state safety standards for buses: Request for interpretation

This is a formal request for an interpretation of the preemptive status of certion federal rules concerning bus safety. I spoke with you briefly on the phone on February 6, 1975 about this problem.

New York has rules (17 NYCRR 720.26 and 721.33) which permit the Commissioner of Transportation under certain conditions to, in effect, waive certain safety rules. I attach copies of these "waiver" provisions.

My question generally is, can the Commissioner "waive" or grant exception to rules adopted by New York which are based on federal requirements.

The particular application of this question concerns the definition stated in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules concerning the definition of "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating." The rule (49 CFR 567.4) uses a 120 pound per pupil factor in determining GVWR. New York has a similar standard (17 NYCRR 720.1 (e) and 721.1 (p).

In at least one instance the Commissioner of Transportation has granted an exception concerning this rule. I am enclosing a copy of the order and report concerning this proceeding. This represents one example where a rule adopted to apply to the "average case" works hardship on a "special case." We believe that the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of New York should be free to grant exceptions in such cases.

I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Michael D. McDonald Assistant Counsel

Historical Note

See added (Illegible Words) (Illegible Numbers)

720.26 Exception to safety regulations. (a) The commissioner upon application, may adopt an order issuing a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a motor vehicle subject to this Part which falls to meet or achieve certain standards or requirements contained within this Part, if the commissioner shall determine that said vehicle as designed, constructed, altered or modified is safe to be operated within this State, and that the specific deviations from the standards and requirements contained in this Part in no way render such vehicle lens safe to passengers or to the public than had the vehicle complied with such provisions. Any order adopted pursuant to this section shall set forth the specific provisions contained in this Part with which the vehicle fails to comply, and in addition, state the reasons why the commissioner has so determined that the vehicle should be granted a certificate of inspection.

(b) The commissioner, or his duly authorized representative shall endorse clearly and legibly on the face of the certificate of inspection issued pursuant to this section that said certificate was issued pursuant to this section.

Historical Note

Sec. added, filed Mar. 29, 1974 off. Apr. 1. 1974

721.33 Exception to safety regulations. (a) The commissioner, upon application, may adopt an order issuing a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a bus subject to this Part which fails to meet or achieve certain standards or requirements contained within this Part, if the commissioner shall determine that said vehicle as designed constructed, altered or modified is safe to be operated within this state, and that the specific deviations from the standards and requirements contained in this Part in no way render such vehicle less safe to passenger or to the public than had the vehicle complied with such provisions. Any order adopted pursuant to this section shall set forth the specific provisions

CHAPTER VI TRANSPORTATION REGULATION

@ 722.2 (Illegible Lines)

PART 722

REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS

(Statutory authority: Transportation Law @ 142)

See

721.0 Applicability

722.1 Reportable accidents

See

722.2 Accident report forms

722.3 (Illegible Word) to his reports

Historical Note

Part (@@ 722.0-722.2) filed Mar. 29, 1974 eff. Apr. 1, 1974.

Section 722.0 Applicability. Every operator of a motor vehicle subject to Department of Transportation inspection is hereby directed and required to comply with and obey the following rules and regulations.

Historical Note

See added, filed Mar. 29, 1974 eff. Apr. 1, 1974.

722.1 Reportable accidents. (a) Any accident in any way involving a motor vehicle subject to department inspection which results in the loss of life or injury of any passenger, employee or other person, or which was caused by mechanical failure regardless of whether or not injuries were incurred, shall be immediately reported to the department of telephone or telegraph.

(b) No work shall be performed on the vehicle involved until it is released by the Department of Transportation.

Historical Note

See, added filed Mar. 29, 1974 eff. Apr. 1, 1974.

722.2 Accident report forms. (a) An accident in any way involving a motor vehicle subject to department inspection which results in the loss of life or serious injury, or an injury requiring first aid or hospitalization at the time of the accident, shall be reported in writing to the department within 48 hours after it occurs. A written report shall be submitted within 48 hours when an accident was due to mechanical failure, regardless of whether or not personal injury occurred.

