ID: 571-201 -- security partitions -- Crowell -- 12-005534

ID: nht87-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William R. Pape, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by F ederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to which you have that we reply.

Your first question is "May one word be introduced on the brake light?" Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to th e lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the l amp must meet specified candela maxima at 13 discrete test points.

Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whether it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather na rrowly defined, and falls within the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if it is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribe d limits. In our opinion, the "soft pink" or "hot pink" that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.

Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing a lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are"hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing." Under the assumption that your lamp would not com ply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep tember 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold or used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

8152 Lodoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 22, 1987

Mr. Taylor Vincent NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence to Mr. George E. Walton, director, Safety Equipment Services, and a copy of his response, suggesting direct communication with you.

Any assistance you can give with questions 1, 2, and 3 will be greatly appreciated.

Most Gratefully Yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:BJ

Encs.

August 14, 1987

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Pape:

Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1987 in which you have requested information regarding stop lamps on motor vehicles.

The standard for required lighting on motor vehicles is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. This standard references a number of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standards which to comply with the standard.

For equipment covered by a federal standard, the states are preempted from having any other standard and must, in fact, adopt the very same standard as the federal standard.

For equipment not covered by a federal standard, the states are at liberty individually to adopt any standard they decide to recognize.

The center high mounted stop lamp is a federally regulated lamp.

The FMVSS 108 references SAE J575 for tests and specifically SAE J578d for testing the color. The specific color is shown on the chromaticity diagrams in the standard.

Since your concern is about equipment which is federally regulated, I suggest that the federal agency that administrates the standard for this equipment be contacted directly as follows:

Mr. Taylor Vincent - NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-2992

We hope the above information helps you.

Sincerely yours,

George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services

8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 6, 1987

Mr. George Walton AAMVA, Suite 910 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Walton:

As a graduate of the Duke School of Engineering and a certified instructor of Lazanov Learning Method (also known as Superlearning), I am writing to you in the interests of public safety.

The third brake light is now mandatory for American motorized vehicles dating from 1986. I have purchased a brake light to be installed on my 1982 Granada station wagon and have considered a modification which I believe to be a decided improvement. Upon asking local automotive dealers about specific regulations, I was directed to The Book of States in the public library, which lists all safety agencies of the individual United States. To determine the precise regulations, nationally, I sent letters to t he individual state agencies, and the replies indicate that there is not a general regulation covering all states, and many agencies have recommended that I correspond directly to you.

The color red is presently used for all brake lights and for traffic signal lights to indicate "stop". I, personally, find the color red, when suddenly flashed on by a car in front of me in moving traffic, to be annoying and irritating. Psychological res earch has indicated that red induces a response of anger. Red is the color of a matador's cape which enrages a bull to charge into a matador's sword. Red is associated with "fire engine red" with a loud siren with a Pavlov's bell effect of emergency, a f light of fight response and a surge of adrenaline and jangled nerves. In other words, this red light, at eye level, in traffic, contributes to unnecessary and unwanted stress, which Americans are notorious for bringing on themselves in profusion.

Thus, it is desirable to consider what may be done for more calming effects. The Lazanov system for Learning and remembering uses words and phrases which have been tested and proven to have specific physical and key word, or sometimes called a "trigger" word for an immediate calming response is the word "peace." This causes an instantaneous effect of calming both mind and body. Also, by softening the hue of bright red to a "hot pink" or even a soft pink, the same conditioned color response to signal "stop" is retained, but with much less stress and unnecessary tension. It is t he conviction of this writer that these simple alterations will reduce accidents, prevent loss of life and limb, and aid drivers to reach their destinations without having their mental, emotional, and physical energies drained. Research shows that we do everything better when in a relaxed and comfortable state, including responding to emergencies. We think more clearly and with enhanced intuition. Fewer accidents will keep insurance rates down and thereby be beneficial to the overall economy.

The intent of the regulations in regard to brake lights is obviously for public safety, and it is clear that the suggestions cited here are intended to increase public safety. In regard to brake lights, I would like to ask you what one may do and what on e may not do.

1. May one word be introduced on the brake light? This is in no way subliminal persuasion or hypnosis. this should not be confusing when one considers that our vehicles are now adorned with make and dealer names, six letter and/or digit license tags, al l kinds of advertising frequently with seven digit telephone numbers, and bumper stickers and decals. The human brain is capable of millions of on and off switches per second, so one word on a brake light will not complicate matters.

