ID: 1982-2.40

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 16 1982

AIR MAIL

Mr. Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section Ichikon Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara City Kanagawa 259-11 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Takata:

This is in reference to your letter of June 30, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency concerning the effective luminous lens area of a front turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 with respect to three proposed designs.

We assume that you wish to know what is the effective projected luminous lens area for a front turn signal on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The SAE Standard No. J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," which you quote, imposes no additional requirements for a two compartment front turn signal lamp. Thus, it appears that so long as you meet the minimum of 3.5 square inches for a single compartment lamp, your proposed designs (Case 1 and 2) meet the necessary requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Case 3 would not conform as neither of the two section compartments meets the 3.5 square inch minimum.

Sincerely,

Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

L57/30 June 30, 1982

Mr. Marx Elliott Program Manager Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Effective projected luminous area of Front Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We would like to inquire as follows. FMVSS 108 references SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, and SAE J588e prescribe Effective Projected Luminous Area as follows.

SAE J588e

3.2 The effective projected luminous area of a single compartment lamp measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp must be at least 8.0 sq in. for a rear lamp and at least 3.5 sq in. for a front lamp.

3.3 If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 3 1/2 sq. in. provided the combined area is at least 8 sq in.

That is, in the case of front turn signal lamp, section 3.2 provide that Effective Projected Luminous Area should be more than 3.5 sq in.

But when we want to take into account of two compartments of front turn signal lamp, may we understand that the following cases are acceptable for FMVSS 108.

*Insert artwork

Condition of Effective Projected Luminous Area

Area A Area B A + B

Case 1 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2

Case 2

/3.5 in.2

Case 3 < 3.5 in.2 <>/3.5 in.2

We await your early reply.

Very truly yours, ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section

ID: 1982-2.41

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weldon Incorporated -- Robert P. Donley (Columbus, Oh)

COPYEE: Raymond Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1981, regarding continuing compliance of lighting equipment after repairs.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?"

Repair of a vehicle in service is irrelevant to its certification. Certification is the assurance given by the manufacturer to distributors, dealers, and purchasers, that Federal standards are met by his product upon its sale when new. There is no requirement that the certification be valid for the life of the product.

"2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?"

This is a good question, and the answer is no. When repairs are necessary there is no Federal legal requirement that the lamp remain in conformance afterwards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not alter fully functional lamps in a manner that renders them nonconforming, or substitute nonconforming equipment. This prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner; his modifications are subject only to State and local restrictions.

"3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?"

As I stated earlier, repairs of used vehicles and equipment are not subject to conformance or certification. However, if a lamp is replaced in its entirety, the manufacturer of the replacement lamp is responsible for certifying conformity to Standard No. 108 because that standard covers replacement equipment of the types you mentioned ("e.g., stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp").

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 10, 1981

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

We are seeking an understanding of what would nullify the original certification of a motor vehicle lamp (e.g. stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp) to conformance with FMVSS 108 as result of a certain field repair.

A motor vehicle lamp is a mechanical composite of its housing, lens, bulb and miscellaneous other parts. The lamp is designed to conform with FMVSS 108 as originally designed and manufactured.

On the basis of an approved independent laboratory report (sample enclosed) a lamp is certified by the original manufacturer as being designed to conform with FMVSS 108.

Specifically, we would like answers to the following questions:

1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?

2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?

3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?

We respectfully request your reply by January 11, 1982. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Robert P. Donley President

[Text information omitted]

Sign off: 6:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996

ID: 1982-2.5

DATE: 04/15/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Riken America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter inquiring whether it would be permissible for your company to label your tires in both the European metric size and the domestic P-metric size. Dual markings of sizes in the manner you have described are specifically prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109).

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." A European metric size and its comparable domestic P-metric size are assigned different maximum load carrying capacities and different recommended maximum inflation pressures, because different formulae are used to calculate the load carrying capacities of the tires at the different inflation pressures. Because of the different load carrying capacities and recommended inflation pressures, substituting a European metric tire for a P-metric tire might cause the European metric tire to be unsafely overloaded. Dual markings could lead to such substitutions.

