ID: 1985-01.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROGER HAGIE -- MANAGER, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/84 FROM ROGER HAGIE TO NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108; OCC 1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1984, asking for an.. interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to motorcycle headlighting systems.

Referencing our letter of July 24, 1984, to Koito in which we confirmed that a motorcycle could be equipped with two headlamps, side by side, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584, you have asked "Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?"

SAE J584 states in pertinent part that "The beam or beams from a single lamp shall meet the candle power specifications listed in" Table 1. This table established a maximum of 75,000 candela "anywhere" for a single lamp. This means that the limit applies to each lamp individually under the Koito interpretation.

You have further stated that Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, each capable of independent aim installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. You have asked if such a design is acceptable for a motor-cycle, and whether both reflectors would have to be independently aimable or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" (see "At-Focus Tests"). However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-02.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Kent Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 26, 1985

Mr. Wm. Smith Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

I would like a written confirmation pertaining to the D.O.T. Salt Spray procedure. It is my understanding that this procedure calls out 24 hour salt spray vs. 48 hour (in reference to a meeting with Mr. Frank Pepe, United States Testing Company).

Any information pertaining to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Kent R. Cox Compliance Administrator

cc: N. R. Zimmerman

Mr. Kent Cox Allied Automotive Bendix Safety Restraint Division 353 Cass Avenue Mount Clemens, MI 48043

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter of February 26, 1985, concerning the corrosion resistance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies for safety belt attachment hardware. You asked whether the standard uses a 24 hour salt spray test or a 40 hour salt spray test. As explained below, the length of the test depends on what type of safety belt attachment hardware is being tested.

Section S5.2(a) of the standard sets out the test procedures for the corrosion resistance requirements for attachment hardware. The test procedure provides that if the attachment hardware is used at or near the floor of a vehicle, it shall be tested for a 50 hour period, consisting of two 24 hour exposures to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period following each exposure. If the hardware is not used at or near the floor of a vehicle, then it is subjected to a 25 hour test, consisting of one period of 24 hours exposure to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 28, 1985 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp/ You reference an agency letter of July 30, 1980, to Volkswagen of America in which the Chief Counsel concluded that placement of the stop lamps and taillamps on the deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance requiring notification and remedy. You have asked, in essence, how this related to Standard No. 108's present allowance of a center high-mounted stop lamp mounted on a vehicle's decklid, hatch, or tailgate. The assumption underlying the agency's 1980 letter was that a defect could exist if all a vehicle's stop lamps and taillamps were mounted on the decklid, where their signals could be unobserved or obscured if the lid were in any position other than closed. The center high-mount stop lamp, on the other hand, while an item of required equipment, is nevertheless a supplementary stop lamp. Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps remaining on the body. You have asked that we also discuss the implications of a stop lamp and taillamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid. Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed. However, in order to obviate any possibility of the existence of a safety-related defect, we recommend that the portion of the lamp that is mounted on the body itself comply with the minimum requirements of Standard No. 108 for a single compartment stop lamp or taillamp. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Original Signed by Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T.P. BAILEY -- LEGISLATION ENGINEER, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-10-88, TO NHTSA, FROM T. BAILEY - INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN, FMVSS 104 WINDSHIELD WIPING & WASHING SYSTEMS

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 10, 1988, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard NO. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR @571.104). More specifically, you asked two questions about the requirements set forth in section S4.1.2, Wiped area, of Standard No. 104.

You first asked whether section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 applies only to passenger cars. The answer to this question is yes. Section S4.1.2 reads as follows: "When tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield shall . . ." (emphasis added). The underlined language explicitly limits the requirements to passenger car windshields. Hence, the windshields on other vehicle types are not subject to the requirements of S4.1.2.

Your second question involved the dimensions of "Area A" used to determine whether a car complies with the wiped area requirements in section S4.1.2. Section S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 specifies that the dimensions for "Area A" are established as shown in SAE Recommended Practice J903a, may 1966, and specifies that at least 80 percent of "Area A" must be wiped. Following the procedures set forth in the SAE Recommended Practice, you noted that "Area A" on a hypothetical vehicle would extend to the day light opening area on one side of the windshield and extend beyond the daylight opening area on the other side of the windshield. When calculating the percentage of Area A that is wiped, your letter sets forth four different possible dimensions for Area A and asks which is used to determine whether the vehicle wipes at least 80 percent of Area A. Again section S4.1.2 explicitly answers this question. That section specifies that each passenger car windshield shall wipe 80 percent of Area A that "is wit hin the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 1 inch from the daylight opening."

