ID: 1982-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1982, regarding an interpretation of the "lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108" as applied to the high contrast lamp whose design you enclosed.

We understand that your design applies to rear lamps. The measurement for the illuminated area of a rear lamp as specified in SAE J585e, "Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps)," for example, is stated in part as follows:

. . . "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface. . . ."

This applies to the installation requirements, i.e., the device as used on a vehicle. It is not part of the laboratory test procedure.

Further, with regard to photometric requirements of a lamp, no measurement for the illuminated area of a rear lamp is specified in SAE test procedures.

In summary, Standard No. 108 does not prohibit Lucas from manufacturing the lamp in question, but the vehicle manufacturer must be careful to insure that the lamp, when installed, conforms to the standard's requirements for visibility of lens area.

SINCERELY,

NOVEMBER 1, 1982

Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

Our sister company, Lucas Electrical Limited, of Birmingham, England, has developed a "high contrast" lamp design for multifunction rear lamps on motor vehicles. The purpose of this letter is to seek your confirmation of our interpretation of the lens area requirements of FMVSS 108 as applicable to this design.

The Lucas high contrast design uses a conventional rear lamp bulb and reflector to direct light on to convex cylindrical lensing which is colored red, yellow or white according to the function. An opaque screen of any color having slits running in the same direction and parallel to the flutes of the lens is positioned between the inner and an outer lens. The outer lens has fluting at right angles to that of the inner lens and can be clear, tinted or of neutral density. A copy of U.S. Patent 4,241,388 is attached for more explicit information.

In operation, light from the bulb is directed as parallel rays onto the inner cylindrical lensing which focuses it through the slits in the opaque screen. After passing through the slits in the screen, the rays of light diverge and then strike the outer lens where they are refracted in a plane at right angles to the slits. To an observer, the light emitted by the lamp will be the color of the inner lens and will be in contrast to the appearance of the unilluminated lamp.

It is our interpretation that with such a lamp the projected luminous and illuminated areas requirements of FMVSS 108 are those of the outer lens rather than those of the slits behind it. We hope you will confirm this opinion.

LUCAS INDUSTRIES INC

A J Burgess Vice President (Technical)

United States Patent [19] Green

[11] 4,241,388 [45] Dec. 23, 1980

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FIG.6.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1982-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenji Tashima Project Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Tashima:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether various vehicle seating designs being considered by your company would qualify as auxiliary seating positions and not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These seats would be installed in extended-cab pick-up trucks behind the driver's and front passenger seats and would include storage space beneath the seating accommodation.

A seating accommodation is subject to the vehicle safety standards (e. g., Standards Nos. 207, 208) if it qualifies as a "designated seating position". That term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

"any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats..."

In our opinion, most of the seat designs included in your illustrations would be considered to be designated seating positions. We would not consider the seats to be "auxiliary seating accommodations" since, as you stated in meeting with us, they would be present as a cushioned seat a majority of the time, i.e., without having to fold the seats down or move them around as is necessary with a temporary jump seat. The fact that the seats are not "auxiliary is further evidenced to a certain extent by the fact that the cab of the pick-up trucks would be extended to accommodate the seats so that four persons could ride inside the vehicle. You do not suggest that the cab would be extended for the primary purpose of providing the small amount of storage space that would be beneath these seats.

In your illustrations, seat designs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H have an overall seat configuration such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle likely to be used as seats since design D does not have a cushion (just a board) and design E does not have a seat back. If these two designs were combined, i.e., no seat back and no seat cushion, the agency would consider the positions to be auxiliary seating positions, depending on the agency's assessment of the seat together with the total passenger compartment design. I would like to emphasize, however,that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether or not its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance. Therefore, your company would have to make its own determination concerning whether any of these designs would qualify as designated seating positions. the agency can only offer its opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The agency would make its own final determination only during an enforcement investigation involving a certified vehicle.

You also asked the following general questions regarding all of the designs illustrated in your letter: are seat belts required, is seat size a factor in determining whether a seat is auxiliary, and is there a distinction in the determinations if a bench seat is used instead of two separate cushions? As mentioned earlier, seat belts are required if a particular accommodation is determined to be a designated seating position. Seat size is a factor in determining whether a particular position is a designated seating position to the extent that the definition of that term specifies, as a threshold, a space capable of accommodating at least a 5th percentile adult female (your letter notes that all your designs are capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female). Whether or not a particular positions is designed as a bench weat or as separate cushions is generally irrelevant to the determination of whether the seat qualifies as a designated seat position.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Patrick J. Tyler; Englander

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

Mr. Patrick J. Tyler Englander 3429 West 47th Street Chicago, Illinois 60632 Dear Mr. Tyler:

This responds to your September 8, 1982, letter asking whether a mattress that you manufacture for use in a truck cab would be required to comply with Standard No. 302. Flammability of Interior Materials.