The dual-size markings you have requested were explicitly prohibited when this agency amended the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been expressly repeated in subsequent amendments addressing the question of tire labeling under the standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. The agency's reasoning is that these dual size markings are a representation by the manufacturer that a particular tire meets all requirements of Standard No. 109 for both listed sizes, which is not true. In fact, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars, i.e., by representing that the manufacturer's tire is an appropriate replacement for either European metric or P-metric tires. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The only purpose of that label is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the consumer's automobile.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 16, 1982

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Dear Sir:

Riken America, Inc. is the importer of Riken Brand Automobile Tires into the United States. We, and the manufacturer, Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, are considering marking our "82 Series" of steel-belted radial tires with both the European (ETRTO) metric size and the new P-metric size. The line is currently using the European (ETRTO) metric sizes only.

The engineering department at Okamoto Riken Gomu Co., Ltd. has investigated the possibility of dual-marking our line and has determined that the tire specifications for the European (ETRTO) metric sizes are within the standard specifications established for the P-metric sizes as follows: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 155SR12 P155/80R12 155SR13 P155/80R13 165SR13 P165/80R13 165SR14 P165/80R14 165SR15 P165/80R15

Additionally, we would like to add the following sizes to our line: Proposed P-Metric Riken ETRTO Size "Dual-Marked" Size Equivalent 175SR13 P175/80R13 185SR13 P185/80R13 175SR14 P175/80R14

Please advise us if the dual markings upon the tires, assuming the specifications are proper for the P-metric sizes, would be acceptable under FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. applicable regulations. Your immediate reply would be greatly appreciated as we would like to start this program very soon.

Very truly yours,

RIKEN AMERICA, INC.;

Gary M. Ceazan -- Vice President

cc: B. Ceazan; M. Levitt; Y. Okamoto

ID: 1982-2.6

DATE: 04/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it would be permissible to attach a label to a door stating "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down". You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.

The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum number of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.

As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. For example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

October 1, 1981

General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing today to ask for your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to the extent that it affects the language of an instructional decal that we intend to affix at the front and rear entrances of our new series of articulated transit buses.

As we understand it, FMVSS 217 is a standard whose intent is to prescribe the amount of emergency exit area to be provided on buses, the nature of the emergency exits to be provided, and the way in which such exits must be identified.

We further believe that the vehicles we are preparing to manufacture in the United States more than meet the requirements of the standard. That is, through a combined use of push-out side windows and escape roof hatches that function and are identified according to FMVSS 217, the escape area requirement is exceeded. Therefore, we believe that the main passenger doors are not also required as emergency exits to qualify the bus under the 217 standard.

However, the language of the specification describing the buses of our current contract with the Chicago Transit Authority demands that additional escape area be provided by the main entrances. Manual operation of the main doors is accomplished via a two-step procedure. First, an operator with a red ball handle, located overhead on the door engine compartment, is pulled to release the air pressure that keeps the door closed. Second, the door panels are pushed open by the passenger. (For a better idea of the conditions at the entrances, please refer to the enclosed sketch.)

CTA further requires that this manual operation of the main doors be described in the following way by an instructional decal that is placed in close proximity to the red-handled operator:

TO OPEN DOOR IN EMERGENCY PULL DOWN.

It is the language of this decal that concerns us. Specifically, though the bus easily exceeds requirements of FMVSS 217, without the inclusion of the main doors as emergency exits, we are unsure that those doors could qualify as emergency exits under 217, and we therefore seek assurance from your office that the use of the word "emergency" in the decal does not violate the standard, as you interpret it.

We thank you in advance for your early response to this question.

Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer

cc: M. R. HOWARD; L. K. MIKALONIS; G. E. PICKETT; L. ROGERS; K. M. SIMON

NOTE: THIS IS A GENERAL CONFIGURATION SKETCH, NOT INTENDED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE DOOR AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

SKETCH OF DOOR ARRANGEMENT M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORP. (CTA) DRAWN BY: J. R. KARNER 10-1-81

ID: 1982-2.7

DATE: 04/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Wheel Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you noted that your company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goodyear, wants to import rims from Lemmerz, a West German manufacturer, and mark those rims with the Goodyear name and trademark. This would be similar to the tires sold, for example, with Sears or Montgomery Ward labels and trademarks on the sidewalls. Your question concerns the requirement in section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120, which specifies that each rim be marked with "a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." You correctly recognized that Lemmerz would have to be identified as the actual manufacturer, and asked if the block letter "L" would be a sufficient identification. Imprinting an "L" on the rims manufactured for Goodyear by Lemmerz would satisfy the requirement of Standard No. 120.

In the notice initially establishing Standard No. 120 (41 FR 3478, January 23, 1976), this agency stated, "The rim manufacturer is free to use his name, trademark, or a symbol of his choice." The only limitation on this freedom is that the information cannot be presented in a deceptive or confusing manner. In the circumstances you have described, a consumer with a complaint or problem with the rims would know to contact Goodyear about the rims, and Goodyear would know that the block letter "L" indicated that the rim had been manufactured for them by Lemmerz. This would not be confusing or deceptive. Hence, the purpose of the labeling requirement is fulfilled, so Goodyear is free to use the letter "L" as the indicator that the rim was actually manufactured by Lemmerz.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOTOR WHEEL CORPORATION

February 23, 1982

STEPHEN R. KRATCKE -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratcke:

At your suggestion I am formally requesting the Chief Counsel to issue an opinion on compliance with 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d).

As indicated during my telephone call, Motor Wheel Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and as such is responsible for Goodyear Metal Products, a producer of rims and wheels for on and off-highway commercial application. In conjunction with the parent company we are presently contemplating introduction of a super-single tire and wheel assembly to replace duals on truck trailers. Without knowing market potential Motor Wheel is hesitant to make the wheels and has elected to temporarily purchase the necessary wheels from a European source. Until such time as a final make or buy decision is made we propose to buy wheels from Lemmerz of West Germany.

Our inquiry is directed toward what NHTSA will accept as a trademark or symbol in lieu of the manufacturer's name on the rim as called for in 49 CFR 571.120 S5.2(d). Lemmerz identification on their rims is their name. We propose that the block letter 'L' be used in lieu of the full name so that we can imprint Goodyear's name and trademark for customer identification.

Is such a symbol acceptable to NHTSA? It is our understanding that Lemmerz is the only wheel producer worldwide whose name begins with 'L'. We would appreciate an early response to our inquiry as there is an eight to ten week lead time plus transit on orders placed with Lemmerz.

Please advise.

Sincerely,

Dale R. Martin

ID: 1982-2.8

DATE: 04/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Mr. Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the application of section 5.4.3.3 and 5.4.3.4 of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, to harnesses. If a harness is used as a portion of child restraint system, such as a booster seat, it must comply with the requirements of S5.4.3.3. If a harness is to be used alone, without any other structure, as a child restraint system, it must comply with section 5.4.3.4 of the standard.

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

ID: 1982-2.9

DATE: 04/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1983 to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 5, 1982 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

This in reference to your response to my letter dated 8 Feb. 1982 including a copy of a letter Mr. Seashore date 14 May 1980.

I cannot agree your response to my letter is in accord with your letter to Mr. Seashore. It is my belief and as I read your letter to Mr. Seashore, that our U.S. Congress has delegated and LIMITED to the NHTSA, through their Parent Department of Transportation, the determining and defining of a type of Standard designated as "Performance Requirement". It is also my belief Congress intentionally withheld from the NHTSA the requiring of "Design Requirements", rightfully the Responsibility, and Authority, of industry.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors of unit magnification on each side of School Buses, each having a minimum of 50 square inches of reflective surface, mounted in such a position that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA in accordance with Section 102(2) that reads, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria".

