ID: nht89-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MAZDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108: LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICE, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/06/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD OF NHTSA TO SADATO KADOYA OF MAZDA, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Mazda would like to ask for your advice and interpretation as to what is the correct interpretation on the location requirement of the highmounted stop lamp.

S5.3.1.8 of FMVSS 108 specifies that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window in case of a car other than convertibles if the lamp is mounted below the rear window.

Mazda is looking for the exact allowable areas where the lamp lens may be mounted, and shown below are two possible interpretations as seen by Mazda.

(TEXT OMITTED) SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL

Mazda would be very appreciative if you would advice us which is a correct interpretation or exact allowable lens location, if neither of these is correct.

Regards,

ID: nht89-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/89

FROM: S. WATANABE -- MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 3 905

TEXT: Dear Sir,

We are now developing a Head Lamp equipped with VHAD, whose structure is shown in the attached drawing. Please give us the advice to the following questions about this Head Lamp.

1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2.(a).(1).(V)?

2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. 108 S7.7.5.2.(a).(1).(V)?

Any information that might be of our interest when designing the Head Lamp with VHAD, as well as the answers to the above questions, would be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

ID: nht93-6.16

DATE: August 17, 1993

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from John Womack to Erika Z. Jones (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I am writing to confirm our interpretation of FMVSS 213, S5.2.3.2, regarding the covering required on a surface that can be contactable by a child's head.

That provision requires that a contactable surface be covered by material with a specified compression deflection and a minimum thickness of 3/4 inch for materials having a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of less than 1.8 psi.

As I understand this provision, the required covering material need not be provided in a single piece, as long as the material taken together would satisfy the compression deflection and minimum thickness requirements. Specifically, we understand that the requirement could be met by providing energy absorbing material in two pieces -- one piece bonded to the seat shell and one piece contained within the back of the permanently attached seat cushion, if the combined thickness of the two pieces is at least 3/4 of an inch.

We appreciate knowing whether you concur with this understanding of the requirements of FMVSS 213. Thank you for your attention to this request.

ID: nht75-2.5

DATE: 11/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E. H. Wallace - Tire Division, OCA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Demonstration of Prototype Tires That are Not Certified as Complying with FMVSS No. 109

This is in response to your inquiry concerning the circumstances under which the demonstration of prototype tires would be permitted. I understand that representatives of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. are visiting the NHTSA to discuss a newly designed passenger car spare tire which is not certified as complying with Standard No. 109. They wish to mount, on cars which have been driven to the DOT headquarters building on complying tires, samples of the spare tire and then to demonstrate the tire's performance on the local streets.

This demonstration would violate Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, because use of such tires on the public roads would constitute an introduction in interstate commerce of an item of motor vehicle equipment which did not conform with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. The alternative which you have suggested, mounting and demonstration of the tires on a runway at Bolling Air Force Base or other place out of the public traffic stream, is not prohibited by the Act or by our regulations.

ID: nht94-6.23

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820

Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301"

Gentleman:

PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems.

For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new.

Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph.

In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested.

We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement".

It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax.

Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133

Thank you very much for your efforts in advance.

Sincerely yours

ID: nht95-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal And Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp system containing fog lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are planning to develop headlamp systems that produce high beam, low beam and fog lamp beam. The fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaniously. Please refer to the attached drawing for the possible operating conditions.

The FMVSS No. 108 specifies no requirement for fog lamp, except that the lamp shall not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. (S5.1.3) And we believe such a combination we are planning will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

We would like to ask you to give your advice whether such a combination of fog lamp and high beam can be accepted under the FMVSS No. 108.

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal And Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp system containing fog lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are planning to develop headlamp systems that produce high beam, low beam and fog lamp beam. The fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be l it simultaniously. Please refer to the attached drawing for the possible operating conditions.

The FMVSS No. 108 specifies no requirement for fog lamp, except that the lamp shall not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. (S5.1.3) And we believe such a combination we are planning will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

We would like to ask you to give your advice whether such a combination of fog lamp and high beam can be accepted under the FMVSS No. 108.

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht79-2.16

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative - Safety Engineering Office of North America Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 WashinSton, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in response to your letter of September 14, 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which will refer to in answering your questions.

The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) "con- trols, gauges, and their identification, and to (2) any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated." As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term "gauqe" is defined in Section 4 as a "display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale."

Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.

The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.

Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.

The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the "small lights only" position (this activates the clearance clamps, identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.

You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weinner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.

The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term "informational readout systems" which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term "informational readout display," which is defined as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." The term "display" includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.

The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.

In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms "continuously variable" and "variable." The term "continuously variable" is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term "variable" appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:

"The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph.

The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of "continuously variable" except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.

If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 14, 1979

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays I would like to take this opportunity to ask for your interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 101-80 - Controls and Displays.

I would appreciate it if you could please answer the questions that I have attached.

Thank you for your usual fine cooperation.* CR Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

HM:kb

Attachments Q-1 Generally speaking, would it be necessary for each one of items (a) to (m) in Figure-1 to meet the requirements of S 5.3.3?

Q-2 Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes",

Q-2.1 Please explain the reason for your answer being "yes"

Q-2.2 Would the light intensity of (a) to (e), as shown in Figure-1, and having individual "On-Off" Manual Switches be considered variable?

Q-2.3 Would the light intensity of (f) Foot Lamp, (g) Step Lamp and (h) Luggage Room lamp, which light automatically only when doors are open, and not when they are closed, be considered variable?

Q-2.4 Would the light ingensity of (i) Glove Box Lamp and (j) Console Box Lamp, which are placed in their boxes and light only when the headlights are activated and their lids are open, be considered variable?

Q-2.5 Would the light intensity of (k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp, which is placed near ignition key cylinder and lights only when clearance lamps, identification lamps and side marker lamps, etc. (other than headlights) are lit, be considered variable?

Q-2.6 Would the clock (1) with the flourescent display be considered to be the informational readout system?

Q-2.7 Assuming that your answers to Q-2.2 -Q-2.5 are "no", please explain the definition of the word "variable" and "not continuously variable".

Q-2.8 Would the light intensity of (m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp, which is placed on the floor-console box, be required to be variable, or continuously variable?

**INSERT** (a) Room (Dome) Lamp

(b) Spot Lamp (like one in airplane)

(c) Luggage Room for wagon vehicle -

(d) Personal Lamp for rear seat passengers

(e) Radio

(f) Foot Lamp

(g) Step Lamp

(h) Luggage Room Lamp for hatchback vehicle

(i) Glove Box Lamp

(j) Console Box Lamp

(k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp (l) Clock

(l) Clock

(m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp -

FIGURE - 1

ID: nht87-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 25, 1987

FROM: MARY F. BARRAS -- SALES ASSISTANT, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS

TO: MICHAEL W. VORIS -- BUS PROCUREMENT SUPERVISOR, METRO

TITLE: CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-23-88, TO JAY COSTA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 271, REDBOOK A31; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 7-21-87, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAY COSTA

TEXT: Further to my letter of June 18, 1987 pertaining to the subject matter, this letter is to serve as clarification in regard to our position, the manufacturer, of the subject contract trolley buses.

* The trolley bus, as manufactured and delivered to Metro Seattle, more than exceeds the standards set forth by FMVSS 217.

* Paragraph S5.2.1 of the information previously submitted, states that at least one (1) rear exit shall be provided unless the bus configuration precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. The trolley bus design of the subject, contract d oes not preclude the installation of an accessible rear exit; therefore, because of this requirement and our interpretation of FMVSS 217, a rear exit is provided.

Considering the above, M. A. N. Truck & Bus Corporation recommends that the rear window, as delivered to Seattle Metro, should remain as designed.

ID: nht80-4.3

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 4, 1980 letter to this office in which you requested confirmation that a certain tire size was listed for use with a particular rim size in a tire publication recognized by this agency for purposes of Standard 110. Page 1-11 of the 1980 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association lists a 5 1/2 inch rim as appropriate for use with 185/7OR14 tires. Thus, use of the 5 1/2 inch rims with that size tire would satisfy the requirements of paragraph S4.4.1(a) of Standard 110.

If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

September 4, 1980

Steven R. Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Please confirm that radial tires sized 185/70HR14 are listed in an NHTSA-recognized tire publication for use with a 5 1/2J x 14 wheel rim and that this combination therefore meets the tire and rim matching requirements of FMVSS 110.

Thank you for your assistance.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Bruce Henderson