ID: nht78-3.29

DATE: 04/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grove Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. G. Wilkins Product Safety and Reliability Grove Manufacturing Co. Shady Grove, Pennsylvania 17256

Dear Mr. Wilkins:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether plastic glazing materials may be used on the superstructure operator cabs of mobile construction cranes. Apparently, the upper superstructure cab is used only for craning operations and is distinct from the cab used to drive the crane over public highways.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR Part 571.205), plastic glazing may be used only in locations to the rear of the driver in trucks or truck tractor cabs and only at levels not requisite for driving visibility. Therefore plastic glazing could not be used in the windshield or windows to the right or left of the driver in the main driving cab of the mobile crane. It is our interpretation, however, that the superstructure operator cab is, effectively, to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is being used on the highway and could be equipped with plastic glazing materials meeting the requirements of Standard No. 205. This interpretation assumes that the operator cab cannot be used to drive the mobile crane on the highway. If the operator cab could be used as the driving cab, plastic glazing could only be used in locations to rear of the driver at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Ref: PSR-2727

February 23, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Office of Legal Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation on Use of Plastic Glazing Materials on Superstructure Cabs Applicable to Mobile Hydraulic Cranes.

Reference: (a) FMVSS-205 (b) Z26.1-1966

Dear Sir:

For the past few years our distributors, predicated on user input, has requested Grove to consider the installation of various plastic glazing materials in our (upper) superstructure operator cabs to aid in the prevention of vandalism at their yards and construction job-sites as well as reducing machine "down-time" for glass replacement.

For your edification, we have included two typical carrier-mounted hydraulic crane sales brochures to be utilized as an aid to better understand our design characteristics and positioning of our superstructure cabs. Grove Manufacturing Company feels that an official interpretation from your office is required prior to any action on our part to install a glazing material other than glass inasmuch as Grove does certify to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) on the date of manufacture.

Our interpretation of FMVSS-205 precludes the use of plastic materials as glazing other than to the rear of the driver, however, our superstructure cab is utilized strictly for craning operations on an off-highway configuration and while "roading" the crane over public highways the upper mode is unoccupied.

If clarification or further information is required to aid in forming an official NHTSA opinion on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

May we thank you in advance of any consideration given in this matter.

Very truly yours,

GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst

RGB/cds

Encl.

ID: nht74-2.27

DATE: 06/12/74

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

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 29, 1974, concerning paragraph S5.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

When a full trailer is tested for compliance with S5.3.2, the wheels on the steerable axle(s) cannot lock up at speeds above 10 mph except for controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

May 29, 1974

Larry Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS-121 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

A number of our members are currently involved in the redesign of braking systems in order to comply with the regulations specified by FMVSS.121. In this regard, we would appreciate your advice on the following:

Section S5.3.2 specifies antiwheel lockup control on all wheels except "lockup of wheels on non-steerable axles other than the two rearmost non-liftable, non-steerable axles on a trailer with more than two non-steerable axles."

Does this imply that all steerable axles must have antilock control?

Sincerely yours,

Burt Weller -- Engineering Manager

ID: 21324.ztv

Mr. Kenneth J. Sailor
2 Oaks Road
Shiplake
Henley on Thames
Oxfordshire RG9 3JH
England

Dear Mr. Sailor:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 2000, informing us of your plans to import "an assemblage of parts" intended to restore a 1979 Caterham Seven sports car.

The parts to be imported would not include the engine and transmission. We note also that the assemblage would not include the following parts that are themselves subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS): brake hoses, brake fluid, glazing, seat belts, headlamps, "taillight assemblies," turn signals, side marker lamps, and reflectors. You will also "fit DOT certified tires to the wheels." You have asked us for a letter stating that the "assemblage of parts being imported is not subject to DOT requirements."