(b) Such written report may be submitted on an 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch sheet of paper duplicating such Form A. Appendix B-2, infra. In lieu thereof, such report may be submitted on a Federal Department of Transportation accident report form or on the accident report form required by the New York State Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

2475 TR 3-31-74

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At the Office of the Department of Transportation in the City of Albany December 23, 1974

PRESENT:

Martin D. Zell, Assistant Commissioner for Transportation Regulatory Affairs

CASE 27647 - In the Matter of the issuance of a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a bus or other motor vehicle pursuant to Section 720.26 or 721.33 of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. APPLICATION OF ABC CHILD CARE, INC. FOR EXCEPTION TO SECTION 720.1 (1).

ABC Child Care, Inc., having requested a certificate of inspection pursuant to the requirements and provisions of Section 720.26 of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, said certificate to be affixed to certain vehicles owned and operated by the carrier, and said vehicles having been presented for inspection and the Commissioner having determined that the vehicles deviate from certain standards set forth in his safety rules and regulations, and the Commissioner having further determined that such vehicles are safe to be operated within this State under certain conditions, and further, that the specific deviations from his safety rules and regulations in no way renders said vehicles less safe to passengers or to the public than had the vehicles complied with such provisions, it is

ORDERED:

1. To the extent and under the conditions set forth in the attached memorandum, ABC Child Care, Inc. is relieved from compliance with the requirements contained in Section 720.1 (1) of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, insofar as said regulations pertain to the use of certain vehicles owned and operated by the said carrier.

2. That if said vehicles otherwise complied with all of the applicable safety rules and regulations, a certificate of inspection shall be issued and affixed to said vehicles and there shall be endorsed clearly and legibly on the face of the certificate of inspection so issued a notation indicating that the certificate was issued pursuant to Section 720.26 of the above entitled regulations.

3. That this order and the certificate of inspection issued herein, shall remain in effect only for such period as said vehicles shall be used in the manner, under the conditions, and for the purpose set forth in the attached memorandum, and unless the Commissioner shall otherwise order.

4. That this order shall become effective immediately.

By the Assistant Commissioner for Transportation Regulatory Affairs

THOMAS B. TYREE Department Secretary

MEMORANDUM

APPROVED DEC 23 1974

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DATE December 12, 1974

SUBJECT CASE 27647 - In the matter of the issuance of a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a bus or other motor vehicle pursuant to Section 720.26 or 721.33 of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York.

APPLICATION OF ABC CHILD CARE, INC. FOR EXCEPTION TO SECTION 720.1 (1).

FROM M. V. Chauvin, Traffic and Safety Division, Room 720, Bldg. 7A

TO M. D. Zell, Off. of Transp. Regulatory Aff., Room 503, Bldg. 5

ABC Child Care, Inc., Woodside, New York, has requested exception to Section 720.1 (1) of rules governing the safety of motor carriers of passengers which sets passenger weight of a school child at 120 pounds.

Mr. Tom Fasciolo, director of the school, has made this request on the basis of the limited clientele (youngsters age 3 to 6) that this nursery school serves. Considering that children in the 3 to 6 age bracket will not meet or exceed a weight of 100 pounds, it seems reasonable to reduce the requirement to meet the individual situation. In discussing this with Mr. Fasciolo it was learned that these vehicles are used exclusively to transport the nursery school children when operated in service that comes under the New York State Department of Transportation jurisdiction.

Therefore, it is recommended that an order be adopted granting permission to the ABC Child Care, Inc., 66-26 Laurel Hill Blvd., Woodside, New York to use a passenger weight of 100 pounds per nursery school child, with the understanding that the vehicles will be limited to the transportation of nursery school children exclusively.

ID: nht75-6.6

DATE: 07/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Athens Sport Cycles Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 18, 1975, in which you ask a number of questions relating to tire registration procedures, and in amplification of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office. We will answer your questions in the order raised.

