ID: 77-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1976 asking for a clarification of the statement in my letter to you dated December 3, 1976, that "the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function."

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over form one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

Trailer manufacturers association

December 20, 1976

Mr. Frank A. Berndt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Further to my letter of October 29th, and yours of December 3, 1976 (N 40 - 30), the 47 Series Tite Lite contains a No. 57 2 CP bulb serving the clearance and sidemarker lamp functions and a No. 1157 3/32cp bulb serving the remaining functions.

Our question concerning this light was limited to whether the clearance lamp function is considered "optically combined."

Your December 3rd letter indicates that "the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function." We don't understand the meaning of this statement. In the 47 Series Tite-Lite, the No. 57 bulb provides the clearance lamp design function, yet the No. 1157 bulb which is always lit simultaneously certainly augments the light emitted by the clearance lamp, and will light the clearance lamp lens an appreciable amount if the design bulb was burned out. That would seem a safety feature.

An early response will be appreciated.

Director of Engineering

Donald I. Reed

ID: 77-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coach & Equipment

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 15, 1977, letter asking whether the head and knee form impact requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, apply to the stanchion post and cross bars installed in your buses.

School buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less are not required to have restraining barriers as mandated in S5.2 of the standard for larger buses. Therefore, there is no requirement that you install stanchions, cross bars, or panels in the buses you manufacture. Should you choose to install these devices, they would not be required to be as wide as the seat. Similarly, there would be no requirement pertaining to forward or rearward movement of these devices.

The leg protection zone as defined in S5.3.2 of the standard is measured with reference to seat backs and restraining barriers. Since the devices you mention are not considered as either seat backs or restraining barriers, the leg protection zone requirements do not apply.

The head protection zone requirements, on the other hand, apply to any contactable surface located within the zone defined in S5.3.1 of the standard. Since part of the stanchion to which you refer creates a contactable surface within the head protection zone, it must meet the requirements of the standard specified in S5.3.1.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

March 15, 1977

Roger Tilton Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed is a colored print which depicts the head and knee impact zone as we presently understand the standard.

The questions which we feel are pertinent to our problems are as follows:

1. Utilizing a 1" O.D. steel tube section located as shown will both the head and knee impact zone areas require padding to meet the individual pad requirements?

2. Must the stanchion and cross bar be as wide as the seat on each side?

3. For compliance with the standard would a steel (padded) panel be required on each, or either side?

4. Would the stanchion post and cross bar section require any restrictions relating to movement fore and aft?

Perhaps with the mails crossing paths we both will have a better understanding late this week.

I have also enclosed, for your information, our 1976 brochure showing our pre April 1, 1977 production unit.

If we have any further questions we will contact you directly and would much appreciate your doing likewise.

Richard L. Kreutziger Executive Vice President

ID: 77-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Video Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1977, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, as it relates to a device you wish to market called "Remote Auto-Start."

Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, requires that when the key is removed, normal activation of the car's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility of the car is prevented (49 CFR 571.114, S4.1(a) and (b)). According to the material which you forwarded, your device results in the following characteristics which differ from what we consider to be normal activation:

1. The engine deactivates when a door is opened.

2. The steering column and gear shift remains locked until the actual key is inserted.

3. The logic circuitry deactivates the engine after 15 minutes.

Consequently, we have determined that your device does not result in a "normal" activation of the car's engine.

Thus, it appears that the characteristics of the "Remote Auto-Start" system are not in conflict with Standard No. 114.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VIDEO RESEARCH CORPORATION

March 15, 1977

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Last week I had the opportunity of talking to Mr. Tilton in regards to interpretating a law which covers various states, as well as federal, concerning cars left unattended with the motors running.

Sometime back, the American Medical Association contacted me in regards to heart patients that have to use a motor vehicle in extremely hot or cold weather. Since it is a stress on the heart when temperatures vary greatly, they felt if possible we could make an item that would heat or cool the vehicle for 15 to 20 minutes before entering same.