2. Is the color red a requirement by law, nationally, for all brake lights? May other colors be substituted? And may the color red be adjusted to a lighter hue?

3. Should one consider marketing a brake light with the above mentioned enhanced safety features; are there any hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Most gratefully yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:bj

ID: nht81-1.34

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1980, to the Office of Chief Counsel presenting a problem that has occurred recently with the importation of retreadable casings.

You noted that for the last 12 years this agency has allowed the importation of 150,000 to 200,000 truck casings annually but, "suddenly and without notice" in September 1980, prohibited importation of casings not labelled with the letter DOT and the manufacturer's identification symbol which are required by Standard No. 119. You also pointed out that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering retreading of truck tires but that after retreading "they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49." Finally, you have indicated that there is a demand for the casings "by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators."

As I am sure you realize, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation of motor vehicles and equipment that were not manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether those vehicles or equipment are new or used. We have no knowledge of the importation of noncomplying used truck tires without bond. We can only act on those importations reported by the Customs Service.

Standard No. 119 is the applicable standard covering truck tires, and one of its requirements is that truck tires bear the label DOT. The standard, however, has only been in effect since March 1, 1975 (the last 6 years). The prohibition on the importation of nonconforming tires manufactured after the effective date of Standard No. 119 may well not have been much of an issue until recently because sufficient numbers of used tires manufactured before the effective date were available for importation. Now that pre-March 1, 1975 tires are becoming progressively scarcer, importers are presumably turning increasingly to post-March 1975 tires.

Your comment that after retreading the tires comply with Part 574 is of interest. Under S574.5, "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable . . ." We have advised that the DOT symbol be buffed off truck tire casings before retreading to avoid confusion on the part of interested parties that the tire might meet some nonexistent safety standard.

Importers of truck tire casings that do not bear the symbol "DOT" have two options for release of conformity bond. They may provide a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the applicable standard. Alternatively, they may provide a verifiable serial numbering system from the original manufacturer to demonstrate that the tires were manufactured prior to the applicable standard.

In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 12, 1981, you asked whether importers could test the casings after entry to verify conformance as a means of satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 1280(b)(1)(iii). The answer is a qualified yes. Certainly NHTSA would accept meaningful test data with respect to the tire tested. The problem lies in extrapolating these data to other tires of the same manufacturer. As you know, most tire manufacturers as part of their quality control program test tires at random to ensure continuing compliance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119. Thus, an importer's test data might be acceptable to NHTSA with respect to similar tires produced nearly contemporaneously with those tested, but not acceptable with respect to tires produced farther away in time. If your members chose to pursue this method of demonstrating conformance, each case would be treated on an ad hoc basis.

One further possibility is suggested by your letter if the tires do not comply with Standard No. 119. There is an implication that the primary use of these tires is in off-road applications, "gravel, coal, and mining truck operations." If the importers would be willing to submit an affidavit that the tires, after retreading, will be sold to those purchasers that will use them on private property and not the public roads, then we would consider admission on such basis. Where similar affidavits have been previously submitted, we might seek information from the affiant regarding the actual use of the tires covered by those prior affidavits.

If further questions are raised, I would be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219

Gentlemen:

Subject: Imported Retreadable Casings

Re: Title 19 Customs Duties, Chapter 1, U. S. Customs Service, 12.80

Worn casings suitable only for retreading and use on vehicles other than passenger cars have been imported by retreaders and importers who resell them for approximately fifteen years.

These casings have been cleared by customs during this period of time without question or delay. The casings are predominantly of Japanese manufacture and are eminently suitable for retreading. The casings are 10.00-20 bias and radial ply. All are extra ply. The bias ply are load range G (14 ply rating) and the radial ply are load range H (16 ply rating) manufactured for use, when new, on Japanese busses. The bus companies remove the worn tires and re-sell them. The tires are manufactured by companies such as Bridgestone, Yokohama, Sumitomo, Toyo and Ohtsu.

Worn casings, because they are load range G and H, are not available in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet the demand by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators, that operate under severe conditions.

The predominant types of worn tires of U.S. manufacture available to such operators are load range F (12 ply rating) for bias ply and load range G (14 ply rating) for radial ply.

