ID: 1983-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sebring Air Terminal PAR=LOCATION

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: 1983-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATON

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for a reconsideration of our December 8, 19B2, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.

As is well known, SAE Standard J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 Sealed Beam Headlamp Units), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.

We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycle headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlamp "effectiveness" is "impaired" because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, the manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.

In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions by concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking is advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983

Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: Motorcycle Headlamp Cover

Dear Mr. Vinson:

On February 1, 1983, members of the motorcycle industry met with you and NHTSA rulemaking (lighting) and enforcement personnel to discuss NHTSA's new interpretation regarding the installation of transparent covers in front of motorcycle headlamps. This interpretation, contained in a December 8, 1982 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, stated that NHTSA now views that FMVSS 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. This reverses a previous interpretation contained in a March 15, 1978 letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., then NHTSA Chief Counsel, which stated that NHTSA did not read the prohibition against covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with either sealed or unsealed headlamps because the referenced motorcycle headlamp standard in Table III of FMVSS 108, SAE J584, does not prohibit the installation of such covers.

We disagree with the reversal of the earlier interpretation.

Table III of FMVSS 108 requires motorcycles to comply with SAE Standard J584, April 1964. SAE J584 sets forth photometric requirements for motorcycle headlamps and does not prohibit glass covers. It also provides for alternative compliance by fitting headlamps conforming to SAE 579 (which, incidentally, also does not prohibit such covers). S4.1.1.34 provides that a motorcycle may be equipped with various combinations of headlamps from the passenger car headlamp systems, and contains no prohibition of headlamp covers. The only prohibition against the use of headlamp covers in FMVSS 108 is contained in SAE Standard J580a/b, referenced in Table III and applies only to sealed beam headlamps installed in passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. SAE J580a and J580b are concerned with the aim of a headlamp's beam, and proscribe glass covers so the aim can be readily inspected using a mechanical aimer that registers on the headlamp's three aiming pads. J584 motorcycle headlamps do not have these aiming pads, so there is no such need to preclude the use of glass covers.

NHTSA to support its position that Standard 108 precludes the use of covers over motorcycle headlamps relies on two arguments. We disagree with both:

1. That the prohibition contained in SAE Standard J580 applies to motorcycles, since SAE J580 is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108.

SAE J580 does not apply to motorcycles. It is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 only for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The primary referenced requirement for motorcycles in FMVSS 108 is SAE J584, which contains no such prohibition. SAE J584, in turn, permits alternative compliance with SAE J579, which neither contains such a prohibition nor references J580. In addition, S4.1.1.34 contains additional means of compliance for motorcycles, but no such prohibition.

2. That the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of S4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 precludes the use of such covers because the covers "impair the effectiveness" of headlamps.

This is an improper interpretation of S4.1.3. The impaired effectiveness requirement was intended to preclude the use of devices that render the required devices (although themselves meeting the standard) ineffective. For example, the fitting of a red lamp to a vehicle immediately adjacent to the required amber front side marker lamp and likewise an amber lamp fitted adjacent to the required rear red side marker lamp would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps, as ambiguity would result. Such an impairment would also result from the placement of an extremely bright lamp adjacent to a signal lamp, thus obliterating the light output of the signal lamp. Impairment of effectiveness does not relate to durability requirements as NHTSA would suggest.

In those instances where durability of lamps, lens materials, and other equipment is deemed to be important, FMVSS 108 contains specific durability requirments applicable to such equipment. As long as the headlamp cover does not preclude the headlamp from conforming to the performance requirements specified in FMVSS 108 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, the cover does not "impair the effectiveness" of the required equipment.

The interpretation of December 8 refers to the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of FMVSS 108, S4.1.3, as if impairing were an absolute, regardless of whether an impaired lamp were still within specifications. Compliance with specifications, however, is implicit to S4.1.3 because only lamps complying with specifications are required by this standard. S4.3.1.1. clearly relates compliance of any lamp to meeting or not meeting photometric output.

In addition, the preamble to the January 17, 1983 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS 108 (Docket 81-11: Notice 2) discusses the very subject of permissible impairment and concludes that compliance with required photometrics is the only test that can be applied. In rejecting petitioner's argument that conformance of a lamp should be based on relative degradation from the original output, NHTSA states (48 FR 1994), "....a lamp that far exceeded the minimum could "fail" if diminution exceeded 10 percent, even though the safety based J579c minima were still met. Such a result would appear to be excessive as a minimum safety standard. ...NHTSA believes it simpler and preferable that photometric measurements be taken at the end of each of the relevant tests in the sequential test series, and that the lamp at each such point comply with the photometrics of J579c". Thus, this preamble recognizes that photometric standards are composed of minimums and maximums, and that there would be no difference between a lamp designed to lower output and one that deteriorated to that same level, as long as both lamps at the reduced level of output comply with specifications.

