ID: nht91-1.38

DATE: February 11, 1991

FROM: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS Number 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Delbert N. Pier (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Hyundai requests assistance with an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Number 108 (lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment).

In regards to the interchangeability of headlamp bulbs, the procedure (571.108) requires that the terminals must be perpendicular to the base and parallel within plus or minus 1.5 degrees.

Hyundai would like an interpretation on whether the bulb fixture can be rotated approximately 11 degrees, as shown in the attachment, view X. This will not change the terminal logistics by the rotation of the bulb fixture. This rotation will not change the constants, (attachment, view Y, from 49 CFR) or the relationship of the terminals to the constants.

Hyundai is requesting an interpretation for a future production vehicle and needs a prompt answer. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should further clarification be required, feel free to contact me at the telephone number listed above.

Attachment 1

S571.108 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-89) Interchangeability Drawing Headlamp Bulb Assembly (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-5.20

DATE: 06/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A reply to your inquiry of June 5, 1975, concerning grade labelling regulations for new passenger car tires was transmitted to you on June 13 by Mr. James II. Cromwell of the Department of Transportation. Mr. Cromwell also referred your inquiry to me for additional comments.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the original impetus for the establishment of a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires was provided by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which established this agency. The Congress, (Illegible Word) of the problems which beset the consumer when the attempts to make an informed choice of motor vehicle tires based on the relative merits of tire brands, included a specific Section 203 in the aforementioned Safety Act of 1966 which states that, "In order to assist the consumer to make an informed choice in the purchase of motor vehicle tire . . . the Secretary shall . . . prescribe by order, and publish in the Federal Register, a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires."

The benefits of such a system, while difficult to quantify, represent an enormous potential since some 200,000,000 motor vehicle tires are produced per year and are presently sold to consumers without adequate quantitative measures of their performance. It is expected that, by facilitating increased and more meaningful competition, the quality grading information will enable the tire consumer to obtain more value per dollar than he has in the past. The rule will enable the consumer to judge relative tire performance from a simple grading system, and there by select a tire which provides him with the optimum solution to his driving needs.

For your review and information, I am enclosing a copy of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) which was issued in the Federal Register dated May 28, 1975. The rule provides quantitative grading measures for three important tire properties -- i.e., treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance.

I trust the above information satisfies your needs. Should you have any further questions, I shall be glad to attempt to provide answers.

ID: 1982-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grancor, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1981, with respect to "a non-substantive disagreement" of your Safety Alert Device "with a strict interpretation of (FMVSS No. 108)". Your system is wired into and operated through a vehicle's back-up lamp system which you have modified by adding "a yellow sleeve over half of the back-up light bulb". You state that the light cast is "essentially the same as the white light". You further say that any deviation from Standard No. 108's requirement that back-up lamps emit white light is "nonsubstantive".

I assume that your letter to me is in response to the one that George Parker, Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, sent you on September 2, 1981. In that letter he explained that S4.1.3 prohibits the addition of equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by Standard No. 108, and stated that any activation of your system while the back-up lamps are in operation would be covered by this prohibition. As for color, you were informed that S4.1.3 imposed an absolute prohibition if the color of the light emitted by the deceleration warning system were green or white.

We cannot concur that the deviation from Standard No. 108 is "non-substantive". Standard No. 108 requires back-up lamps to be installed in motor vehicles and to emit a white light. We view S4.1.3 as precluding any device that would operate lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 for a purpose other than that for which it is originally installed. Further, even if your system did not operate through the back-up lamp system but through separate and additional lamps, we would view use of color other than red or amber as an impairment of the equipment originally installed to indicate the deceleration through braking of the vehicle (i.e., stop lamps).

ID: nht71-2.2

DATE: 02/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Century Products, Inc.

COPYEE: C. DIETRICH -- BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN; D. SCHRUM -- ELECTRICAL TESTING LABS.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1971, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. Although your letter-refers to S4.11(d) as the paragraph with which you are concerned, it appears from the test of your letter that you are requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.1(d).