We came up with a tentative item called Remote Auto-Start. By reading the enclosed sheets covering this item which was written by our Director of Engineering, you will note that at no time can the vehicle be operated without the ignition key.

We would appreciate it, after you read the enclosed specifications, if you would let us know whether any federal or state laws will affect us.

Looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so we can continue with this particular product.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely yours, Martin Fleischman -- Chairman

[Enclosure Omitted]

ID: 77-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/77

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

TO: Patton, Boggs & Blow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. In your petition, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.

The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 1977 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.

To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that would permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped "with tires which meet the maximum permissible-load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded. . . ."

As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 which become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.

ID: 77-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/77

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

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 23 and July 8, 1977, letters asking several questions about the effect of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, on the construction of school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) below 10,000 pounds.

You first ask whether there are any seat performance requirements for the rearmost seat after April 1978. The rear seat has been exempted from the forward and rearward performance requirements of the standard. This exemption was possible since there are no passengers seated behind the rear seat who could impact with it in a crash situation. Therefore, the rear seat may be positioned against the rear panel if it does not protrude into the emergency exit zone.

In a second question, you ask whether the head protection zone requirements (S5.3), as well as the requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, and S5.1.5, are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less since these buses are required to have seat belts. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5(b) of the standard states that all of the above sections are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less.

In connection with your question concerning the head protection zone requirements, you submitted sketches of the sidewall and roof structure of one of your buses. In that sketch you depict a 50th percentile adult and show the proximity of that adult with the sidewall-roof structure. You question whether a portion of the bus structure above the window is part of the roof structure subject to the head protection zone requirements.

The NHTSA has determined that the portion of the interior skin that is depicted by the diagonal line connecting the horizontal roof line to the vertically contoured line representing the sidewall is part of the roof structure and must comply with the requirements of the standard for head protection.

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC.

JULY 8, 1977

TIMOTHY A. HOYT SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ADVICE, JUNE 29, 1977.

ENCLOSED ARE SKETCHES OF THE COLLINS SUPERBUS INTERIOR SKIN IN RELATION TO A 50 PERCENTILE PERSON SEATED NEAR THE WINDOW. SKETCH A SHOWS THE PERSON IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION, SKETCH B SHOWS THIS PERSON IN A MORE NORMAL POSITION WITH THE BUS LOADED. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE INTERIOR SKIN ABOVE THE WINDOWS, AND NEAREST TO THE OCCUPANTS' HEAD, POSES A HAZARD TO THE OCCUPANT IF THE SKIN IS NOT PADDED?

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

ID: 77-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: J. R. Green

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 8, 1977, to the President of the United States concerning the need for improved motor vehicle headlamp standards has been referred to this office for consideration and reply.

We have received considerable information regarding the effects of foreign and domestic motor vehicle headlighting equipment, including engineering papers and test data on "selective yellow" headlamps. All information concluded that filtering of headlamps to produce yellow reduces the photometric intensity of the lamp, thereby reducing the actual seeing distance. Some vehicle operators subjectively concluded they can see further with yellow headlamps, but objective seeing distance tests with specific target characteristics and distances indicate a loss of seeing distance.

It is also true that while the original intent in using yellow headlamps was to reduce the glare from oncoming vehicle headlamps, our current test data indicates that a yellow light does not reduce glare. The white light is, therefore considered safer and is the basis for requiring white light in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed).

Although this lighting standard is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps. However, it does require headlamps which are designed to be aimed properly when installed in prealigned mechanical assemblies. The lamp itself may be sealed-beam (filament is enclosed only by the lamp shell in an inert atmosphere) or it may be a halogen lamp (filament is surrounded by a small envelope containing a halogen gas). Specifically, the halogen-bulb headlamp is legal if incorporated into an otherwise legal motor vehicle headlamp.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AUGUST 18, 1977

James R. Green 3396 Alma Street Lynwood, California 90262

Dear Mr. Green:

In his letter of June 16, 1977, our Mr. Driver, Director of the Office of Crash Avoidance, commented that although the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard "is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps."