1 and 2. There is a universal tire registration form (figure 3 in the enclosed Part 574) which manufacturers are required to furnish to you or you may reproduce pursuant to @ 574.7 of the regulation.

3. Since the regulation requires that the manufacturers or their agents maintain the records, the forms should either be sent to the manufacturer or his designated agent. A number of manufacturers utilize services such as the Tire Safety Registry in New Jersey to keep their records, but they merely act as the manufacturer's agent. There is to our knowledge no central place to send the forms for all manufacturers.

4. We have no idea what is meant by a retailer I.D. number. Our recommendation is that you contact the manufacturers to determine what they mean.

5. Our tire recordkeeping regulation only applies to tires for use on motor vehicles. Thus, tires for use on off-road vehicles would not fall within the regulation.

6. As required by @ 574.8 of the enclosed regulation, completed forms must be sent to manufacturers every 30 days. The only exception is where you sell less than 40 tires of all makes and manufacturers in the 30-day period, in which case you may wait until you sell 40 tires or for 6 months, whichever comes first.

7. Retailers are not required to keep any tire owner forms.

8. It is the responsibility of the dealer to mail the forms, although he may ask the customer to fill out the form at the time of purchase.

On behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, let me commend you for your desire to fully comply with the requirements of our tire recordkeeping regulations. It is through the efforts of dealers such as you that motorcyclists and their passengers are protected against tire defects which might lead to injury or death.

ID: nht75-6.7

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Franklin Coach Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for submitting your draft defect notification letter for our review. We find that the draft fails in several respects to conform to regulations specifying the content of the notification (49 CFR Part 577, Defect Notification, copy enclosed). First the reference in the second sentence of your letter to "your motor home" does not contain the identifying criteria required by section 577.4(b)(1). The sentence should more objectively identify the motor home, preferably by model number and name.

It appears from the facts you present that in addition to adding new leaf springs, the certification label on the vehicles should be replaced. An upgrading of the vehicle's carrying capacity should be reflected in both its gross vehicle and axle weight ratings. A correct certification label should reflect the values as they apply to the repaired vehicle. Your notification letter should therefore specify steps the owner can take to correct the certification label (@ 577.4(e)). One method you should consider is to furnish to each owner a corrected certification label with instructions for its installation by him.

Your letter also fails to conform to section 577.4(e)(3), which applies when the manufacturer does not offer to assume the cost of the repair. It appears from your description that you are modifying the existing springs, and they should be identified by name and part number (@ 577.4(e)(3)(ii)). You also have not provided a required detailed description (including appropriate illustrations) of each step required to repair the defect (@ 577.4(e)(3)(iv).

Finally, the requirements of section 577.4(e)(3)(iii) require the manufacturer to take positive steps to determine the availability of repair parts. You are obligated to at least determine whether the parts you recommend for replacement are in fact available. We do not believe you have met this requirement by merely stating that the parts "should be available." You can probably obtain this information by contacting the vehicle manufacturer, or by finding comparable repair parts in the replacement market.

YOURS TRULY,

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act. Franklin Coach Company, Inc. has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in your motor home.

The defect is in the weight of your vehicle; when the designated number of seating capacity is multiplied times 150 pounds and added to the unloaded vehicle weight of your motor home, it is 200 pounds over weight.

The malfunction that may occur is difficulty in controlling the vehicle when operating on curves and rough roads. To reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur before the vehicle is repaired, the purchaser should reduce the water carried and the gasoline carried by 1/2 - this will reduce the vehicle weight by approximately 200 pounds.

The risk of safety to the vehicle will increase with the age of the vehicle. Vehicle crash can occur. However, preceeding crash there will be a noticeable difficulty in controlling the vehicle. When difficulty in controlling unit occurs, the vehicle must be lightened in weight.