You have not mentioned other motor vehicle lighting equipment such as stop lamps, parking lamps, backup lamps, and license plate lamps. If the Caterham Seven was equipped with these items of lighting equipment (you may have included stop lamps in the phrase "taillamp assemblies"), these items also must be removed from the assemblage if they have not been certified to comply with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Then, the individual equipment items remaining on the assemblage of parts as you have described it will not be subject to any of the FMVSS.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.3/27/00

ID: 1983-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Western Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 6, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Dean A. Fialka Western Bus Sales, Inc. 311 N.E. 2nd Gresham, Oregon 97030

Dear Mr. Fialka:

Ms. Lauretta Carlson of our Regional Office in Seattle has forwarded to us a copy of a letter to you dated April 21, 1983, from the Motor Vehicles Division, Department of Transportation, Oregon, with reference to the "Conspicuity Package" on school buses. Oregon appears not to approve the white reflectors in this package. Ms. Carlson has asked us to respond directly to you.

The portions of the conspicuity package that trouble Oregon are the eight white reflex reflectors on the rear (installed on the extreme edge of the vehicle to define its height and width), and the seven white reflex reflectors on each side (defining the overall length and height of the bus). The Oregon letter says that the laws of that State allow only red and yellow reflectors to the rear and sides of the vehicle and that it finds "no indication that the white reflex reflectors are approved by the federal code."

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the installation as original equipment of other lamps and reflectors not specified by the standard provided that the additional equipment does not "impair the effectiveness" of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The agency therefore has no present basis for concluding that white reflectors "impair the effectiveness" of red and yellow reflectors and lamps required by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a school bus may be manufactured and sold with the white reflectors.

Further, use of white reflectors may aid safety. Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not conducted research on improving the conspicuity of school buses, it has contracted for a study of that issue with respect to large vehicles of similar sizes such as trucks and tractor-trailer combinations. The preliminary results indicate that outlining the sides and rear of large vehicles with red and white reflex striping is the best way to improve conspicuity; verification awaits field tests which have not been scheduled to date. Use of white reflectors, while not as effective as red and white striping, probably enhances conspicuity.

The use of a bus with these reflectors, however, is subject to Oregon law. Although under Federal law a State may not have a vehicle safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal vehicle safety standard unless is identical to it, the white reflectors are not required by a Federal standard and are thus subject to regulation by any State in which the school bus is registered.

I hope that this letter provides a satisfactory clarification.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

cc: Lauretta Carlson Region X

April 21, 1983

Western Bus Sales, Inc. 311 NE 2nd Gresham, Oregon 97030

Attn: Dean A. Fialka

Gentlemen:

Your inquiry regarding the use of a special "Conspicuity Bus" package on school buses has been carefully reviewed. You advise the package contains all lighting and reflex reflectors required by federal standards, and in addition, white reflectors designed to be placed to outline the height and width of the bus from the rear and sides.

Oregon laws only allow the red and yellow or amber reflectors and lights to the rear and sides of a vehicle. (The only exception would be the white license plate light.)

Also, we find no indication that the white reflex reflectors are approved by the federal code. We will forward a copy of your letter to Lauretta Carlson, who is the area director for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Possibly she will be able to advise you further on the federal regulations. You may wish to call her at (206) 442-5935.

Photocopies of the Oregon laws pertaining to use of reflectors and the allowable colors are enclosed for your information.

If we can help further, please advise.

Very truly yours,

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Units Telephone 378-2057

AO:bef

cc: Lauretta M. Carlson, Highway Safety Program Area Director, N.H.T.S.A., 3140 Federal Bldg., Seattle, Washington, 98174

March 15, 1983

Mr. Wayne Ivie Motor Vehicle Division 1905 Lana Ave NE Salem, OR 97314

Dear Wayne,

Enclosed are copies of two magazine articles covering the "conspicuity package" I briefly described to you over the phone. We have approached some school districts about including this package on their new buses and everyone is concerned with the legality of the color of the reflectors. As the articles state these white reflectors are in addition to those required by FMVSS 108.

To properly market this reflector option we need a determination in writing from your Division stating whether this package would be permissible under Oregon law. This package is of particular interest because the increased visibility would be a tremendous positive safety factor after dark, especially on rainy nights when visibility is reduced. The longer of the articles demonstrates the effectiveness of this new reflector package.

We sincerely appreciate the time taken out of your busy schedule for our request.

