ID: nht92-8.26

DATE: March 16, 1992

FROM: Shigeyoshi Aihara -- Manager, Information Services, Ichikoh America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Shigeyoshi Aihara (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask for your judgment concerning fogging after humidity test of replaceable bulb headlamp specified in FMVSS No.108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6).

Paragraph S.7.4(i)(6) is defined as follows:

"After a humidity test conducted in accordance with paragraph S8.7, the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp shall meet the photometric requirements applicable to the headlamp system under test."

Our questions concern the sentence "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp ---"

A drawing of our headlamp with on-board aiming system is attached to this letter. The headlamp is a vented system. The bubble indicator cover of types A and B differ as shown in the attached sketches.

Question 1: After the humidity test, both types A and B show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. We think this fogging does not affect the performance of headlamp such as bubble indicator visibility, photometry and others. Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test ?

Question 2: May we understand that "the inside of housing" means the lens and reflector portions?, or Must we understand it to mean the entire inside portion of headlamps?

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-8.27

DATE: March 13, 1992

FROM: Wally Herger -- Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Nancy Bruce -- Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Bill Gaines to Wally Herger; Also attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Wally Herger (A39; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Bill Gaines of Transfer Flow, Inc., who has requested my assistance regarding difficulties with the Department of Transportation. Transfer Flow, Inc. is a manufacturer of fuel tanks and fuel systems. The company's problem stems from the rigid requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75.

It is my understanding that current technology has made it possible to meet required safety standards by utilizing less expensive testing procedures than the FMVSS 301 test, and that less stringent testing is permitted for vehicles over 10,000 GVW and vehicles under 10,000 GVW that have been sold to the end user. If that is indeed the case, then I would very much appreciate your thorough review of the problem faced by Transfer Flow, Inc. Further, I would like to know if it is possible to administratively update these requirements.

I have enclosed a copy of Mr. Gaines letter and related documentation for your information and review. If you require further information, please contact my office or Mr. Gaines directly. I have assigned this case to my staff assistant, Dave Meurer. He can be reached at (916) 893-8363 or at the address checked above.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht92-8.28

DATE: March 11, 1992

FROM: Mark A. Sedlack -- Product Design Manager, Century Products Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Frank Rumpeltin; Rob Wise

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark A. Sedlack (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a written clarification of an issue involving FMVSS 213 compliance testing. I have spoken to both Mike Pine and Dee Fujita about this issue and was told that a decision was pending.

It has been Century's understanding that any child restraint which was labeled for use by a child over 20 pounds would be tested using three year old part 572 dummy. The procedure is readily apparent in the standard for forward-facing child restraints. However, it is not readily apparent how a rear-facing seat could be tested using the three-year old dummy, particularly in how the dummy is to be installed.

As a result of recommendations published by various consumer safety groups, telling people to (ignore the manufacturer-a instructions and) use using rear-facing child restraints up to 25 pounds, we have tested our existing convertible seats with a CAMI dummy modified to twenty-five pounds with satisfactory results.

We have not, however, changed our labels or instructions to reflect the higher weight because of the above stated understanding.

Our next step is to test these seats with the three-year old dummy, but we are not clear, nor is the testing facility, as to how this procedure is to be accomplished.

We have recently become aware of a child restraint available at retail which is labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds, and must assume that the procedure for testing has been clarified. If this is the case, could you provide us with a written clarification as to how rear-facing testing is to be done for a child restraint labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds.

ID: nht92-8.29

DATE: March 9, 1992

FROM: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert S. McLean (A39; Std. 208; Std. 209

TEXT:

I am writing to request a NHTSA interpretation of two basic sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seatbelt Assemblies (49 C.F.R. S 571.208 and S 571.209, respectively). My request for interpretation specifically deals with the application of FMVSS 208 and 209 to an occupant restraint system which has a seat belt portion consisting of a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. This system is of the type used in the 1980-81 Toyota Cressida and also is used on several Nissan and Ford vehicles. Please assume the system is used only on automobiles manufactured before September 1, 1989. For the purposes of this letter, please also assume that this occupant restraint system is certified as complying with the frontal crash Protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 using only the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt (without the use of the manual lap belt).