The parts that must be installed is the addition of one leaf to the springs on each side of the motor home on the rear axle. The part number is: #3638194 at a list price of $25.80 each. The parts should be available at any Dodge dealer. The estimated time of installation is 3 hours. We recommend that the necessary work be performed by your local Dodge dealer.

FRANKLIN COACH COMPANY, INC.

Steve Abel Controller

ID: nht75-6.8

DATE: 10/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1975, to Ed Wallace of our Tire Division, enclosing a letter from Mr. W. Preuss of Dunlop Germany, concerning the allocation, between vehicle manufacturers and tire manufacturers, of responsibility for the safety of original equipment tires.

Section 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, specifies that, except as otherwise provided in regulations of this agency, a defect in or noncompliance of an original equipment tire shall be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer. The NHTSA has recently granted the petitions of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, General Motors, and the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation for a reallocation of this responsibility. We expect to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the near future.

YOURS TRULY,

July 8, 1975

E. N. Wallace Chief, Tire Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Further in regard to our letter of July 1st, which had enclosures from Bob Clifton, I am attaching a copy of a letter from Mr. Preuss of Dunlop Germany to Mr. Clifton, concerning Part 577, Notice 1, May 6, 1975.

Will you please discuss in your circle and let me have your comments.

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

J. W. Boyd, Manager

Government & Industry Technical Relations

ID: nht75-6.9

DATE: 04/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Arnold and Porter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 22 regarding a proposed defect notification letter by the Whittaker Corporation.

In our opinion, the proposed letter does not comply with the defect notification regulation (49 CFR, Part 577) and section 153 of the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The specific areas of nonconformance are:

1. The second sentence must be stated in the form and order as required by section 577.4(b); that is, you must add "defect -- which relates to motor vehicle safety -- exists."

2. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph referring to the fact that no accidents have been reported could be construed as a disclaimer, and is therefore prohibited by section 577.6.

3. Since owners may inspect these wheels themselves in lieu of having a dealer perform the inspection, it is necessary to provide the owner with a return post card so the owner can certify that the wheels were inspected and do not contain a defect or were exchanged for new wheels.

4. It is necessary to inform the owner that in the event the manufacturer, dealer or distributor is unable or fails to remedy the defect without charge, the owner may notify the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20591. This is required by section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. James Murray of my staff at 426-2840.

ID: nht76-1.1

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 29, 1976 N40-30

Mr. R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan 48231

Dear Mr. Weil:

This is in reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, to Mr. Brooks of this agency on photometric test requirements of multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations. You have asked for our concurrence on two interpretations of Standard No. 108, as discussed below.

In your "example 1", on vehicles designed with a two lamp system, parking and (or taillamp) and turn signal functions are combined in each lamp of the two lamp system. You have asked whether the second lamp in this system would be treated as supplemental and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

The answer is no. As you are aware the photometric requirements of multiple lamps or multiple compartment lamps, where a tail or parking lamp is combined with the turn signal lamp, are partially determined by Note 4 to SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps. Note 4 establishes permissible ratios of intensity between functions i.e. that the intensity of the tail or parking lamps shall not be so great as to diminish the effectiveness of the turn signal function. Where two lamps are used and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 22 inches (as appears to be the case here) the combination of the lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. (Paragraph 3.1 of J585d; J588e). Further, the ratio of the turn signal to the tail or parking lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted (Note 4). With reference to those vehicles designed with a two-lamp system (your example 1), your first answer is the correct one; the lamps would be photometered together to meet the two compartment requirements for the two lamp functions performed, as specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 108.

With respect to your example 2, a multiple compartment lamp with one compartment performing turn signal and parking or tail lamp functions, and the other portion the function of parking or tail lamp only, photometric requirements for the tail lamp function are determined on the basis of the output of the two compartments. The single compartment parking lamp may, however, be treated as a "supplemental" lamp, except that the candlepower ratios (with turn signal lamp) must be met with both parking lamp compartments illuminated.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Request for an Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 from Chrysler Corporation

N41-2lRBr 22 OCT 1976

FROM: Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs

To: Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attached is a letter dated September 16, 1976, from the Chrysler Corporation, requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, on the subject of: "Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations."