Standard No. 302 lists the components that are covered by the standard. That list states that mattress covers must comply with the standard's requirements. The agency has interpreted the mattress cover language to mean both mattress covers and the permanent mattress ticking. Accordingly, your mattress to the extent that it is designed for use in new vehicles must comply with the requirements.

You should be aware that nothing prohibits a vehicle owner from purchasing noncomplying equipment as replacement equipment if he so chooses. You did not indicate whether your operation is for new vehicles or replacement equipment. In the instance of noncomplying replacement equipment, no manufacturer, repair business, or distributor could install such noncomplying equipment. The installation would have to be made by the vehicle owner himself. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transamerica Transportation Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you requested information on any requirements concerning the use of imported casings for regrooving and imported casings for retreading. When retreaded or regrooved, these tires would be used on your company's trailers ("intermodel piggyback equipment"). Following are the answers to the four questions in your letter.

(1) May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary, such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" parking on the casing? To answer your question about importing tires for regrooving, it is necessary to explain the conditions under which tires may be imported for retreading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a June 18, 1981 letter I sent to the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, which sets forth the conditions under which used casings may legally be imported into the United States for purposes of retreading. The letter explains that tires with less than 2/32 inch of remaining tread which are imported solely so that they can be retreaded are not considered "items of motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Therefore, the DOT certification symbol need not appear on the sidewall of these casings.

Further, there is no NHTSA standard applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Hence, there are not requirements which the imported tires must meet in order to be retreaded or after they are retreaded.

The same reasoning set forth above regarding casings to be retreaded would apply to casings imported for regrooving. Thus, no DOT certification symbol would be required to appear on the sidewall of the casings in order for the tires to be imported.

There is, however, an important distinction between retreaded tires (not for use on a passenger car) and regrooved tires. While the former are not subject to any NHTSA regulations, the latter are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires (copy enclosed). That regulation specifies that the only tires which may be regrooved are those which are marked "regroovable" on both sidewalls by the manufacturer (or retreader) (@ 569.9), and sets forth certain requirements which the tire must meet after regrooving (@ 569.7(a)(2)). Any tire not marked with the word "regroovable" on both sidewalls cannot legally be regrooved, so all casings imported for regrooving are required to have this marking.

Hence, there are three conditions which must be met by all casings imported for regrooving. These are: (a) the actual tread pattern remaining on the casing must be less than 2/32 of an inch deep;

(b) the casing must be imported solely for regrooving, and will not be used or sold "as is"; and

(c) the word "regroovable" must be marked on both sidewalls of each casing.

If you require further information on the actual mechanics of clearing these casings through customs, and the applicable duties, I suggest you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U. S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. Mr. Feese's telephone number is (202) 566-8651.

(2) If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the types of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment? Yes, there are limitations on the installation of regrooved tires. This agency's regulations apply only to new vehicles, so they are applicable to the use of regrooved tires as original equipment on new trailers. Specifically, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120), (copy enclosed) applies to all new trailers. Section S5.1 of that standard sets forth the tire and rim selection requirements applicable to new trailers equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. For the manufacturer to install regrooved tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that three conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the regrooved tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser;

(b) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle; and

(c) the regrooved tires must have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall to show that the tire, when new, was certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. This third condition arises because regrooved tires are considered "used tires" within the meaning of section S5.1.3.

The third condition just mentioned makes it unlikely that regrooved tires produced from imported casings could be mounted by a trailer manufacturer on a new trailer, because those casings are unlikely to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. Please note, however, that Standard No. 120 applies only to trailers which are equipped with tires for highway service. Your company, as a purchaser, is free to order the new trailer delivered to you without any tires installed. The purchaser is then free to install any tires he may choose, without violating this agency's requirements.