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

ID: nht76-1.18

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your May 14, 1976, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes the designation "NCRN" as identifying Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. on all brake hose and brake hose assemblies manufactured by Nichirin, regardless of whether these components are intended for use in hydraulic, air, or vacuum brake systems.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals of motor vehicle equipment prior to sale. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, certification of compliance with applicable safety standards is performed by the manufacturer. Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his brake hose and assemblies comply; it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in assuring himself that his certification is neither false nor misleading.

SINCERELY,

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

May 14, 1976

ATTENTION: Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

According to your letter on the 7th of Feb. in 1975, I understood that our designation "NCRN" had been entered in Office of Standards Enforcement.

I want to ask your advice for following point. May I interpreted it that designation "NCRN" is able to apply to all head that is written in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74?

Namely these are S5 Hydraulic Brake Hose, S7 Air Brake Hose, S9 Vacuum Brake Hose. Now, we apply to the Hydraulic Brake Hose. In the future We Want to apply to the Air Brake Hose and Vacuum Brake Hose.

Of course we think it is necessary that we complete regular process (AAMVA etc.) after test of TEST Laboratory in U.S.A. Will you please give me your advice that is necessary for me?

Etsuo Yamazoe Factory Manager

ID: nht76-1.8

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pacet International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 15, 1976, question whether Arcoflex windshield wiper blades must be certified as being in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they may be sold as aftermarket equipment through vehicle distributors' dealer parts programs.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, requires vehicles to be equipped with a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specified performance requirements. It is up to vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle they produce conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 104, in accordance with the certification procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

Standard No. 104 is not an equipment standard, however, and is not applicable to wiper blades sold in the aftermarket. Therefore, there is no requirement that Arcoflex windshield wiper blades be certified, so long as they are not installed on vehicles as part of the wiping system prior to the first sale of the vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PACET INTERNATIONAL

The Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Gentlemen

This Company imports Arcoflex windshield wiper blades from Italy and sells them through the import aftermarket throughout the US. It is my understanding that your Department has no interest in this activity.

Recently, however, we have endeavored to sell our product to the import car manufacturers' US distributors for marketing through their dealer parts programs. The representatives of some of these companies have expressed the concern that, since they are wholly owned by the car manufacturers, your Department may wish for our product to be certified, even though it will not be used as original equipment on their cars.

Please be kind enough to clarify, therefore, whether or not Arcoflex wiper blades need to be certified by your Department before they may be sold through import car distributors' dealer parts programs.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, since important sales decisions depend upon your reply.

Yours very truly,

Peter W Mole

ID: nht76-2.37

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: J. WOMACK FOR F. A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Nims Sportsman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of June 23, 1976, with Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the preemptive effect of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with respect to moped turn signals.

The Federal standards are issued pursuant to Title 15, United States Code, Section 1392(a). Judging that a multiplicity of State and Federal vehicle safety standards would constitute a burden on interstate commerce, Congress also enacted Section 1392(d), which prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect a vehicle safety standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of vehicle performance. For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains requirements for motorcycle headlamp performance. Therefore, if a State has a standard on motorcycle headlamp performance it must be identical to the Federal one, and may not impose either greater or lesser requirements. On the other hand, there is no Federal standard for fog lamps, and a State may set whatever requirements it deems appropriate for fog lamps.

How does preemption apply to moped turn signals? Under the Federal standards, a moped is categorized as a "motorcycle" since it is "a motor vehicle . . . having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3(b)). For some purposes a moped is considered a "motor-driven cycle" which is "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." Standard No. 108 requires motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, in recognition of the limited ability of low-powered motorcycles, Standard No. 108 was amended effective October 14, 1974, to add paragraph S4.1.1.26 which states that "A motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps." Pursuant to Section 1392(d) this means that a State can validly require a moped to be equipped with turn signal lamps in only two instances: If the moped were manufactured between January 1, 1973 and October 14, 1974, or if it were manufactured on or after October 14, 1974, and has a top speed exceeding 30 mph.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht90-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SUICHI WATANABE -- GENERAL MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPARTMENT STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/19/90 FROM SHUICHI WATANABE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 4549