Thank you for returning my phone call last Friday; if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly yours,

WESTERN BUS SALES, INC.

Dean A. Fialka Sales Manager

DAF:pb encl

ID: nht87-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.R. Dunn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. R. Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited Crew Cheshire CW1 3PL ENGLAND

Dear Mr. Dunn:

Thank you for your telefax of December 18, 1986, concerning Rolls-Royce's ability to meet the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You reported that Rolls-Royce has experienced setbacks in both its aut omatic belt and airbag programs and faces "a real possibility of being unable to comply during the 1987 model year to 31 August 1987." You asked "whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the ex tent of any financial penalty per car if any."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets out a manufacturer's obligation to produce vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a number of remedies the agency would p ursue if a manufacturer has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. Those remedies are discussed below.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act obligates a manufacturer to produce vehicles that conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section prohibits a manufacturer from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, sellin g, or importing a vehicle that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act also obligates a manufacturer to furnish, at the time of delivery of a vehicle to a distributor or dealer, a certificate that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Vehicle Safety Act for a manufacturers to issue such a certification if it "in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

The Vehicle Safety Act provides NHTSA with a wide range of remedies the agency can pursue if there is a violation of the Act. Section 109(a) provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a provision of section 108 or any regulation issued under the authority of that section. Section 109(a) further provides that each non-complying motor vehicle constitutes a separate violation and entitles the agency to collect a civil penalty of up to $800,000 for a series of violations.

Under section 110 of the Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has authority to seek injunctive relief to restrain "violations of this title (or rules, regulations or orders thereunder), or to restrain the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery f or introduction in interstate commerce, or the importation into the United States" of non-complying motor vehicles.

Section 111 of the Vehicle Safety Act imposes additional duties on a manufacturer of a non-complying vehicle that has been delivered to a distributor or dealer but nor yet sold to a retail customer. That section requires the manufacturer to repurchase th e non-complying vehicle from the distributor or dealer, and to reimburse the dealer or distributor for a portion of its expenses. As an alternative, the manufacturer can furnish she purchasing distributor or dealer with the necessary conforming parts and reimburse the distributor or dealer for a portion of its expenses. If a non-complying vehicle has been sold to a retail purchaser, sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act require the vehicle's manufacturer so conduct a non-compliance notification and remedy campaign.

Under the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Rolls-Royce has the obligation to install automatic restraints in ten percent of its vehicles manufactured during the period September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987 for sale in the United Stares. If the ag ency were to determine that passenger cars manufactured by Rolls-Royce for sale in the United States do not conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 205, the agency could pursue any or all of the following remedies under the Vehicl e Safety Act. To determine the extent of Rolls-Royce's compliance, the agency could require Rolls-Royce to provide information on the number of vehicles produced and the number equipped with automatic restraints. The agency could seek to restrain the sal e of the non-complying Rolls-Royce cars that have been imported into the United States. In addition, the agency could seek to restrain the further importation of non-complying Rolls-Royce passenger cars into the United States. Further, the agency could s eek a civil penalty against Rolls-Royce for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) and (C). In addition to seeking those remedies, the agency has authority under section 152 of the Vehicle Safety Act to determine whether Rolls-Royce should be ordered to conduct a notification and remedy campaign for the non-complying vehicles. While your question and the above discussion are hypothetical, we strongly urge Rolls-Royce to take all necessary steps to assure compliance with the phase-in requirements of Stan dard No. 208.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

TELEFAX No 010 1 202 366 5930

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington USA

For the attention of:

Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Room 5401

Following our telephone conversation I acknowledge your advice that a petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS 208 passive restraints is unlikely to be successful for 1987 model year. As described in our original petition for an extension of the effec tive 1987 model year to 31 December 1987 extra time is required to improve our chances or offering airbags. I must report that with setbacks in both our passive belt and our airbag programs we face a real possibility of being unable to comply during 1987 model year to 31 August 1987.

Will you please advise me whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the extent or any financial penalty per car if any.