Regarding your question about limitations on the use of regrooved tires on used trailers, that area is not regulated by this agency. However, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued an applicable regulation for equipment used in interstate commerce. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR @ 393.75, which sets forth the requirements for tires used in interstate commerce. This regulation prohibits the use of regrooved tires above a certain load-carrying capacity on the front wheels of trucks and truck tractors, but it does not appear to prohibit the use of regrooved tires on trailers. You may want to check with Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, to confirm that regrooved tires may be mounted on trailers to be used in interstate commerce.

(3) Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on? The same provisions set forth above regulating the use of regrooved tires on new and used equipment are applicable for determining whether retreaded tires may be mounted on new and used equipment. For the manufacturer to install retreaded tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 sets forth two conditions which must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser; and

(b) The sum of the maximum load ratings of the retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle.

You will notice that retreaded tires to be used on new equipment do not have to meet the third condition specified above for the use of regrooved tires, i.e., retreaded tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. The reason retreaded tires are not required to meet this condition is that NHTSA has interpreted the term "used tires" in section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 as not including retreaded tires.

Regarding the use of retreaded tires on used equipment to be employed in interstate commerce, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety does not appear to have any restrictions on the use of retreaded tires on trailers. The general restrictions that the sum of the load ratings of the tires mounted on an axle be at least equal to the load on the axle applies regardless of whether the tires are new, retreaded, or regrooved (49 CFR @ 393.75(f)(2)). Again, you may want to confirm this with that agency.

(4) Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for recapping? As noted in response to your first question, there is no requirement that casings imported for retreading have a DOT symbol on the sidewall. Further, since there is no NHTSA standard applicable to the retreading of these tires, there are no structural requirements which the casings must satisfy. I would, however, urge your company to take all reasonable steps to assure the structural integrity of any casings which are imported for retreading for your company.

After the casing has been retreaded, 49 CFR Part 574.5 (copy enclosed) requires that the retreader of the imported casing put its identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. This permits the agency to identify the retreader of the tire should that be necessary. The identification number need not appear on tires which are retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, since it is obvious who retreaded those tires.

You should note that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety prohibits retreaded tires without load markings from being mounted on the front wheels of trucks used in interstate commerce, except for two particular types of vehicles. Again, if you have any further questions as to that agency's regulations concerning the use of retreaded tires, you should contact that agency directly.

I would be happy to help if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

ENCLS.

Transamerica Transportation Services Inc

November 8, 1982

Stephen Kratzke U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Transamerica Transportation Services is the largest lessor of intermodal piggyback equipment and, as such, purchases a large number of tires for the equipment.

We have been recently looking into the feasibility of using recapped Japanese casings and regrooved Japanese casings on our equipment and it seems the more people we talk to concerning the legality of these tires, the more varied opinions we receive. Specifically, we are looking for the answers to the following questions and we would appreciate your opinions, be they legal or otherwise, and any pertinent DOT laws:

1. May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" marking on the casing?

2. If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the type of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment?

3. Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on?

4. Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for capping?

Any information on these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Neil Mark Manager, Technical Services

ID: 1982-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokai Rika Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Asai Manager Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. New York Office One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Asai:

This responds to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your letter concerned the symbols specified by that standard for the windshield defrosting and defogging system control and the rear window defrosting and defogging system control. You asked whether it is permissible to use the symbols specified by EEC Directive 78/316/EEC for those controls, stating that there are only slight differences between the symbols specified by Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The preamble to the final rule establishing current Standard No. 101 explained that minor deviations are allowed from the symbols designated by the standard, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard. 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. (This statement was noted in your letter.)

For the windshield defrosting and defogging system control, both our standard and the EEC directive specify three curving arrows (representing rising air) superimposed on a form representing a windshield. For the rear window defrosting and defogging system control, both documents specify three curving arrows superimposed on a form representing a rear window. The forms representing the windshield and the rear window are the same for both Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. Further, the three curving arrows are superimposed over the windshield or rear window by both documents in the same manner. The only apparent difference between the symbols specified by the two documents is the number of curves in each of the three arrows. The arrows specified by the EEC directive have the curves each, while the arrows specified by Standard No. 101 have three curves.

In our opinion, the deviation you described falls within the intent of the June 1978 statement to permit symbols that are identical to the pictured ones except in some minor respect. The deviation is indeed minor since one must closely examine the two EEC symbols in question and those specified by Standard No. 101 to determine if there is any difference at all.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1982

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

Dear Sirs:

We wish to inquire about the identifying symbols of windshield and rear window defrosting and defogging system.