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1990, asking whether a new combination rear lamp is permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The lamp consists of three compartments. In its normal operating mode, when the taillamp and/or stop lamp are activated, all three compartments show a red light. Your question arises with respect to three different operating modes. The first occurs whe n the turn signal is activated; the red light in one of the compartments is replaced by an amber flashing one. The second occurs when the backup lamp is activated; the red light in another of the compartments is replaced by a white steady-burning one. The third occurs when both the backup lamp and turn signal are activated; in this event, the combination lamp would present an amber flashing light, a red steady-burning one, and a white steady-burning one. You have informed us that "the requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. 108 and related comply with requirements for one and three compartment lamps when operating with one or three compartments (we assume that they would also meet the requirements for t wo compartment lamps).

The lamp appears to be intended to fulfill the requirements of Standard No. 108 for turn signal, stop, tail, and backup lamps. Thus, your question appears to be whether Standard No. 108 requires separate lamps or compartments dedicated to a specific pur pose, or whether your multiple purpose lamp is acceptable.

Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a combination of the functions that any chamber of your lamp provides. When a specific function is activated, the lamp will perform that particular function in a manner that appears to meet the minimum standard establi shed by Standard No. 108. Assuming that the CIE color definitions for white, amber, and red are met by the backup, turn, and stop/tail functions, the lamp appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-4.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Ben Blaz -- Congressman

TITLE: Re Ref: C-3J0039

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson R ice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of October 4th. I fully understand the need for you to communicate with Governor Guerrero and Representative Juan Babauta about your assistance with FMVSS and FMCSR regulations.

I believe they are working on this problem at this very moment. Just yesterday, I received a call from Governor Guerrero's legal counsel Tim Bruce Esq. I believe they will develop a position that the DOT regulations should not apply to the CNMI. I agr ee with this position which has been consistent with past administrations. This, in my view, would be the best outcome for all concerned. These regulations cost 3 to 4 hundred dollars extra per vehicle in specialized equipment.

The DOT regulations are great in areas like Los Angeles, where there is a real smog problem and where the average speed limit is 50 to 60 miles per hour on the freeways. I doubt that the people in the CNMI, or of any Island in Micronesia get their monie s worth for these regulations. As you know, most speed limits are 25 to 35 miles per hour and smog is the least of their problems.

Congressman, the bottom line however, is that the CNMI position and the Federal Governments position should be consistent if we are to solve our problems. If the Federal Government insists on taking a different position than the CNMI Government, then th e Federal Government should do their job and enforce their own position.

Then, and only then, will all the Distributors and Dealers of Automobiles and the people of the CNMI know what the ground rules are.

ID: nht90-4.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1990

FROM: Mitch L. Williams -- President, Hella, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; NHTSA

TITLE: Re Proposed new product from Hella

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mitch L. Williams (A37; FMVSS 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-90 from Mitch L. Williams to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 5441)

TEXT:

In addition to my letter to you of November 1, 1990, Hella is considering another new product which could have vehicle safety implications.

As you know, pick-up trucks are not currently required to have a third brake light originally equipped. We feel that adding a third brake light to these vehicles would significantly reduce the chances of rear end collisions for the following reasons:

A) Pick-up trucks are selling in record numbers and are becoming a larger portion of the vehicle population, therefore diluting safety advantages created by adding third rear brake lights to automobiles in 1986.

B) Pick-up trucks are among the most difficult vehicles on the road for a following driver to see around. Any added safety must have a positive effect for following drivers.

Since there are no current regulations on this subject, Hella would like to ask NHTSA's opinion on the following questions:

1) Does NHTSA agree with Hella that a third brake light would be an added safety feature for pick-up trucks?

2) Does NHTSA intend to regulate this subject matter and if so, when and how?

3) The major technical point for us as manufacturers is where to mount the third lamp. The obvious place is on the tailgate, but this presents certain technical problems such as operating the vehicle with the tailgate down, and insuring a good electrical connection with a tailgate which moves. Also a good place is the upper edge of the back window, but for trucks with caps or campers on them, this will not work. Assuming NHTSA will address this area, how will NHTSA view the mount ing location?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.