Imported worn casings have been retreaded for the past fifteen years and have performed to the satisfaction of the user. Had they not done so, they would no longer have been accepted. The relationship between retreader and customer is such that the retreader must give a verbal or written warranty that his product, the retreaded casing, will give satisfactory service and be free from defects in workmanship and material for the life of the retreaded casing, which is a guarantee equal to or better than that offered by new tire manufacturers in the United States.

The imported casings do not, in general, indicate compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 by the letters DOT and manufacturer's mark. There is not a standard governing the retreading of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. FMVSS 117 applies only to retreaded pneumatic tires for passenger cars. Standard 119 regulates only new tires. Therefore, the 13,800,000 truck retreads produced each year might or might not be manufactured on a casing that meets the standard 119, even though these retreads can and do meet the test requirements of MVSS 119. Additional proof is in their performance on the highway. Further, tests conducted under the auspices of the American Retreaders Association by Dr. S. K. Clark of the University of Michigan proved that the strength of a worn truck tire is the same as a comparable new tire.

As of September 1980, the DOT, NHTSA suddenly and without notice initiated activity under title 19, Customs Duties, Chapter 1, United States Customs Office, Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1980, Par. 12.80 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This activity was specifically directed against imported truck casings, even though the customs service had been permitting entry without restrictions since the promulgation of this standard, January 1, 1968. The logical question would be why wait over twelve years to direct its application to imported worn casings?

During this period of time, a sorely needed source of retreadable truck casings has been developed. The economics are there. A truck operator can purchase a retreaded casing for one-third to one-half the price of a new tire and will use retreads whenever possible. The economics justify it. The imported casings, although they are motor vehicle equipment, are not suitable for application to motor vehicles until they are re-manufactured through retreading, at which time they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49. The manufacturers mark appears on the retreaded casing.

We respectfully request that you rescind this sudden requirement, continuing to allow importation of worn truck casings in the same manner as you have in the past twelve years. In lieu of this, you should allow at least 180 days for the importers to make whatever arrangements will be necessary to bring imported casings into compliance.

At this point in time, we estimate there are approximately 150,000 to 200,000 worn truck casings imported annually. Compare this to the 13,800,000 total and imports are a small percentage. To the small businessman who is a retreader who buys 200-300 of these casings, it is an important item for him and his customers.

We look forward to your approval of our request.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: nht89-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1989

FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Corporate Attorney, Cosco

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Councel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Cosco Dream Ride-Convertible Infant Restraint/Car Bed

ATTACHMT: Attached to Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to J.P. Reynolds (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

On October 6, 1989, we sent a prototype of the Dream Ride-Convertible infant restraint/car bed to George Chiang with Cosco's proposed labels and instruction sheet. We requested that NHTSA review the product and the written material regarding compliance with FMVSS 213 and advise us of any suggestions or recommendations.

In a later conversation with Richard Jasinski, it was suggested that Cosco should submit its analysis of the FMVSS 213 and how it applies to this product when used in the car bed position. Following are our comments in this regard. These comments do no t include any mention of the product as used in the rear-facing infant position, as such use requires no clarification in terms of compliance with the standard.

S4. Definitions. The following three definitions appear to be the most relevant concerning the car bed.

"Car bed" means a child restraint system, designed to restrain or position a child in the supine, or prone position, on a continuous flat surface.

The Dream Ride meets this definition, as shown in the enclosed copies of the labels and instruction sheet. Based upon our analysis, testing and input from our outside consultants, we have determined that the most favorable position for the car bed is th e right rear seat. The car bed is designed so that it can only be installed in that seating location with the child's head toward the center of the vehicle.

"Contactable surface" means any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is te sted in accordance with S6.1.

When tested in accordance with S6.1, the "contactable surface" of the Dream Ride is that side of the restraint to the infants left when the infant is properly positioned face-up in the unit.

"Torso" means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

This definition refers to traditional forward-facing or rear-facing restraints. Cosco and its outside consultants have concluded that the "torso" of the test dummy applicable to the traditional rear-facing restraint is also applicable to the Dream Ride c ar bed, and the harness

system of the Dream Ride and the dynamic test criteria for the Dream Ride in the car bed position rely on this definition of "torso" which is generally from the crotch to the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

S5.1.1 Child-restraint system integrity. The Dream Ride complies with sub-part (a) and (b) as the Dream Ride exhibits no separation and remains in the initial adjustment position when tested in accordance with S6.1.