N R Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd, Crewe

ID: 86-6.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Denis H. Oyakawa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect the proposed manufacture and sale of aftermarket safety belts by your client. As discussed below, your proposed plan would not violate either the Vehicle Safety Act or our regulations.

You explained that your client has supplied safety belts to a vehicle manufacturer for use both as an item of original equipment in a new vehicle and as item of replacement equipment for sale in the aftermarket. You said your client has recently been requested by the vehicle manufacturer to supply safety belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years age. You further explained that your client manufactured the original safety belts used in this older model vehicle, but is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original safety belts.

Your client wishes to supply the vehicle manufacturer with a newer model safety belt. This newer safety belt has been designed to be installed as a replacement part in the older model vehicle and will fully comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In addition, the safety belt is also designed so that when it is installed in a vehicle, the vehicle will continue to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Finally, you said that the newer model safety belt will not render inoperative any other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

As you are already aware, your client's proposed safety belt would be required to comply with Standard No. 209. As you are also aware, installation of your client's safety belt by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair shop would be affected by the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, as stated in your letter, your client has determined that installation of the belt will not render inoperative any other safety features of the vehicle. There is another 108(a)(2)(A) related issue raised by your letter. This concerns whether an item of equipment installed in accordance with one version of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard can be replaced with an item of equipment that complies with a later version of that standard. The agency addressed this issue in a letter of July 7, 1975 to Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. In that letter, the agency explained that it would not be a violation of section 108 as long as the vehicle or equipment complies with the safety standards in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standards in effect at the time a particular system is replaced or altered, even if the new standards set less stringent performance requirements.

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

SINCERELY,

GRAHAM & JAMES

September 16, 1986

Steven L. Oesch, Esq. U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Chief Counsel's Office

Re: FMVSS NO. 209: Sale of After-Market Seat Belts Our File Reference: TKTS 2.2

Dear Mr. Oesch:

We represent a Japanese manufacturer of motor vehicle seat belts and are writing to obtain confirmation that our client's proposal to manufacture replacement seat belts intended for ultimate distribution in the United States will not contravene the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") nor any regulations or policies of the Department of Transportation relating thereto.

As we discussed in our telephone conversation of September 8, 1986, our client for a number of years has supplied seat belts to a certain Japanese motor vehicle manufacturer (the "Vehicle Manufacturer") for use both as original, installed equipment on new motor vehicles as well as for distribution by the Vehicle Manufacturer as replacement parts in the after-sales market. Our client has recently been requested by the Vehicle Manufacturer to supply seat belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years ago. The Vehicle Manufacturer will distribute the belts in the U.S. after-sales market through its affiliated U.S. distributor and network of dealers.

Our client manufactured the original seat belts installed in this older model vehicle. Since the technology and equipment associated with manufacturing seat belts has continually been improved over the last 10 years, our client is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original seat belts. The process of re-tooling its facilities to produce the original seat belt would be extremely costly to our client and would not take advantage of technological advances which have been made since the original belt was first manufactured.

Instead of manufacturing the original seat belt, our client proposes to supply the Vehicle Manufacturer with a newer model seat belt. The newer belt has been designed to be suitable for installation as a replacement part in the motor vehicle in question. Of course, the newer model belt will fully comply with the Seat Belt Assemblies Standard, as set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.209. In addition, the newer model belt is designed such that when installed, the vehicle will continue to satisfy the safety standards set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.208 and @ 571.210. Moreover, the newer model belt will not render inoperative other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

Our review of this issue indicates that our client's proposal will not violate the Safety Act or any applicable regulations thereunder. Since this plan is one of first impression for our client and involves a substantial commitment of resources, however, we respectfully request an opinion from your office confirming that the proposal outlined above will not violate the Safety Act or any other applicable laws or regulations of the United States which are under the regulatory authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Denis H. Oyakawa of GRAHAM & JAMES

ID: 86-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Timothy Pawl, P.E. -- President, Pawl Inventioneering Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Timothy Pawl P.E. President Pawl Inventioneering Corporation P.O. Box 5425 West Bloomfield, Michigan 48033

This is in response to your letter of November 29 ,1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency Jeffrey R. Miller, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter is vague as to the precise function of your "safety related" lighting device, and whether you wish to offer it as original equipment or equipment intended for installation after the sale of a vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. If the latter, then its legality is determinable solely under the laws of each State in which it will be used.