That compliance is the sole criterion is further underscored in the letter of interpretation from Frank Berndt, then NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel, to Roderick A. Willcox, July 23, 1976, in which it is stated, in reference to a bug screen placed in front of headlamps, "Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579 or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580)."

One of the issues raised at the meeting was whether the BMW headlamp/cover complied with the photometric requirments of FMVSS 108. We indicated to you that we would have such a unit tested at an independent laboratory and submit the results to NHTSA. Electrical Testing Laboratories (ETL) has just completed the environmental and photometric tests prescribed by FMVSS 108 on one of our headlamps, and we attach a copy of their report. The report shows that the headlamp with glass cover passed the photometric tests of SAE J584, April 1964, both before and after the required environmental tests.

BMW uses the J584 motorcycle headlamp because, as recognized by NHTSA in 44 FR 20536, its photometrics are superior for motorcycles. The glass cover is designed as an integral part of the lamp and provides improved aerodynamics, which result in self-cleansing action; the cover also protects the headlamp from impacts and prevents the leadlamp's exposure to rain and dirt. Heat from the headlamp, which is on all the time, is sufficient to prevent buildup of moisture on the cover, while the cover, because of its distance in front of the lamp, minimizes the baking on of dirt and bugs. Generally, we find that most motorcycle owners maintain their vehicles better than do passenger car owners, and tend not to ride them as much in inclement weather.

Also enclosed is a copy of an ETL report showing that the glass cover complies with the light stability, luminous transmittance, impact, fracture and abrasion resistance tests of Z26.1. In the past, both AAMVA and California Highway Patrol have issued certificates of approval on the cover glass, as well as the whole lamp (including the cover glass).

We are not aware of any field experience indicating any problems with discoloration or cracks in the cover glass, or deterioration of the reflector.

Also, as we agreed in our meeting, we are attaching the names and addresses of owners in the Washington, D.C. area of older BMW motorcycles fitted with such covers whom you may wish to contact. This information is being provided to enable you to examine the headlamp/cover assemblies of these older motorcycles to determine what, if any, deterioration in headlamp performance can be attributed to age. This would aid you in the formulation of future proposed rulemaking should you later decide some durability require-ment may be appropriate for such lamp/cover assemblies.

Aside from a perceived (but not demonstrated) durability concern on NHTSA's part with respect to headlamp covers generally, the primary reason repeatedly given by NHTSA in opposition to such covers is their effect on mechanical aimers. Obviously, with a motorcycle there is no such concern since motorcycle headlamps can not be mechanically aimed because mechanical aiming requires the use of two headlamps, while motorcycles are permitted to have only one headlamp. This is the reason a motorcycle headlamp is not required to have the three aiming pads mounted on the lens.

In conclusion, we believe the interpretation contained in the December 8, 1982 Berndt letter is in error, particularly as it would apply to motorcycles equipped with headlamps conforming to SAE J584, as specified by Table III in FMVSS 108. Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

DE/fw 0510 - 83 Attachments

Owners of older BMW motorcycles having cover glass in front of headlamp who are willing to have their headlamps examined:

David Gray 1977 BMW RS 305 Tapawingo Road Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: 703 938-0060

Robert Henig 1977 BMW RS 11800 Dewey Road 35,000 miles Wheaton, MD 20906 Telephone: 301 942-5198

George R. Sams 1979 BMW RT 1104 Tyler Avenue 21,000 miles Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 301 267-3487 Bus.

301 263-9473 Home

ID: 1983-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Liberty Square

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P.O. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter of September 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office, for our reply. You have asked about Federal standards for motorcycle headlamps in connection with your investigation of an accident in Indiana involving a motorcycle reputedly equipped with "a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5"...smaller than a stock light." Indiana Law requires that motorcycles be equipped with headlamps meeting Federal standards.

The principal Federal standard on motorcycle headlighting is SAE Standard J584a, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The standards do not list permissible sizes for motorcycle headlamps that are not sealed beam, specifying only that the light emitted comply with requirements at various photometric test points. Thus, the small size of the lamp in question is not indicative that it failed to meet Federal motorcycle requirements.