S5.1 of the standard specifies the test procedure that will be used by NHTSA to determine whether the child(Illegible Word) system meets the force resistance requirements specified in S4.1 of the standard. S5.1(d), the passage in question, rends as follows:

"Apply an increasing load to the torso block in a forward direction, not more than 15 degrees and not less than 5 degrees above the horizontal., until a loud of 1,000 pounds is achieved. The intersection of the lead application line and the back surface of the torso block, at the time that the force removes the slack from the lead application system, shall not be more than 8 inched or less than 6 inches above the bottom surface of the torso block. Maintain the 1,000-pound load for 10 seconds."

Your question is whether the angle at which the force is applied, even though initially between 5 degrees and 15 degrees above the horizontal, may above outside that range during application of the specified force.

The answer to your question is no. The relevant wording of the standard, that the force is to be applied in a forward direction "not more than 15 degrees and not less than 5 degrees above the horizontal, until a load of 1.000 pounds is achieved," clearfly requires that the direction of the test force remain within the specified angular limits throughout the period of force application.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: 77-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/77

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

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of the petition by Motor Coach Industries, dated July 22, 1977, for a determination that an apparent noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We are preparing a notice for publication in the Federal Register requesting public comment on your petition and you will be notified in due course as to its disposition. The notice will not include reference to the fact that the "continuous warning" signal required by S5.1.5 of Standard No. 121 is an automatic flashing light on MCI vehicles. It is the opinion of this office that either an automatic flashing light or a continuous light will provide a "continuous warning" within the intent of the Standard.

ID: 21964

Mr. Larry Cernosek, Chairman
Texas Towing & Storage Association
2104 Lyons Avenue
Houston, TX 77020





Dear Mr. Cernosek:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 2000, "responding to [my] letter of May 9, 2000, for further clarification." My letter provided an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to a light bar consisting of stop and taillamps.

In that letter, I expressed my assumption that the light bar was installed on tow trucks, as required by S5.3.1.1, to serve as a compliance surrogate for required lighting equipment whose conformance was affected by the truck's work-performing equipment. You have explained in your latest letter that the original equipment is unaffected by the work-performing equipment and that the lamps in the light bar are additional lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3.

In my earlier letter, I stated that additional lighting equipment was permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. I further commented that additional lighting equipment "need not meet any performance or location requirements." You have replied that the additional stop and taillamps do not impair the effectiveness of the original equipment lamps and do not have to meet any location or performance requirements.

We agree with your remarks. There are no location or performance requirements for supplementary lighting equipment. From the photos you enclose, it does not appear that that the supplemental stop lamps in the light bar would cause "impairment" of the original ones located below, or of any other required rear lighting equipment.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/13/00

ID: nht90-4.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. Roger Hirstein -- Industry Development Center, 3M Commercial Graphics Div.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-1-90 from A.R. Hirstein to T. Vincent (OCC 4864)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. One of your customers has asked whether 3M's Diamond Grade Reflective Sheeting can be used in a red and white block pattern on the side of a trailer for conspicuity withou t violating Standard No. 108. Your interpretation is that the Sheeting can be used in addition to devices meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 but not in place of them.

You are essentially correct. However, because we do not know both the pattern and location of the design, whether "side" includes the front and rear of a trailer, the reflective qualities of your sheeting, who will apply the sheeting, and whether the ap plication will occur before or after delivery of the trailer to its purchaser, we can only provide general guidelines.

Under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, supplementary reflective devices, i.e., devices other than those required by the standard, may be installed and present on vehicles at the time of their first sale as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lamps and reflectors required by the standard. The initial determination of whether there is impairment is to be made by the manufacturer who certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision app ears incorrect to the agency, NHTSA will advise accordingly.

After the initial sale, the supplementary reflective devices may be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business subject to the limitation in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that such installation not "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no statutory prohibition under the Act against owner modifications, even if they involve impairing or removing devic es required by Standard No. 108. However, the trailer would still remain subject to the laws of the individual States in which the trailer is registered and operated, and (if applicable), to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards of th e Federal Highway Administration.

ID: 2664y

Mr. A. Roger Hirstein
Industry Development Center
3M Commercial Graphics Div.
3M Center, BUilding 220-6W-06
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000

Dear Mr. Hirstein:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. One of your customers has asked whether 3M's Diamond Grade Reflective Sheeting can be used in a red and white block pattern on the side of a trailer for conspicuity without violating Standard No. l08. Your interpretation is that the Sheeting can be used in addition to devices meeting the requirements of Standard No. l08 but not in place of them.