S5.1.2. Injury criteria, is not applicable, as the Dream Ride is recommended for use by children weighing 17 pounds or less.

S5.1.3.3 Occupant excursion-car beds. "In the case of car beds, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso shall be retained within the confines of the car bed."

Cosco interpreted the phrase "confines of the car bed" to mean the horizontal plane formed by the top edge of the entire shell of the Dream Ride, when installed in conformance with Cosco's instructions. When tested in accordance with S6.1, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso are retained within this horizontal plane.

S5.2.3.2 Head impact protection. All surfaces which are contactable by the test dummy in any direction are covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material with the required characteristics.

S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. The Dream Ride complies with the protrusion limitations of this section.

S5.3 Installation.

S5.3.1 The Dream Ride car bed complies with the attachment limitations. The vehicle belt is intended to be threaded through two car bed belt loops when installed in accordance with Cosco's labels and instructions.

S5.3.3 Car beds. "Each car bed shall be designed to be installed on a vehicle seat so that the car beds longitudinal axis is perpendicular to a vertical longitudinal plane through the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

The Dream Ride car bed complies with this requirement, as shown on the enclosed labels and instruction sheet.

S5.4 Belts, belt buckle, and belt webbing. The Dream Ride complies with each of the requirements of this section.

S5.5 Labeling. The enclosed labels for the Dream Ride reflect an exhaustive effort on the part of Cosco to not only meet the specific requirements of this section, but to also impart to the consumer the information necessary to properly use this child-r estraint as a car bed and a conventional, rear-facing infant restraint.

The large label contains the information required in S5.5.2 (a) through (f). The warning language of S5.5.2 (g) is found on both labels.

The required language of of S5.5.2 (h) is identified as statement # 2 on

the large label.

The language required by S5.5.2 (k), concerning use in the rear-facing position, required certain modification. In order not to confuse the consumer, Cosco determined that it was necessary to expand on the required language of this section, as shown on the section denoted as number 3 on the large label, which states as follows:

Place this infant restraint in a rear-facing position when using it in the vehicle as a car seat. This infant restraint must face sideways when used as a car bed; see label inside shell.

Throughout the instruction sheet and labels, Cosco has elected to refer to the two positions that this restraint may be used in as the car seat position (traditional rear-facing position) and the car bed position. Cosco believes that this provides the cl earest guidelines to the consumer concerning the proper use of the restraint in each position.

S5.5.2 (1) requires installation diagrams showing the child restraint in the right-front and center-rear seating positions. For the traditional rear-facing restraint, Cosco has provided these diagrams on the large label. Cosco's research and testing of the child-restraint in the car bed position resulted in the determination that the center-rear seating positions is not recommended for the car bed position and may be potentially unsafe. In testing the performance of the car bed in a simu- lated side- impact on the drivers side of a vehicle, it was determined that a car bed, when properly installed in the center seating position may move in the direction of the impact to the extent that the "head" of the car bed (that area of the car bed where the chi ld's head would be positioned) may strike the interior of the left-rear door or body panel of many newer vehicles with small rear seats. While Cosco has engineered the Dream Ride to provide the best possible protection for the child from this type of im pact by the use of energy absorbing foam and by introducing a flexible grid at the head of the shell, intrusion from a severe side-impact could result in serious head and neck injuries to infants if the car bed was installed in the center seating positio n. Cosco has thus warned through-out its labeling and instructions that the car bed should only be installed in the right-rear seat, or the right-front seat. Cosco and its consultants believe that this provides the best possible protection for the crit ical head and neck area of an infant.

The large label contains the required language of S5.5.2 (m).

S5.6 Printed instructions for proper use. Cosco complies with each of the applicable sub parts of this section, specifically S5.6.1.4, which requires that instructions for each car bed shall explain that the car bed should be positioned in such a way th at the child's head is near the center of the vehicle. The above explanation concerning the installation diagrams is applicable to Cosco's instructions that the car bed be installed only in the right-rear and right-front seating positions.

The specific language concerning the installation of the car bed so that the baby's head is toward the center of the vehicle is found on page 5 of the instruction sheets under the warning section at the top, paragraph number two.