If you intend it as original equipment, on a vehicle at the time of its initial sale, then its legality would be determinable under Standard No. 108. As a general rule, section S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of any device that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have informed us that your device, which consists of "amber LED's" in the "rear package tray," is inoperative during application of the service brakes; thus, it does not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have also stated that it is located "in relative proximity" to the center stop lamp but is not combined with it, and you have asked if this meets the intent of S4.4.1 regarding equipment combinations. This section forbids the combination of the center stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Since your device is physically separate from the center lamp, S4.4.1 would not appear to prohibit your device.

You have also stated that when viewed from the rear, "the pattern of illuminated LED's may change, possibly giving the illusion of flashing," and you ask for a definition of "flashing" as described in section S4.6(c). This section has been renumbered S4.5.11, and subsection (c) permits an exception to the general rule that lamps in use must be steady-burning, permitting headlamps and side marker lamps to "flash" for signalling purposes. The definition of flash is that contained in S3, a cycle of activation and deactivation by automatic means, and this definition does not specify frequency or other characteristics. To us, the important question is whether your device complies with section S4.5.11(e) which requires all lamps (other than those specifically excepted) to be steady-burning in use. A lamp that changes patterns may not flash, but it cannot be viewed as steady-burning either.

Finally, you state that "section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps" and ask whether amber or any other color "may be used in proximity" since it is not used in combination. We believe you must be referring to section S4.4.1 which states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp or identification lamp, and no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." As we do not know the intended functions of your LED device, I can offer only general comments. Although red is the required color for all rear lighting devices except backup and license plate lamps, amber is permitted as an optional color for rear turn signals: furthermore, amber is generally accepted as indicating the need for caution. Thus, amber is not a lens color whose presence on rear lighting devices would per se impair effectiveness. The use of other colors for lighting devices on the rear of vehicles could lead to confusion, and be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller;

We have under development a new device of a safety related nature for automobiles. Before proceeding further on the development, we are hereby requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Our device mounts in the rear package tray area of the automobile. We are therefore concerned about the specific sections pertaining to the operation and restrictions thereof for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp (CHMSL).

As a means of definition of the areas of concern, I will list the specific operating characteristic of our device and then the section from the Standard for which we device an interpretation.

1. Our device has amber colored LED's, during the application of the service brakes, these LED's are disabled ,allowing a vehicle following to observe only the CHMSL. Hence, although in relative proximity (near the target area of the CHMSL) it is not combined with the CHMSL. Does this operation meet the intent of S4.4.1 concerning equipment combinations.

2. When a vehicle containing our device is viewed from the rear by a following vehicle, the pattern of illuminated LED'a may change, possibly giving the illusion or flashing. We therefore need a definition of flashing as described in section S4.6(c), frequency, length of time between periods of "steady-burning" operation, etc.

3. As previously mentioned the device contains amber LED's, section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps.... since it is not used in combination per our question (1) may amber be used in proximity. If not amber, are there any other colors that may be acceptable.

We would appreciate your attention to this matter and await your response. If necessary we may be reached by phone at (313) 682-2007.

Sincerely,

E. Timothy Pawl, P.E. President

ID: 576intp.etl

Ms. Susan A. Longacre
President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
8401 Corporate Drive, Suite 425
Landover, MD 20785

Dear Ms. Longacre:

This is in response to your letter to this office requesting certain information concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regulation on the subject of "record retention," designated as 49 CFR Part 576. Your original request was addressed to Ms. Heidi Coleman of this office under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). As Ms. Enid Rubenstein of my staff previously explained to you by telephone, we are treating your letter as a request for interpretation rather than a FOIA request because your questions ask the agency to interpret the meaning of certain provisions of the regulation, as well to provide you with copies of documents. I am answering your questions in the order that you presented them; and have also enclosed a copy of the full text of 49 CFR Part 576 for your information.