First, we understand that the two-point automatic shoulder belt used in the above-mentioned system is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt" as defined in FMVSS 209, S3. This understanding is based first on the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt" in FMVSS 209, S3, which states that a "Type 2a shoulder belt" is "an upper torso restraint for use ONLY in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly." (emphasis added). Pursuant to the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt", the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt cannot be a "Type 2a shoulder belt" because (i) the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt" states that the Type 2a shoulder belt is for use "only in conjunction" with the lap belt, while (ii) FMVSS 208, S.4.1.2.1 requires that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt must be used without the manual lap belt in order to comply with that option. Our understanding is based, second, on the fact that FMVSS intended that the Type 2a shoulder belt be used in conjunction with a Type 1 seat belt assembly to meet the requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly. 32 Fed. Reg. 3390 (1967). See also 49 C.F.R S 571.209, S3. NHTSA has consistently recognized the distinction between a Type 2 seat belt assembly (and therefore the Type 2a shoulder belt and Type 1 seat belt assembly combination which can make up that system) and automatic belts, holding that an automatic belt is not a Type 2 seat belt assembly. See NHTSA interpretation letter to David E. Martin from Erika Z. Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated April 14, 1986 (attached as Exhibit "A" for your convenience). Therefore the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt mentioned above cannot be a Type 2a

shoulder belt because a Type 2a shoulder belt is a component part of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, and an automatic belt is not a Type 2 seat belt assembly. In fact, an automatic belt is not a term defined under FMVSS 209. Third, FMVSS 209, including the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt," generally does not apply to automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirement of FMVSS 208, such as the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt mentioned above. See NHTSA interpretation letter to Frank Pepe from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 12, 1979 (attached as Exhibit "B" for your convenience). In general, a Type 2a shoulder belt is a shoulder belt that is detachable from a lap belt and when detached cannot function as a shoulder restraint, as does the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt. Therefore, please confirm that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt."

Second, we understand that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder-belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a Type 2a shoulder belt. Our understanding is based upon three basis. First, the warning is not required to accompany the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt because the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt" for the reasons discussed above. Second, the rational behind the FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) warning requirement does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized seat belt. A Type 2a shoulder belt unattached to a lap belt is dysfunctional, so FMVSS 209 required that the user be instructed to hook the shoulder belt to the lap belt. This rationale does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt, as it is never hooked up to the lap belt, and does not need to be in order to function. Third, the language of FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.4, as interpreted by the NHTSA interpretation letter to Frank Pepe from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 12, 1979 (Exhibit "B"), states that an automatic belt, such as the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt, which is certified as complying with the crash testing requirements of S5.1 (which, as we have stated, the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt does) is not required to conform to the requirements of Standard No. 209. In fact, FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.4 as interpreted by the Pepe letter states that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to comply with any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1. Therefore, please confirm that (i) the two point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a Type 2a shoulder belt, and (ii) that the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to meet any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1.

In summary, we ask that you please confirm that: (i) the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt;" (ii) the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a "Type 2a shoulder belt;" and (iii) the two-

point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to meet any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1.

Thank you for your help in construing these regulations as they apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and manual lap belt restraint system.

If you need any additional information or clarification, please call at (404) 572-3599.

ID: nht92-8.3

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 27, 1992 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Porsche") hereby submits the attached request for interpretation of FMVSS 108.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

ID: nht92-8.30

DATE: March 9, 1992

FROM: Robert S. McLean -- King & Spalding

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert S. McLean (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a NHTSA interpretation of two basic sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seatbelt Assemblies (49 C.F.R. S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). My request for interpretation specifically deals with the application of FMVSS 208 and 209 to an occupant restraint system which has a seat belt portion consisting of a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. This system is of the type used in the 1980-81 Toyota Cressida and also is used on several Nissan and Ford vehicles. Please assume the system is used only on automobiles manufactured before September 1, 1989. For the purposes of this letter, please also assume that this occupant restraint system is certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 using only the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt (without the use of the manual lap belt).