However, we are not aware that motorcycle headlamps are available in rectangular sizes smaller than those used on passenger cars, i.e.,4" by 6". Perhaps the lamp in question was intended by its manufacturer for use as a driving lamp on passenger cars; its size is consistent with that type of lamp. But without further information I'm afraid we can be of no greater assistance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Reference # 3-1538

September 27, 1983

P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P. 0. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your letter about standards for sizes of motorcycle headlights.

I was unable to locate information on Department of Commerce standards in this area. However, Mr. Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised me that Federal transportation laws and standards have been under the jurisdiction of that agency since 1969. He asked me to send him a copy of your letter so that he could investigate your question and answer you directly.

Any further requests on this matter should be sent to:

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20590 (202) 426-9511

Sincerely,

Christopher Benya Office of Consumer Affairs

cc: Taylor Vinson

September 9, 1983

Department of Commerce 14th St. East St. Northwest Room 5725 Washington D. C. 20230

Attention: Lee Gray Director of Consumer Affairs

RE: Our File No. 8-309072-1 Our Insured: Thomas Daniels Loss of: 8-12-83

Dear Mr. Gray:

I am investigating a serious accident involving an automobile and a motorcycle and the investigating police officer in his report stated that the light on the motorcycle was a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5" and was smaller that a stock light.

A check of the Indiana Statute regarding lamps or reflectors on motorcycles states that no motorcycles shall be operated on public streets or highways by a resident of this state that is not equipped with a lamp or reflectors meeting the standards of the US Dept. of Commerce as amended. You will note that they refer to the standards set by the Department of Commerce.

If you could forward to this office a copy of the directive showing the standards of headlights required on motorcycles that the Indiana Law refers to.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

P. T. Miller Asst. Distr. Claim Manager

66 E. SOUTH WATER ST./CHICAGO, IL 60601/(312) 372-1818

ID: 1983-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA--30

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.

The answers to your four questions are as follows:

A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).

B) See answer to A.

C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. It appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.

D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements of S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 25, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements for standard S3.5.1.(b) of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda is developing a new model in which the armrest, by design, should meet the standard S3.5.1.(b). It is difficult for the design to meet standard S3.5.1.(a) or (c). The requirement states, "It shall be constructed with energy-absorbing material that defects or collapses to within 1.25 inches of rigid panel surface . . ."

Our questions are as follows:

A) Is this requirement applied to the whole area of an armrest or part of an armrest?

B) If this requirement applies to part of an armrest, what is the area that it applies to?

C) Does Mazda's design conform to standard S3.5.1(b)? (See attached sketch)

D) If Mazda's design does not conform to standard S3.5.1.(b), what kind of amendment is required? Example: At least the pelvic impact area has to meet the requirement.)

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

***Insert Diagram Here***

ID: 1983-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State Purchasing and General Services Commission; Texas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.222). You indicated that you have been informed that section S5.1.2 of that standard requires that 90 percent of the total projected area of the seat backs on school buses must lie between a horizontal plane passing through the seating reference point and a parallel horizontal plane 20 inches above the seating reference point, and that this requirement appeared to be a geometric impossibility. The information you received about the requirements of section S5.1.2 is erroneous.

Section S5.1.2 does not specify any requirements for the total projected area of the seat back. It simply mandates that the projected area of the seat back between the two planes you described be at least 90 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. This requirement is very simple to satisfy geometrically by using a rectangle. If the seat back were rectangular, the area between the two planes would be 100 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. The agency allows the width of the seat back to be multiplied by 90 percent so as to permit the use of seat backs which taper up at the top, but which still provide an adequate level of safety protection for the occupants.

The reason for specifying a requirement for the amount of area a seat back must have between these two planes is to ensure that "compartmentalization" is not compromised. Compartmentalization is the term for protecting the occupants in the event of a crash by confining them within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. If the seat back in front of a school bus occupant occupied less than 90 percent of the area between the two planes (the area that occupant is most likely to contact in case of a crash), the padded area to cushion the blow of that occupant might not be sufficient.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address and at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 11, 1983

Mr. Steve Kratzke, Attorney Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

As you requested during our recent telephone conversation, I am asking for an interpretation of Paragraph S5.1.2. of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection." I understand that the value

90% X Seat Width X 20

to be the projected area in square inches of the seat back (in a vertical plane) that lies between two horizontal planes, one going through the seating reference point (SRP), and the other through a point 20 inches above the SRP.

I have been informed by one of the engineers at a school bus body plant that 90% of the total projected area of the seat back must lie within these two planes. It appears to me that this is a geometric impossibility!