Question 1. Have there ever been any "letters of interpretation" or requests for interpretation sent to NHTSA related to this part?

We were able to locate five letters in which NHTSA's Chief Counsel has interpreted 49 CFR Part 576. I have enclosed copies of these letters with this response. For your information, NHTSA's interpretations are also available in electronic form in a searchable database located on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/. For future reference, the agency's Technical Information Services office ("TIS") also has copies of all legal interpretations of NHTSA regulations. You can obtain copies of these interpretations from TIS in person at 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5110, Washington, D.C. 20590 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and you may also request them in writing from TIS at the above address.

Question 2: Does this requirement pertain to only records that relate to FMVSS compliance?

The answer is no. The regulation requires retention of records that relate to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety as well as records that relate to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 576.2 states that the purpose of the regulation is to preserve records that are needed "for the proper investigation, and adjudication or other disposition, of possible defects related to motor vehicle safety and instances of nonconformity to the motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations." [Emphasis added.]

Section 576.6 uses the inclusive term "malfunctions that relate to motor vehicle safety," rather than "noncompliance" or "defect related to safety" to describe the subject matter of the records that are covered by the regulation. Section 576.8, in turn, sets forth the types of "malfunctions" referred to in 576.6, and makes clear that these include defects that relate to safety, as well as noncompliances with safety standards:

. . . [M]alfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety include, with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any failure or malfunction beyond normal deterioration in use, or any failure of performance, or any flaw or unintended deviation from design specifications, that could in any reasonably foreseeable manner be a causative factor in, or aggravate, an accident or an injury to a person.

Question 3: The requirement refers to all records relating to "possible defects." Does that mean that all developmental, material specifications, etc. must also be maintained? If not, what records over and above those relating to FMVSS compliance are required to be maintained?

As stated above, in addition to records relating to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, Part 576 requires retention of records relating to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety. See 49 CFR 576.2. However, the regulation does not require a manufacturer to retain the "developmental, material specifications" that you refer to, for either type of malfunction (i.e., safety-related defect or noncompliance).

Neither Part 576 nor the preamble of any of the Federal Register notices surrounding its promulgation mention a requirement to retain documents relating to the design of the vehicle or to material or other specifications. The focus of the regulation is on records that either report or otherwise reflect the presence of a malfunction. Thus, 576.6 includes the following as records that a manufacturer must retain:

communications from vehicle users and memoranda of user complaints; reports and other documents . . . that are related to work performed under, or claims made under, warranties; service reports or similar documents . . . from dealers or manufacturer's field personnel; and any lists, compilations, analyses, or discussions of such malfunctions contained in internal or external correspondence of the manufacturer . . ..

The preamble to NHTSA's first proposal to adopt Part 576 confirms that the focus of the agency's interest in promulgating this regulation was to ensure that manufacturers would preserve records that reflected the existence of malfunctions, and did not extend to records about product development, design, or material specifications:

Typically, the manufacturer is the main recipient of complaints of malfunctions by the vehicle owner. Many reports of malfunctions are processed through channels for the administration of vehicle warranties by manufacturers and their dealers. Manufacturers' field service representatives may also serve as collection points for information of this nature. It is to be expected that manufacturers compile analyses and lists of malfunction reports, with a view toward product improvement, removal of design weaknesses, and of course the remedying of safety-related defects. Since some defects are not revealed as such until months or years after the vehicle's manufacture, a determination by NHTSA of the proper disposition of a possible defect . . . may be seriously hindered if manufacturers do not retain these records.

39 Fed. Reg. 30048 (Aug. 20, 1974).

In practice, manufacturers may retain other types of records that are outside the scope of Part 576. Although NHTSA may, and often does, make use of records such as those relating to design or material specifications when investigating possible safety-related defects or noncompliances, Part 576 does not require a manufacturer to retain them.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning Part 576, you may contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address or at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures (2): Set of 5 Interp Letters; Copy of Part 576
ref:576
d.2/5/98

ID: nht80-4.17

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coded Electronics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether your emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.

From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that both modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current "on" time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.