We understand that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt in the above-mentioned restraint system may be used alone (without the manual lap belt) pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsections (a), (b), and (c)(2)) and in place of any seat belt assembly required by that option. FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 states just that: "a seat belt assembly that requires no action by vehicle occupants . . . may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

The two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt can be used as a "seat belt assembly" to comply with FMVSS 208 pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3. An automatic belt can be a "seat belt assembly" under FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 without relying on webbing or a lap belt to provide pelvic restraint. This follows directly from the NHTSA interpretation letter to Rembert Ryals, Esq. from Paul Jackson Rice, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 10, 1990 (attached as Exhibit "A" for your convenience), which states that automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirements of FMVSS 208 generally are not required to meet the requirements of FMVSS 209, and that such an automatic belt is not required by FMVSS 208 or 209 to provide a lap belt, either manual or automatic. See also, the NHTSA interpretation letter to Mr. David E. Martin from Erika F. Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated April 14, 1986 (attached as Exhibit "B" for your convenience). Specifically, the Ryals letter states that FMVSS 209, S4.1(b) does not apply to automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, because a two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is a "seat belt assembly" under FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 and because such a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt "requires no action by the vehicle occupants," a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt can be used, pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3, to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsection

(a), (b) and (c) (2)) and in place of any other seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option, and need not contain any lap belt.

Therefore, please confirm that (i) the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt may be used alone (without the manual lap belt) to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1, specifically pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 as a "seat belt assembly" to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsections (a), (b) and (c)(2)) and in place of any seat belt assembly required by FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 and (ii) the definition of "seat belt assembly" in FMVSS 209, S3 does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt.

Thank you for your help in construing these regulations as they apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and manual lap belt restraint system.

If you need any additional information or clarification, please call at (404) 572-3599.

ID: nht92-8.31

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herrn. Westermann u. Schmidt -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/91 from Hanno Westermann and Olaf Schmidt to Richard L. van Iderstine (OCC 7018)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of December 9, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You ask for a definition of two and four headlamp systems, stating that formerly "this definition was done under para. S4.1.1.36, but today there only remains figure 26, which explains the application of photometric requirements with respect to the bulb or bulb combination used." You have enclosed sketches of three replaceable bulb headlighting systems and ask for confirmation that each is a two or four headlamp system under Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 has never contained a specific definition of two or four lamp headlamp systems. Paragraph S4.1.1.36 impliedly defined these systems for headlamps incorporating replaceable bulbs by specifying requirements for the upper and lower beams of headlamp systems consisting of two or four lamps, each containing one or two standardized replaceable light sources. When Standard No. 108 was amended to delete S4.1.1.36, these provisions became part of new paragraph S7.5 Replaceable Bulb Headlamp System. Figure 26 Table of Photometric Requirements was added to illustrate photometric requirements for headlighting systems that use combinations of replaceable bulbs listed in S7.6 Standardized Replaceable Light Sources, and as the systems are described in S7.5.

The understanding expressed in your drawings of replaceable bulb headlamp systems is correct. A 4-lamp system is one in which each lamp contains one light source, usually HB3 or HB4 light source for a total of two HB3 and HB4 light sources per system. A 2-lamp system is one in which each lamp typically contains a single dual filament light source such as HB1 or HB5, and achieves both a lower beam and an upper beam; alternatively, each lamp may contain two light sources, typically one HB3 and one HB4 light source, each with individual reflectors, but together with a common housing and lens. This lamp achieves both a lower and an upper beam.

ID: nht92-8.32

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James G. White -- Head, Crash Avoidance Standards (ASFBE), Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Transport Canada

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/29/92 from J. Yoshimoto to James G. White

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of February 18, 1992, to Richard van Iderstine of this agency, who has asked this office to respond to your question 1.a.

That question is: "Is Koito correct in stating that FMVSS 108 does not require the 'O' point on IHAD (sic) indicators to be marked by the numeral 'O"'? In the letter from Koito that you furnished, Koito had remarked that the requirement in S7.7.5.2(a) (1) and (2) of Standard No. 108 "to have a zero mark" did "not necessarily mean a mark of figure 'O', but may be just a reference mark."