We are presently supplying vehicle manufacturers with defrosting and defogging switches which will be mounted on the vehicles intended for U. S. and European markets. As you may know, however, there are slight differences between the identifying symbol designated in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 - Controls and Displays and those in EEC Directive 78/316/EEC - Identification of Controls. Tell-Tales and Indicators. The waved arrows on the symbols bear much resemblance, but are not identical, as you can see from the attached copies, which were taken from the standards.

We would like to know if the identifying symbols designated in the above mentioned Directive are acceptable for use in the U.S., although, they vary slightly. In fact , it was stated in an early notice (Docket No. 1-18: Notice 13, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) that "minor deviations are allowed as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard."

If our proposal proves unacceptable, hopefully, in the future steps will be taken to implement the harmonization of both these standards.

Your prompt consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

T. Asai Manager

TA:dt Attachment

ID: 1982-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the identification requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether it is permissible for a manufacturer to identify a certain manual control with the symbol specified by the European Economic Community (EEC) for the cold start control. According to your letter, the control resets injection timing and actuates cylinder warming.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The Vehicle Safety Act requires that each manufacturer assure that its products are in compliance with all applicable standards. The following only represents the agency's opinion based on the specific facts provided in your letter.

The answer to your question is yes, since Standard No. 101 does not include any identification requirements applicable to that specific type of control.

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires each passenger car manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table I to meet the requirements of the standard for the location, identification and illumination of such control.

Neither section S5.1 nor column 1 of Table I list or include a single control which operates the two functions noted above.

Since Standard No. 101 does not include any identification requirements applicable to that type of control, identification is at the discretion of the manufacturer. It is therefore permissible, under that standard, to identify that type of control with the symbol specified by the EEC.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

May 27, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

One of our member companies would like an interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays, as it applies to a specific design.

This passenger car is equipped with a diesel engine but the cold-starting control is not an automatic device linked to the ignition switch as are many designs. This particular model uses a manual control which resets injection timing and actuates cylinder warning.

European authorities require that the cold-start control symbol (Figure 19 of EEC Directive 78/316) be used to identify this control for those vehicles sold in Europe. Is it permissible for this symbol to be used for vehicles sold in the United States?

FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays, calls for any control item which is listed in Table I of the standard to be identified as shown in that Table. The diesel cold start control is not listed in Table I; the only similar controls required to be labeled are an engine choke and hand throttle, neither of which pertain to this device.

Does this mean that this device is not required to be identified by words and that the symbol control identification may be used on U.S. cars? If this is the case, the manufacturer will be able to commonize controls with European models and save unnecessary expense.

Bruce Henderson

ID: 1982-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wonder Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whether Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the "Illuminated Wonder Panel." This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to "personalize" his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.

Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.

We hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

November 22, 1982

Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise

Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Burndt:

I am a distributor that is interested in marketing a special type of lighting device for use on motor vehicles. This device is basically an illuminated personalized auto tag that is affixed to the front bumper of a car (for those states with single license plates). The tag, 6" x 12", will have personalized names or numbers on it, and only these letters or numbers will be illuminated; the rest of the tag will not emit light. This tag, registered in the U.S. Patent Office as the "Illuminated Wonder Panel", is no different than the current personalized automobile tags used in those states with single license plates, except that on this tag the personalized characters are illuminated.

The tag consists of a channel light housing that produces the incandescent light, an amber colored acylic panel thru which the light is emitted, and a clear cover plate. A prototype panel with the name "WONDER" in standard 2 inch letters, was submitted to a testing laboratory to measure the intensity of light produced (attached is the laboratory worksheet). The results showed an average of .0365 candela per letter or less than .25 candela total. With a maximum of seven characters on a tag, the intensity would never exceed .50 candela. Even though this is relatively minimal candlepower, I have enclosed two photographs taken of a vehicle at approximately 50 feet at night with the "WONDER" panel on the bumper, to illustrate the relative light intensities. Since the tag is designed to operate in conjunction with the lights, one picture is taken with the low beam headlights on, the other is taken with only the parking lights on.

The "Illuminated Wonder Panel" as described here, would be available as an automobile accessory; it is a form of ornamental lighting that to my knowledge is not defined by any SAE lighting standards or tests and may therefore not be regulated federally.