I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedures under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.

SINCERELY,

FROM: (Illegible Lines)

TO: (Illegible Word)

SUMMARY: (Illegible Lines)

STATUS OF REPLY / REMARKS

DATE ON CORRES.: (Illegible Words)

DATE RECEIVED: (Illegible Words)

NHTSA CONTROL: (Illegible Words)

SUSPENSE DATE: (Illegible Words)

Based on the times stated in the "Product Specification for the Code II," the flash rates and the percent of current "ON" time will meet the requirements of SAE J945 and FMVSS 108 for both modes. For the hazard signal mode the flash rate will be 70 FPM for a normally closed type flashes and the current ON time is 59%. For the emergency distress signal mode, the flash rate will be 71 FPM for a normally open type flashes with an average current ON time of 65%. SAE J945 requires an average of at least three consecutive cycles. If this flashes meets all the other requirements of SAE J945 and J910, and maintains these flash rates, it should qualify.

John (Illegible Word) 9/23/80

MARKETING & MANUFACTURING DIVISION

CODED ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

August 20, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Legal Division N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my recent visit to Washington, I met with Taylor Vincent, Attorney, of N.H.T.S.A. Legal Division. The purpose of that meeting was to introduce an inovation to the Emergency Hazard Signaling System, which my company is presently preparing for promotion and distribution throughout the United States and foreign countries. Mr. Vincent was very receptive to the product and suggested that I submit information to you for your review.

Due to the product's specific nature, the primary function does conform to current D.O.T. Standards, however, the secondary function which provides an additional feature, is not regulated by any D.O.T. Specifications. Enclosed, I have provided the product's discriptions, application, and specification. After reviewing this material, it would be greatly appreciated if you could send to me your interpretation of its acceptability and also the steps necessary for Federal Manditory Legislation.

I would like to thank you for your time; and if you have any questions or would like to discuss any facet of the product, please feel free to call me at (415) 441-2411.

Robert A. Belcher President

ENC.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Coded Electronics Corporation is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a Dual Signal Emergency distress and hazard flasher. The flasher is currently called "CODE II" and refered to from time to time as the product.

The product was developed to utilize the existing 4-Way Hazard Flash system standard on most vehicles in use today. The basic feature that the product provides is that a motorist will now have the option to designate his immediate situation as to a "warning," i.e. stopped to read a map, or "stranded/distressed." i.e. out of gas, or illness of some sort.

The distinction between the Hazard signal (primary function) and the Distress signal (secondary function) is simply a variation in the distress mode. Basically the Distress signal is a modification of the International Distress Signal, the "S.O.S." and is described in the specifications, i.e. short flash, long flash, short flash . . .

The product poses the ability to increase auto safety by clearly defining the existing situation of a stopped vehicle with a maximum of visual via the 4-way lights. It also provides the physically handicapped motorist the ability to designate his situation without having to leave his vehicle, and with a minimum of physical effort.

Our recent efforts have us in contact with California Law Enforcement Agencies which are willing to introduce and acknowledge the additional emergency signal provided by the product along with the hazard signal. Also, we are currently in final negotiations with a major National Auto Accessories Distributor and project introduction to the marketplace within the next few months.

PRODUCT APPLICATION

CODE II, Emergency Distress and Hazard Signal Flasher, is applicable to most vehicles with a standard 4-Way Hazard Signal Flash System.

CODE II installs simply by removing the existing Hazard Flasher, placing the CODE II Flasher in the place of the standard flasher and attaching the Signal selection switch provided with the flasher.

CODE II is a state-of-the-art all electronic flasher designed to meet all existing regulations and to exceed them in reliability and dependability.

Simply, CODE II requires no alternation of the electrical system and utilizes the Hazard Flashing Signal as the primary function along with the optional Distress Signal as the secondary function.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

CODE II

Dual Signal Emergency Distress & Hazard Flasher

HAZARD SIGNAL FLASHER (Primary Function Mode)

A = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.36

B = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.5

Hazard Signal Flash is within D.O.T. Standards. CODE II also meets and exceeds D.O.T. specifications for reliability.