Cosco has sled-tested the Dream Ride in the car bed position not only as required in S6.1, but also to simulate side-impacts and various misuse configurations. The reports and films of these tests are available for your review upon request.

Cosco looks forward to your comments regarding the Dream Ride.

(Attached are copies of Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted).)

ID: 24739.drn

Ms. Rhonda Lordet
4130 Commonwealth Avenue
Culver City, CA 90232

Dear Ms. Lordet:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that "there are no standards or regulations concerning hubcaps or wheel covers." You are correct in your understanding that there is no longer a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) regulating hubcaps or wheel covers.

In the past, FMVSS No. 211 (Standard No. 211), Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, (49 CFR Section 571.211) precluded certain wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps from having "winged projections." We were concerned that the winged projections could catch on clothing or strike legs or other body parts, posing a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. Standard No. 211 was rescinded in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 6, 1996, (61 FR 20172).The final rule took effect on June 5, 1996.

However, a hubcap or wheel cover designed to be used on motor vehicles is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," and is subject the recall and remedy provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act.If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.(This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a device is installed on or in a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)I have enclosed an information sheet that describes these and other responsibilities.

I hope this information is helpful.If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:#211
d.9/24/02

ID: 77-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Clarence D. Long - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 9, 1977, to the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of Mr. Edward L. Armstrong, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, expressing his concern that new passenger car manufacturers will discontinue supplying spare tires, has been referred to this office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, for additional consideration and reply.

We believe that Mr. Armstrong's concern deals with the recently approved "temporary use" spare tire that will be manufactured and used with some of the new 1978 model automobiles. The use of a temporary use spare tire is not a new concept. These tires have been used with compact sport cars, such as Firebird and Camaro, since 1967. The further development of these spare tires has been fostered by the desire of the U.S. automobile manufacturers to produce small, lightweight cars in furtherance of the national energy conservation program. I am sure that you have noticed the new 1977 models by some domestic automobile manufacturers are, in fact, smaller. Of course, the development of these smaller, lightweight, energy-efficient automobiles has resulted in a substantial reduction in usable car trunk space, and therefore, providing a second reason to develop a spare tire which takes less storage space than a conventional tire.

Since this spare tire is designed for use on the nation's highways, it must conform to the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, for strength, endurance and high speed performance. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of this standard.

ID: nht87-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jean-Paul Turgeon -- Security and Legality Manager, Prevost Car Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jean-Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Inc Sainte-Claire, Quebec Canada

In your letter of November 7, 1986, to the Administrator, you have asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires intermediate Bide marker lamps to be mounted at approximately the same level as the front and rear marker lamps.

No. The requirement that they be located at or near the midpoint between front and rear side marker lamp refers to the horizontal distance between the front and rear lamps, and the intermediate lamps are subject only to the requirement that they not be m ounted less than 15 inches above the road surface.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S. 400, 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C.

Attention: Diane K. Steed, Administrator

Re: F.M.V.S.S. 571.S.108 Intermediate Side Markers (Table 2)

Dear Mrs. Steed:

We are looking for an interpretation of 5.108 regulation as follows:

It is specified on 5.108.20, Table 2, that the intermediate side marker be located at or near the mid point between the front and rear side marker lamps.

Our question is: Does that mean that the intermediate side marker must be approximately , the same level as the front and rear marker lamps, i.e. on the same level line?

Yours truly,

Jean-Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager

ID: nht75-3.6

DATE: 11/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1975, in which you request an interpretation of Standard No. 301 as it applies to a vehicle with an electric fuel pump that operates only when the ignition switch is in the "ON" position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range.

You indicate in your letter that, in effect, the fuel pump can only operate when the vehicle's engine is running. Paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301 requires that an electrically driven fuel pump be operating at the time of the crash tests if the pump "normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated." It appears from your letter that activation of the electrical system by switching the ignition to "ON" will not by itself activate the fuel pump. As a result, the pump need not be operating at the time of the crash tests.

SINCERELY,

October 14, 1975

Richard Dyson NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Department of Transportation

This is to request your official interpretation as to the applicability of S7.1.3 of F.M.V.S.S. 301 to the system described below.

The fuel pump is electrically driven but operates only when the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range. The engine must be running in order to produce this condition.