This should not be interpreted as an opinion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require sealed beam headlamps. While there is no such requirement per se in the text of the standard, Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J579a Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965, and SAE Standard J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966. Compliance of headlamps with these standards is required, whether as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: 1984-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Police -- Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062

This is to follow-up your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's letter of December 20, 1983, on Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I hope that the following discussion will clarify the relationship between the requirements of Standard No. 205 and the render inoperative provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act).

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements, including requirements for light transmittance and abrasion resistance, for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on the vehicle type involved and the place in the vehicle where the glazing is used. For example, the luminous transmittance and abrasion resistance requirements apply to all windows in a passenger car, but only to windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle.

The application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act if it knowingly installed in a passenger car a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. In each case, there will be a factual question of whether the glazing material, as tinted, will continue to meet the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

If you are aware of any manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair shops that are in apparent violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), please provide information concerning those apparent violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The information should be sent to:

Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 6113 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 2059O

I hope this discussion will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dotech Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President Dotech, Inc. 306 Clanton Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

Dear Mr. Thrower:

This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking "is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108?"

At present, Standard No. 108 mandates specific items of lighting equipment not optional ones (though "options" as to matters such as size and shape exist among headlamps which are required items). Instead, NHTSA points out that, pursuant to S4.1.3 optional lighting devices (proprietary or not) are allowable, provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment the standard requires. When proprietary rights are involved in mandated lighting equipment, manufacturers have been willing to waive their rights.

You have also said that you "presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible." I don't know what you have in mind, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no "approval" by DOT is necessary to market "optional" motor vehicle equipment of any sort. Such equipment is subject only to the general requirement that its installation must not affect the compliance of the vehicle with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 14, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson.

Is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Lighting Code 108?

As you know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permit use of various patented drugs for optional public use.

I also presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Very truly yours, Dotech, Inc.

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President

HTT,jr/jhc

ID: 1984-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dinkelspiel; Donovan & Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

US. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcadero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Mr. Escobosa:

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Very truly yours,

Paul Escobosa PE:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen

ID: 1983-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TWI Inc. -- Bill Perzinsky, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Capt. Perzinsky:

This is in reply to Your letter of October 14, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of my staff regarding your F-S-700 A flasher. The device is essentially a slender bar of lights mounted on the rear panel shelf of a passenger car. The left and right sides blink to indicate turns in the appropriate direction. The entire bar lights up when the brake pedal is applied. You ask for our "approval" of this device.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Stop lamps are required by the standard. They must be red. They must go on when the brake pedal is applied. The stop signal put out by the F-S-700 flasher is amber, not red. Therefore, an amber signal coming on at the same time as a red one would impair the effectiveness of the red stop lamp by creating confusion.

The Federal lighting standard allows either amber or red turn signal lamps. There is obviously a potential for confusion if your amber light device is on a vehicle whose turn signals are red. But an even greater problem with interior-mounted lamps, whatever their color, is the reflection that they cause in the rear glass, particularly when it's raining or snowing, interfering with the rear vision of the vehicle's driver.

For the reasons given above the F-S-700 A flasher causes us some concern. Further, you should investigate whether the laws of the jurisdiction where you wish to sell this device will permit its installation and use.

Sincerely,

Oct. 14th, 1983

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We are sending you a flyer of our new product. F-S-700 A 4 star flasher.Would like to know if this type of light would meet standard safety.I would like to send you a sample of this light, as you would be amazed what this light can save lot of lifes and accidents.

I have one installed in my car, every one that see me with it wants on his car. I can't sell them until I get approval from Highway Traffic Safety. Please Let me hear from you at your earlest convenient time, thank you. If you need a sample let me know.

2. Flyers enclosed

Sincerely,

Capt. Bill Perinszy President TWI INC.