EMERGENCY DISTRESS SIGNAL FLASHER MODE (Secondary Function)

C = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.30

D1 = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.36

D2 = ON Time in seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.92

(Graphics omitted) NOTE: All on and off duration times can vary +/- 10% at most, and can be programmed for any sequence of flashes or any duration of flashes due to its sophisticated electronic design.

ID: nht79-1.14

DATE: 10/04/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 4, 1979

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Rt. 7 - P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This in reply to your letter of August 23, 1979, to the former Chief Counsel Joseph J. Levin, Jr. You have asked whether a double-faced turn signal front side marker lamp "meets the intent" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and you enclosed a sample of the lamp for our inspection.

You have quoted paragraph 3.4 of SAE Standard J588e, September 1970, which states "the flashing signal from a double faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles." It is not possible to make a definitive statement about your lamp without actually subjecting it to a representative external light source such as the headlamps of a vehicle in proximity to the vehicle to which the lamp is mounted, but its design appears adequate to meet the intent of paragraph 3.4. Any changes in design of the lenses or baffling from that of the sample lamp submitted, however, might transmit more light from external sources and may not meet paragraph 3.4.

We would also like to observe that since the side marker signal uses the front and rear lenses of the turn signal in a single compartment a high intensity ratio of turn signal to side marker signal will be needed if the steady burning light from the side marker lamp is not to obscure the darker portion of the turn signal lamp.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATlON 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590

September 24, 1979

Dear Mr. Vinson

Request for Interpretation

In the case of a motorcycle headlamp, Table III of FMVSS 108 cites SAE J584, which in turn specifies that for photometric tests, the "bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the test."

Where the material bulb is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.1/Add.36, that is to say in compliance with Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the general European governments, is the rated voltage required by SAE J584 the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37?

Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

E/ECE/324 ) E/ECE/TRANS/505 )Rev.1/Add.36 Regulation No. 37 Annex 1 page 21/22

CATEGORY H4 Sheet H4/2

Characteristics

Lamps of normal production Standard lamps

*Insert chart here

1/ Where a yellow outer bulb is used, "m" and "n" denote the maximum dimensions of this bulb; where there is no outer bulb "m" denotes the maximum length of the lamp.

2/ It must be possible to insert the lamp into a cylinder of diameter "s" concentric with the reference axis and limited at one end by a plane parallel to and 20 mm distant from the reference plane and at the other end by a hemisphere of radius S/2.

3/ The obscuration must extend at least as far as the cylindrical part of the bulb. It must also overlap the internal shield when the latter is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the reference axis. The effect sought by obscuration may also be achieved by other means.

4/ The values indicated in the left-hand column relate to the driving beam. Those indicated in the right-hand column relate to the passing beam.

August 23, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

We are considering certain revisions to our line of front double-faced pedestal mount turn signal lamps. Before making any commitment to our customers or before making any tool changes, we need your opinion as to whether the lamp meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

In the past, double-faced turn signal lamps having side marker devices have normally been manufactured with two bulbs -- a 1156 or 32 candle power bulb functioning as the turn signal system, and a 2 or 3 candle power bulb functioning as the side marker device. In this case, having an yellow lens to the front and a red lens to the rear. Our proposed change is to use one 1157 bulb, dual function 32 - 3 candle power filaments where the 32 candle power filament is used as the turn signal function and the 3 candle power is used as the side marker device. In order to do this, a yellow lens to the front, yellow lens to the rear is required and also the baffling inside of the double-faced lamp has to be reduced in order to meet the side marker requirements. With this particular design, all three lenses -- the lens to the front, to the rear and to the side -- function as part of the side marker device.

The question that we have is the intent of rulemaking covering turn signal lamps. The turn signal lamp, SA J588e, last revised September, 1970, includes Item 3.4 which states, "The flashing signal from a double-faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles."

With the baffling area reduced inside of the lamp as indicated by the sample, and since the requirements are very subjective, we need an opinion as to whether the lamp does or does not meet the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Would you please review the sample and give us your opinion as soon as possible.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vise President, Engineering

CJN/aj