School children are entitled to safe transportation and I believe our efforts should be in that direction. The Fourth Circuit Court stated: "If an article my be made safer, and the hard of harm may be made safer, and the hazard of harm may be mitigated by an alternate design or device, at no substantial increase in price, the Manufacturer has a duty to adopt such a design."

The Mirror systems for School Buses, Superior in Safety Performance, specified by the State of Texas, had to be returned by the School Bus Safety Performance. I cannot agree this to be in accord with the intent of our U.S. Congress.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEWS, Inc. M.W. Urban

MMU/hl cc: Congressman Dan Glickman

SA20ARDESGNELEMENT4C

Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1982, to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. John Glenn - US Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

16 AUG 1982 NOA-30

The Honorable John Glenn United States Senator 200 North High Street, Suite 600 Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Senator Glenn:

This responds to your July 1, 1982, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr. Donald M. Robinson. Mr. Robinson would like to know whether Federal regulations prohibit him from purchasing a pickup cab and chassis without the body attached. The answer to his question is no.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only requires that all vehicles be manufactured in compliance with the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. We have no requirement, nor do we know of any other Federal regulation, that would prevent Mr. Robinson from purchasing just the cab and chassis of a vehicle that he desires. When he adds his own utility body to the cab and chassis, he would become the final-stage vehicle manufacturer and would be required to certify that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. I am enclosing copies of the regulations pertinent to such an operation.

If I can be of further assistance to you or Mr. Robinson, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures: Constituent's Correspondence 49 CFR Parts 567 & 568

cc: Washington Office

June 23, 1982

Senator John H. Glenn 200 N. High Street, Room 6 Columbus, Ohio 43215

We have asked truck dealers in the area for bids on two one-half ton cab and chassis and one three-quarter ton cab and chassis trucks upon which we intended to install utility beds so that the trucks would be equipped properly to be used as service trucks on our distribution system.

We have been told by the dealers that they cannot order just the cab and chassis but have to include the pickup bed for which we have absolutely no use. This is our first knowledge of this and, quite frankly, it shocks me.

We are told that this is a federal law, regulation or whatever.

Could you check into this matter at your convenience to see if there is any recourse.?

We will appreciate whatever you can do.

Yours truly,

Donald M. Robinson Manager

DMR/mb

ID: 1982-3.10

ID: 1982-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. R. Scheiner; NHTSA

TO: Kioto Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 21, 1982

AIR MAIL

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1982, regarding signal flashing on an auxiliary lamp. You asked several questions on your proposed auxiliary lamp which would be installed as original equipment to supplement the lower beam headlamp:

1. Whether this auxiliary lamp would be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signaling purpose.

2. In case that this auxiliary lamp is designed to comply with the requirements of SAE J583d - Fog Lamps, instead of SAE J582a -Auxiliary Low Beam Lamp: Whether the auxiliary lamp (Fog Lamp) could be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signal purpose.

The answer to these questions is: No.

Paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows turn signal and hazard warning signal lamps to flash but subparagraph (b) states:

"All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes."

We interpret "all other lamps" to include all lamps, required and auxiliary lighting such as the lamp you propose.

In summary we interpret FMVSS No. 108 not to allow the auxiliary lamp you propose to be used as a flashing lamp.

Sincerely,

Stanley R. Scheiner, Acting Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

NHTSA:OVSS:CAD:Medlin:orb:9/27/82:(JWASE) REWRITTEN:Medlin:orb:9/30/82 RETYPED:orb:10/7/82: REW:Vinson:nbb 10/18/82 Copies to: NRM-01 Chron NRM-11 Chron/Subject/Medlin's File/Hold;NOA-30 Interps;NOA-30 Redbook(3)

No Control