Your consideration of this request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief

TCM/dh

ID: 1983-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rivkin; Sherman & Levy

TITLE: CSA INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Donald M. Schwentker Rivkin Sherman and Levy 900 l7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

This is in response to your August 29, 1983 letter regarding the classification of a four-wheel drive vehicle with variable ground clearance, for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. The vehicle's suspension is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode, to provide increased on-highway stability. In the high clearance mode, the vehicle meets the criteria in 15 U.S.C. 2001(3) and 49 CFR 523.5 for "automobiles capable of off-highway operation," but it would have insufficient ground clearance to meet that definition in the cruise mode.

As you correctly note in your letter, the phrase "capable of off- highway operation" focuses on the ability of a vehicle to perform off-highway functions." (Emphasis added.) The vehicle in question has high ground clearance capability when needed to facilitate off-road driving. You also note that four-wheel drive capability, one of the necessary criteria to meet the "automobile capable of off-highway operation" definition is typically not a permanent operating mode, but is selectable by the driver when needed. We conclude that the off-road driving criteria on 49 CFR 523.5 need not be met on a permanent basis, so long as the driver can control the availability of the off-road capability.

Therefore, we agree that the vehicle in question, based upon your description, would be classified as an "automobile capable of off-highway operation," and therefore included in the light truck category for standards compliance purposes. See 15 U.S.C. 2001(2) and 49 CFR 523.5.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 29, 1983

Roger C. Fairchild, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Interpretation of 49 CFR S523.5, Light Truck Definition

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

As you know, 49 CFR S523.5 defines a light truck for for corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) purposes under Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

A vehicle may qualify as a light truck if it is an automobile (other than a passenger automobile) designed for off-highway operation . Section 523.5(b) provides that an automobile may be classified as one "capable of off-highway operation" if it ".. . has 4-wheel drive .. . and .. . at least four of the .. . (five characteristics ( specified in S523.5(b)(2)."

I interpret this regulation to mean that if these characteristics are met during certain driving modes, the automobile is "capable of offhighway operation" and is , therefore , a light truck. Specifically, if the vehicle's suspension system is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode to provide increased on-highway stability (during which mode only two of the five specified criteria are met, rather than the required four) , the vehicle should still qualify as a light truck. The logic of this interpretation is supported by the fact S523.5(b) refers to "an automobile capable of off-highway operation" and that the 4-wheel drive characteristic specified in S523.5 (b) (1) is virtually always selectable by the operator, and not full-time. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, I would appreciate, at your earliest convenience, confirmation of the interpretation that the required four of the five characteristics specified in 49 CFR Section 523.5(b) (2) need not be met under all driving conditions for a vehicle to be classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes.

Sincerely yours,

RIVKIN SHERMAN and LEVY Donald M. Schwentker DMS:kg

ID: 1983-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in response to your September 23, 1982, letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle, Safety Standard No. 118, Power-Operated Window Systems, to power sunroofs. The agency apparently has never previously addressed this question.

Standard 118 specifies requirements only for power-operated window and partition systems. A power sunroof would be considered neither a "window" nor a "partition" and therefore would not be subject to the standard. Our standard was intended to apply to the typical power side windows and the power tailgate window of station wagons. The reference to "partitions" in the standard was adopted as part of the July 23, 1970, final rule establishing Standard 118 and was intended to assure that power-operated interior partitions, such as might be used in a taxi or a limousine, would comply.

Although Standard 118 does not apply to power sunroofs, we strongly recommend that safety precautions along the lines of those established in that standard be incorporated in power sunroof designs. It appears possible that the types of accidents which the standard was intended to prevent could also occur as a result of the unsupervised operation of power sunroofs.

If you have any further questions to this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by Frank Berndt Cheif Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt: We sincerely request information concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118: "Power Operated Window Systems" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of MVSS 118 are applicable to a power-operated sunroof.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this inquiry. We are looking forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

ID: 1983-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steve Lampeas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steve Lampeas: 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset, New York 11030

Dear Mr. Lampeas:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the legality under Federal laws of your patented device, the "Trunk Truck." It appears from the material you enclosed that the device extends in twin booms from the rear of the car, and that a stop lamp or taillamp is mounted at the end of each boom (you refer to it as a "natural extension" of these lamps).

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no person (except the vehicle owner) may modify a vehicle so that equipment that is on the vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Therefore, you must assure yourself that all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 continue to be met with respect to rear lighting. This would include not only the lamps at the end of the booms, but those remaining on the car. In addition to stop lamps and taillamps, rear lighting includes, turn signal lamps, back up lamps, and license plate lamps. As on other load-bearing vehicles, such as boat trailers, these lamps should continue to be visible even with a load installed.