I believe this tag can be of value to the user and that the minimal light produced from the tag will not interfere with the intended operation of the existing vehicle's lights, or degrade the level of traffic safety while in its use. After speaking with Mr. Taylor Vinson and upon his suggestion, I am presenting this information to your Administration so that you may review it and advise me by providing a statement or opinion, in regards to its use prior to its production and distribution. Please let me know whether or not this would be in conflict with any safety standards and what subsequent procedures if any, need to be followed on a State level.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Robert Munoz President

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WORK REQUEST OMITTED.

ID: 1982-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS (CONFIDENTIAL)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked if that standard allows a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims.

Standard No. 120 permits a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger car tires and rims, provided that those tires and rims meet all the requirements of the standard. Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 requires all motorcycles equipped with tires that meet either the requirements of Standard No. 109, which applies to new passenger car tires, or Standard No. 119, which applies to new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Thus, passenger car tires can be used on new motorcycles, as long as those passenger car tires are certified as complying with Standard No. 109.

Motorcycle rims are subject to two requirements. First, section S5.1.1 requires that the rims be listed by the manufacturer of the tires installed on the motorcycle as suitable for use with those tires. If you use rims which are the proper size for the passenger car tires to by used, this requirement is easily met by passenger car rims. Second, rims used on motorcycles must meet the rim marking requirements, because the rim manufacturers do not mold the required information onto passenger car rims. However, if you can obtain passenger car rims marked with the information set forth in section S5.2 and listed by the passenger car tire manufacturer as appropriate for use with the passenger car tires, those rims could be used on new motorcycles.

A copy of this letter with your name and address deleted, along with your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 120, has been placed in the public docket under interpretations of Standard No. 120. Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

This request for interpretation is with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. We would like to confirm that Standard No. 120 permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorcycle.

We believe that the use of passenger car tires and rims on a motorycle is permitted because Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 states that "...each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 ( 571.109) or Standard No. 119 ( 571.119), and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires...". In our opinion, this permits the use of passenger car tires and rims on motorcycles, provided the tires comply with Standard No. 109 and the rims are an appropriate match for the tires and also comply with Standard No. 110.

ID: 1982-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/82 EST

FROM: KATHLEEN M. BENNETT -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION - EPA

TO: SLADE GORTON -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO OCTOBER 29, 1982 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO CAMPBELL

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 30, 1982 concerning suggestions made to you by Mr. Lane Campbell of Kirkland, Washington.

I can comment only on the second and third of Mr. Campbell's three suggestions, which deal with EPA emission standards for highway vehicles and EPA noise standards for motorcycles. By copy of this letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I am suggesting that they comment directly to you concerning Mr. Campbell's first suggestion, which deals with two NHTSA standards.

His second suggestion is that waivers or exemptions from EPA's emission standards be established for several defined categories of light, high fuel economy vehicles and for vehicles produced only in small quantities. Because the Clean Air Act itself establishes the basic emission reductions required for highway vehicles other than motorcycles, EPA is empowered only to allow temporary waivers from certain requirements of these standards for which this is specifically permitted by the Act. We do not have broad authority to grant the types of waivers proposed by Mr. Campbell. We do permit a substantially less detailed certification procedure for manufacturers of low production vehicles, defined as vehicles produced in quantities less than 10,000 units per year, but not a complete exemption from certification. Also, motorcycles powered by engines of less than 50cc in displacement are not required to comply with EPA emission standards.

Accordingly, I believe the Clean Air Act itself would have to be amended to provide waivers or exemptions for at least some of the categories of vehicles identified by Mr. Campbell. As you know, committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives are considering Clean Air Act amendments at the present time. H.R. 5252 contains a proposed change to section 202(b) of the Clean Air Act, which reads: "Upon the petition of any manufacturer, the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, shall waive any standard established under this part for any model (as determined by the Administrator) of vehicles or vehicle engines of such manufacturer for a period of up to four model years if the manufacturer

demonstrates that such waiver is necessary for the use of an innovative power train technology, innovative emission control device or system, or alternative fuel (other than any fuel or fuel additive registered pursuant to section 211 before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1982) or power source in such model. The Administrator may review annually the actions taken by the manufacturer during the period for which the waiver is in effect and take appropriate action to insure conformance with the waiver." This amendment, if adopted, would appear to grant the necessary authority to the EPA Administrator to consider and respond to suggestions such as Mr. Campbell's.