The letter is being referred to you as a matter coming within your cognizance. It is requested that the reply be staffed through this office, prior to being transmitted to Chrysler.

This office does not concur with Chrysler's proposals concerning supplemental lamps, but considers that compliance must be determined by testing with each lamp function lighted in the same cavities, just as it actually operates in vehicles being used on the highway. To allow manufacturers to certify lighting functions to conditions other than those seen by drivers of nearby vehicles, would clearly be inconsistent with the basic intent of FMVSS No. 108. Thus, using the sketch attached to the Chrysler letter, the requirements of Note 4 below Table I of SAE J588e dated September 1970, referenced in Table III of FMVSS No. 108, would be determined by measuring the photometric properties of the parking lamp function at the optical center of the two cavities, with both parking lamp bulbs lighted, as they operate in the highway environment. Next, the photometric properties of the turn signal function would be determined with only tie turn signal bulb in cavity number 1, lighted. Based on these measurements, the ratios specified in Note 4 would be obtained.

Francis Armstrong

Attachment

September 16, 1976

Mr. Roman Brooks National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Subject: Photometric Test Requirements of Multiple Cavity and Multiple Lamp Configurations

Reference: 1. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and J. B. Carrier on August 13, 1976. 2. Telephone conversation between R. Brooks and R. E. Weil on August 16, 1976.

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversations regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 Multiple Lamp and Multiple Cavity Lighting Requirements applicable to the 1979 models.

Based on our discussions, we would like your concurrence with the interpretation of the standard as illustrated by the following examples.

Example 1

On vehicles designed with a two lamp system in which park and turn-signal or tail and turn-signal functions are combined, the requirements may be met in one of the following ways:

1. The lamps would be photometered together to meet the two cavity requirements for the park or tail and the two cavity requirements for the turn signal. The ratio of the turn signal to park or tail would be determined using the two cavity readings of both the turn signal and park or tail. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name on each lamp to designate that two lamps have been designed to meet the requirements, or

2. One lamp would be photometered to one cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to the park or tail would be determined for that lamp. In such cases the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the lamp which has been designed to meet the requirements. The other lamp would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Example 2

On vehicles designed with a two cavity lamp in which only one cavity is a combination turn-signal and park or tail, the requirements may be met as follows:

The combined cavity would be photometered to single cavity requirements and the ratio of the turn-signal to park or tail would be determined using only the park or tail readings for that cavity. In such cases, the manufacturer should use the legal name to designate the cavity which has been designed to meet the requirements.

The other cavity would be treated by NHTSA as a supplemental lamp and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.

Similarly for lamps with more than two cavities, the manufacturer should designate which cavities have been designed to meet the legal requirements.

We would appreciate a written confirmation of this understanding at the earliest possible date.

Yours truly,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development CIMS: 416-32-27

REW/ww

cc: R. O. Sornson

ID: nht76-1.10

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

COPYEE: GEORGE NIELD -- AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors Corporation's May 27, 1976, petition to commence rulemaking to amend Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, in order to return one sentence to the text of S5.1.5.2(a) that was omitted in a September 17, 1975, revision of that section (40 FR 42872). The sentence reads: "However, the maximum control force for the fifth stop in the case of a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1976, shall be not more than plus 60 pounds of the average control force for the baseline check (but in no case more than 110 pounds)."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers a petition to amend the standard to be unnecessary because the omission was inadvertent and did not constitute a substantive change to the requirements of the standard. Therefore, an interpretative amendment to conform the language to that intended will be forthcoming in the near future. Interested persons are notified that the interim control force value has been in effect for all vehicles of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating or less despite the omission of the sentence on September 17, 1975.

Thank you for bringing this omission to the attention of the agency.