You should also ask the States whether such a device is legal. States have jurisdiction over the use of motor vehicles within their borders.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr.Frank Berndt Chief Council of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington D.C. 20590

RE: Trunk Truck

Dear Mr. Frank Berndt:

As per my telephone conversation today with Roger Fairchild, I am enclosing in this letter and sending to you a description and illustration of the Trunk Truck, which is a new patented devise that I have invented.

Before I go into production of this item I want to check with your legal department to be sure that there are no laws that the federal level that my be violated or any safety test that may be required, when this item is attached to a motor vehicle and is in use.

I believe your office has jurisdiction in this matter and would very much appreciate an early opinion and response.

Sincerely,

Steve Lampeas

TRUNK TRUCK

Need to move something quickly? It can be done with a Trunk Truck.

With this new patented device, you can transform your family car in minutes into a van, truck, or trailer and after you have moved your items you can change it back to your family car.

The Trunk truck is a telescoping, self adjusting, precision designed, light weight, high tensile aluminum alloy device, ready for instant use. It is a natural extension of the tail lights and breaking lights of your car. It is road worthy, stable and safe to use.

The Trunk Truck is an inexpensive way to move almost anything. It can be used by merchants, campers, outdoor vendors, house owners, and many others.

This patented device is highly versatile, proving stretch space not thought possible before, to take and carry a variety of items for the occasional or frequent moving job you map have.

The Trunk Truck will free the active man, from the dependency of a second car, van, truck, or trailer.

There will be no further need for additional garage space, license plates, insurances or inspection stickers and registration fees.

Its user are limitless. For example: Taxi Cab Fleet owners can use the Trunk Truck as the start of a new line of moving services.

With a medium sized car, you can expect to have a loading area of 30 square feet, a loading volume of 90 cubic ft. and an approximate weight load of 600 lbs.

The Trunk Truck can be installed easily and at a moderate price in your foreign or domestic car, out of the way inside your trunk.

For further information on the Trunk Truck, contact Lampeas Assoc. at 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset L.I. N.Y. 11030

Trunk Truck Transform your car into a Van, Truck or Trailer in minutes

* Graph Inserted Here

ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill

ID: 1983-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company -- Paul Scully, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Company 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency.

With respect to paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Standard No.108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment you have stated your understanding that paragraph applies only to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978, and that turn signal lamps must now comply with SAE Standard J588e, September 1970.

Paragraph S.4.1.1.7 did allow vehicular compliance with SAE J588d as an option to J588e. J588d required that any turn signal lamp used on a vehicle whose overall width was 80 inches or more have a minimum of 12 square inches effective projected luminous lens area. On the other hand, SAE J588e requires a minimum of 8 square inches effective projected luminous lens area on all single compartment rear turn signal lamps, regardless of vehicle width. However, on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width, two turn signal lamps or compartments per side may be mounted closer together than 22 inches provided each meets single compartment photometric requirements and each has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches. Thus, your understanding is correct.

I would also point out that, pursuant to Section S4.7.1 of Standard No. 108, the continued manufacture of turn signal lamps meeting J588d is permissible as replacement equipment for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978.

Mr. Cavey has provided the copy of BMCS regulations which is enclosed.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 22, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

I need a copy of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and I no longer have in my files the address of that agency. Would you be kind enough to telephone them and request that a copy of that booklet be forwarded to me. I would certainly appreciate it.

On a completely separate subject, a question arose today concerning the meaning of Paragraph S4.1.1.7 in FMVSS 108. The specific question related to the square inches of area needed for a turn signal on vehicles over 80".

My interpretation of the regulation has been that turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80" must comply with J588e dated September, 1970. This standard requires 8 square inches of area for single compartment lamps. That standard also spells out that when lamps are mounted closer together than 22" on vehicles over 80", they must then individually meet all of the requirements and must be 12 square inches.

Paragraph S4.1.1.7 only applies to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978 and simply permitted compliance with the prior standard J588d. This specific paragraph, in my judgment, only relates to vehicles built between the dates spelled out above and does not impact the area requirements as otherwise spelled out in J588e. Specifically, it is our understanding that the rear turn signal area for single compartment lamps is eight square inches regardless of the width of the vehicle. The only exception to this requirement is spelled out in the SAE standard which states that the area must be 12 square inches if indeed the units are placed closer together than 22". Can you please advise me if my interpretation is correct?

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

PS/sld