Koito is incorrect. S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming specifies requirements for Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices (VHADs). VHADs provide for headlamp aim inspection in both the vertical and horizontal axes. S7.7.5.2(a)(2) Horizontal aim states that "An 'O' mark shall be used to indicate alignment of the headlamps relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." This clearly establishes the requirement for use of the figure "O" as the mark, and not use of a reference mark. You will note that S7.7.5.2(b) references setting the VHAD "at 'O' vertical and 'O' horizontal." This means at the "O" mark.

Both S7.7.5.2(a)(1) Vertical aim and (a)(2) reference the necessity to provide "an equal number of graduations from the 'O' position representing angular changes in the axis." These graduations are not required to be marked. The presence of the "O" mark will assist the person aiming the headlamp to ensure that the VHAD is set at the junction of the horizontal and vertical axes, rather than at one of adjacent, unmarked graduations.

ID: nht92-8.33

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc C. Gravino, Esq. -- Williams & McCarthy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Marc C. Gravino to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6960)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 7, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you ask whether the standard contains any requirement that the parking lamps, taillamps, and side marker lamps operate independently of the ignition switch so that when they are activated they will remain activated regardless of whether or not the ignition switch is in the on or off position. You have reviewed Standard No. 108, and reference paragraphs S5.5.3, S5.5.4, S5.5.5, and S5.5.7, copies of which you have enclosed.

The answer is no. Under paragraph S5.5.5, the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is required to operate independently of the ignition switch, but no other lamp is required by the standard to do so.

ID: nht92-8.34

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: J. W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS-108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to J. W. Lawrence (A-40; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Administration established a new requirement for FMVSS-108 turn signals in Federal Register Vol. 56, No. 239, pp 64733 dated December 12, 1991 constituting an act of rulemaking without opportunity for comment and therefore in violation of 49 CFR Part 553. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation respectfully petitions for the revocation of the "Figure 2" requirements published in the December 12, 1991 Register and restore the Standard to its prior status as amended May 15, 1990 in FR 55, No. 94.

This petition is filed in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 552, by Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation of 7900 National Service Rd., Greensboro, N. C. 27409. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation manufacturers heavy duty trucks.

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION SUPPORTING THE PETITION

1. Docket 88-17 Notice 2 (FR 55, No. 94; May 15, 1990) upgraded the safety standard's SAE referenced requirements from "J588e September 1970" to "J1395, April 1985". The substantive portion of this change in FMVSS-108 is an increase in the lens luminous area from 8 sq. inches to 12 sq. inches.

SAE J1395, April 1985 was therefore incorporated as-is into 49 CFR Part 571.108 applicable to both front and rear turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80 inches wide.

2. "SAE J1395, April 1985" Installation Requirements are as follows:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (emphasis added)

3. Federal Register notice Vol. 56, No. 239, December 12, 1991 contains technically inaccurate information upon which the Administration has presumably based its interpretation and resulting rulemaking. The FR notice states in part as follows:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters." (emphasis added) The requirement for "simultaneously visible" does not appear in SAE J585e,

SAE J1395 Apr. 85, SAE J1398 May 85 or in the May 1990 amendment to FMVSS-108.

The Administration should also be advised that the 3 meter requirement in SAE J1395 is for photometric measurement and has no connection to the 45 installation visibility which is the ability to observe 13cm2 (2 sq. inches) of outer lens surface at the 450 viewing angle.

4. FMVSS-108 Table I for vehicles over 80 inches wide requires 2 red or amber and 2 amber turn signal lamps. Table II "location of required equipment" for Truck, Bus and MPV over 80 inches wide does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers.

Turn signals are intended to signal pending maneuvers not mark the end of the vehicles.

In summary we wish to reaffirm that our petition is necessary to correct an unfortunate circumstance created by an inaccurate reference which has now become a requirement.

Encl. FR Vol. 56, No. 239; December 12, 1991; pp 64733-64737