His third suggestion concerns changes to noise standards applicable to certain specified categories of motorcycles. EPA promulgated motorcycle standards on December 31, 1980 which become effective on January 1, 1983. The issuance of these standards followed the evaluation of over 2,000 comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, plus extensive interactions with all segments of the motorcycle industry relative to the technological feasibility of compliance by all categories of motorcycles. In view of this extensive public involvement, we are not convinced that new amendments should be considered at this time.

I hope these comments will be helpful. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

ID: 1982-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/82 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked several questions concerning informational readout displays. The answers to your questions are as follows.

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

The answer to this question is yes. Section S4 of Standard No. 101 defines informational readout display 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." [Emphasis added.] Thus, the type of system you describe comes within Standard No. 101's definition of informational readout display. In reference to the specific wording of your question, I would note that it is the definition in the standard, rather than a particular characterization by the manufacturer, that is determinative as to whether a display is an informational readout display.

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

The answer to this question is no. The requirements applicable to informational readout displays are an exception to the usual requirements for displays, which ordinarily use normal electric bulbs. The preamble to the final rule establishing the requirements of the present Standard No. 101 explained that the reason for the exception was to "permit the continued development of informational readout displays." 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. This was necessary since current technology does not enable manufacturers to produce informational readout displays which can exhibit symbols (as opposed to words) or certain colors. Thus, while section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 makes the use of certain symbols and colors mandatory for traditional displays, the use of symbols and colors is optional for informational readout displays.

If "other electro illuminating device" was interpreted to include normal electric bulbs, traditional displays would come within the definition of informational readout display. Such an interpretation would render meaningless Standard No. 101's requirements for the mandatory use of certain symbols and colors for displays. It is thus clear that the term "other electro illuminating device" does not include normal electric bulbs. Rather, the term was included within the definition of informational readout display, along with light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals, to avoid preventing the use of new electronic technology other than light-emitting diodes and liquid crystals.

Your third and fourth questions both contemplate that the answer to your second question is yes, rather than no. In reference to your question as to why the agency amended Standard No. 101 to permit the use of green as an alternative to blue or blue-green for the headlamp high beam telltale, the reason is that the agency does not interpret the standard's definition of informational readout display to include a mere colored light using light-emitting diode technology. To be an informational readout display, it must include information in the form of words or symbols. Since such a colored light is not an informational readout display, it must meet the color requirements of Standard No. 101. On February 1, 1982, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register (47 FR 4541) which proposed, among other things, an interpretive amendment to the definition of informational readout display to make that point clear. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.

Your fourth question suggests that the definition of informational readout display should be interpreted to include only displays providing more than one type of information. As explained in the answer to your first question, such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the wording of the standard's definition of informational readout display. The agency recognizes, however, that it is likely that most if not all informational readout displays will include more than one type of information, though it is possible that some manufacturers might use LED or similar technology for displays providing only one type. In any event, the agency is not aware of a need to revise the standard's requirements to exclude displays presenting only one type of information from the definition of informational readout display.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an informational readout display?

The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section specifies that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

We would note, however, that the notice of proposed rulemaking referred to above proposes an amendment to Standard No. 101 that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. The agency is in the process of analyzing the comments received in response to that notice.

Our answer to your fifth question also covers your sixth question. I hope this fully responds to your inquiry.

ENC.

QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING "INFORMATIONAL READOUT DISPLAY"

1. If one type of information is displayed by an electro-illuminating device such as a light-emitting diode, can I define this as an IRD?

2. Do you think that the description "other electro illuminating device" includes normal electric bulbs?

3. If yes, we don't know the reason why NHTSA amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to use the color green as an alternative to blue for the headlamp high beam indicator. -- According to S5.3.2, the color of each telltale is designated. However, as as the color for the IRD is at the manufacturer's option, I think the color green can be used as the headlamp high beam indicator by the original regulation. Therefore, I think it not necessary to change the rule.

4. And if yes, we think that we can select a symbol or word designated in Table 2 for the IRD which shows one type of information (ex., Fuel Level), although normal displays have to use symbols designated in Table 2 (S.5.2.3.). -- I think if the definition of IRD is interpreted as more than one, we wouldn't have such a problem.

5. According to the current regulation, is it possible to integrate telltales with other instrument displays in an Informational Readout Display?

6. In this case, is it sufficient that the light intensities for the informational readout systems shall have at least two values prescribed in S.5.3.3? -- According to S.5.3.3, the light intensity of such telltales shall not be variable.