Your earliest response in this matter would be appreciated.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities

ID: Tanabe.1

Kenji Tanabe, Director
Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc. ,
Regulatory Affairs and Certification
2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1109
Arlington, VA22201




Dear Mr. Tanabe:

This responds to your August 30, 2005, letter in which you seek clarification regarding any requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, that would be applicable to a removable wind deflector for use on convertible vehicles. Specifically, you asked whether the thin, tubular frame of the folding deflector would constitute a "pillar" when it is in the raised position. You also sought to confirm that the front seat backs would not need to be tested with the vertical surface of the wind deflector in the "up" position, because rear seat occupancy is not possible when the device is installed. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the requirements of our regulations, as they relate to your product.

In your letter, you stated that the wind deflector (as depicted in the attached diagrams) would be an original equipment option on certain convertible vehicle models. Its purpose is to reduce wind buffeting on the front seat occupants, thereby improving comfort and reducing noise. Specifically, you stated that the wind deflector is comprised of a "two-piece tubular frame with a pliable mesh screen that creates both a vertical, lateral surface behind the head restraints of the two front seats and a horizontal surface that spans the opening of the two rear seating positions". Your letter also stated that the movable tubular frame does not support the roof or any other structure of the vehicle, and the thin-wall frame is not designed to act as a roll-bar. According to your letter, the horizontal surface of the frame snaps into the rear occupant compartment side interior trim, and from there, the vertical surface can pivot to a vertical position to provide the wind screen. You also stated that the frame is mounted inboard of the windows and that it is not adjacent to or supporting any glazing. Once installed, the wind deflector prevents use of the rear occupant seating area. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. One purpose of that standard, of particular relevance here, is to set energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, in order to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash (see S5.2, Seat Backs).

Furthermore, the standard establishes other relevant requirements under S6, Requirements for upper interior components, although a vehicle need not meet those requirements for "[a]ny target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism" (see S6.3(a)). "Convertible roof frame" is defined in S3 as "the frame of a convertible roof". "Convertible roof linkage mechanism" is defined in S3 as "any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame". The terms "pillar" and "roll-bar" are defined under S3 as follows:

Pillar means any structure, excluding glazing and the vertical portion of door window frames, but including accompanying moldings, attached components such as safety belt anchorages and coat hooks, which:

(1) Supports either a roof or any other structure (such as a roll-bar) that is above the drivers head, or

(2) Is located along the side edge of a window.

Roll-bar means a fixed overhead structural member, including its vertical support structure, that extends from the left to the right side of the passenger compartment of any open body vehicles and convertibles. It does not include a header.

Based upon the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that your removable wind deflector would not be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 201. We agree that the wind deflector in question would not be considered a roll-bar, because it is not a fixed overhead structural member, but is instead readily detachable. We also agree that it is not a pillar, in that it provides no structural support and is not located along the side edge of a window.

Our opinion is contingent upon the fact that the device, when installed, precludes rear seat occupancy. If rear seat occupancy were possible with the wind deflector installed, we would need to determine whether the device would be considered part of the seat back for the purposes of S5.2, because its location would cause concern if a rear seat occupant made contact with your product in the event of a crash.

We note further that if the wind deflector were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. For example, the deflector could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view).

If you need further assistance, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.11/5/05

ID: nht76-2.48

DATE: 02/26/76

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

TO: Peterbilt Motors Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1976, asking whether it would violate Standard No. 108 to wire truck tractors to permit "the customers to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated."

S4.5.3 of Standard No. 108 which requires the tail lamps to be illuminated when the headlamps are activated applies only to single motor vehicles and not combinations thereof. Therefore we confirm your understanding that the wiring circuitry you propose to install will not violate Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

February 6, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- U. S. Department of Transportation

Reference: FMVSS-108, Section 4.5.3

Gentlemen:

Peterbilt Motors Company has been requested to construct a fleet of truck tractors. These tractors will, of course, comply with the above referenced regulation, including the referenced sub-section regarding tail lamp operation.

However, we have been further requested to provide electrical wiring and circuitry on the tractors to the tractor cabs which will permit the customer to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated.

Through telephone contact with your office, we were informed that our providing such circuitry would not be in violation of the referenced regulation.

Therefore, by this letter we wish to confirm your telephone remarks and to state our intention that, unless otherwise notified, we will provide the circuitry requested by this customer.

Sincerely,

Arlen E. Riggs -- Legal Manager

cc: K.R. Brownstein - Corporate Legal