You are essentially correct. However, because we do not know both the pattern and location of the design, whether "side" includes the front and rear of a trailer, the reflective qualities of your sheeting, who will apply the sheeting, and whether the application will occur before or after delivery of the trailer to its purchaser, we can only provide general guidelines.

Under S5.1.3 of Standard No. l08, supplementary reflective devices, i.e., devices other than those required by the standard, may be installed and present on vehicles at the time of their first sale as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lamps and reflectors required by the standard. The initial determination of whether there is impairment is to be made by the manufacturer who certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision appears incorrect to the agency, NHTSA will advise accordingly.

After the initial sale, the supplementary reflective devices may be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business subject to the limitation in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that such installation not "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. There is no statutory prohibition under the Act against owner modifications, even if they involve impairing or removing devices required by Standard No. l08. However, the trailer would still remain subject to the laws of the individual States in which the trailer is registered and operated, and (if applicable), to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards of the Federal Highway Administration.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:9/l4/90

ID: nht81-2.18

DATE: 04/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weinblatt & Knee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 5, 1981, in which you requested a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You are apparently trying to determine what types of glazing material may be used in "caps" installed on truck bodies.

Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). Copies of both standards are enclosed. ANS Z26 and Standard No. 205 list 13 "Items" or types of glazing that vary in terms of the performance tests each item must pass and the locations in which each type of glazing may be used. While the meaning of the word "cap" as used in your letter is somewhat unclear, we presume you are referring to a "pickup cover." A "pickup cover" is defined in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 205 as a camper having a roof and sides but without a floor, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user. All 13 items of glazing may be used in pickup covers. However, some items (e.g., Item 6) may not be used in forward-facing windows, and others (e.g., Item 5) may not be used at levels requisite for driving visibility.

Certification and marking requirements for glazing are found in paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 5, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation -- Attn: Regulatory Division

Gentlemen:

I have been informed by a client that there is a Federal regulation promulgated by your Department requiring a certain safety stamping with a number of every peice of glass or plastic substitute for glass used on any auto, truck, camper, cap, etc.

I would greatly appreciate a copy of that regulation since it involved a legal question as to what my client is allowed to install as part of his business of selling caps that go on truck bodies.

Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

SEYMOUR S. WEINBLATT -- WEINBLATT & KNEE COUNSELLORS AT LAW

ID: 7514

Mr. Mark V. Schwartz
Account Executive
Entran Devices, Inc.
10 Washington Avenue
Fairfield, NJ 07004

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies. Specifically, you were interested in the provisions for the Hybrid III test dummy set forth in Subpart E of Part 572. You noted that 572.36(g) provides that the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers "shall have the dimensions and characteristics of Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent." You provided a sheet setting forth dimensional and electrical response information for an accelerometer model produced by your company, the Entran EGE-72C-750. You then asked if the Entran EGE-72C-750 was "equivalent" to the Endevco Model 7231c, within the meaning of 572.36(g). I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulation for you.

Part 572 sets forth specifications with which all test dummies must comply if those dummies are to be used in this agency's compliance testing. In NHTSA's compliance testing to date, we have used only the Endevco Model 7231c for the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers. This should not be misinterpreted as suggesting that this agency believes that only this particular make and model of accelerometer will perform acceptably in compliance testing. Instead, it means that the agency has found that the Endevco Model 7231c performs acceptably in the intended shock environment, in terms of frequency response characteristics, damping, linearity, transverse sensitivity, reliability, repeatability, durability, etc.

The dictionary defines "equivalent" as "equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc." As noted above, NHTSA has used only the Endevco Model 7231c for the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers in the compliance testing to date. Thus, the agency has not made any determination of which accelerometers are equivalent to the Endevco Model 7231c. Until such time as the agency makes a determination about equivalent accelerometers, the issue of equivalency of your EGE-72C-750 model and the specified accelerometer model is a matter to be worked out between your company and prospective users of your company's accelerometers. As long as you can satisfy prospective users about the equivalence of your company's accelerometers, NHTSA will not review the use of any particular accelerometers in certification testing, unless the test results indicate a problem or problems caused by those accelerometers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:572 d:29/92