ID: nht69-1.23

DATE: 08/20/69

FROM: WARREN M. HEATH

COMMANDER ENGINEERING SECTION

TO: ROBERT BRENNER --

ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: GEORGE GAUDAEN -- SAE

TITLE: REF: 81.A215.A1575

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brenner:

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be(Illegible Word). However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet these standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These standards reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to meet the(Illegible Words) for a taillamp and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above horizontal for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely complied with the

maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each side of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the(Illegible Word) Lighting Committee recognized this problem and alter a number of demonstrations of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in(Illegible Words). The original brightness problem appeares to be quote simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers were concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient(Illegible Word) for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps(Illegible Word) were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every combination of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both(Illegible Words) and SAE(Illegible Word) have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section(Illegible Words) specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the minimums required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that one lamp may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamps and(Illegible Word) candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be(Illegible Word) to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 198 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and steplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or steplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with(Illegible Word), or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-steplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the ratio even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section(Illegible Word) which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) as permitting any number of additional taillamps and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements(Illegible Words), as an example of nonimpairment of the effectiveness of the single required lamp. They would also use photometric data showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again, to prove nonimpairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempts states from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the separate lamps in the multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the Bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c) Does the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and taillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centered on the rear of the vehicle where the middle compartment as a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where one rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, as the entire lamp to be tested as a single unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the device where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specifications and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the stoplamp to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite ingenius in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific Federal or SAE standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing devices for conformance to the standards.

We would very much appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use in answering inquiries from foreign and American manufacturers and on using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

Very truly yours,

ID: aiam4835

"Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter noting that Headstar facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether 'privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities' for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial. The definition of 'schoolbus' set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam2336

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter, concerning th label required by S 567.4(g) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*.; The certification label is required by paragraph (g)(3) to includ ''GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING' or 'GVWR' followed by the appropriate value in pounds...' Paragraph (g)(4) specifies a similar requirement for Gross Axle Weight Rating.; You have pointed out that the Canadian motor vehicle safety regulation require a similar certification label with these weight ratings expressed in kilograms. You have asked whether a single label that expresses the weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms would be permitted by 49 CFR Part 567. The answer is yes, provided that each kilogram rating, which is optional, appear after the corresponding pound rating, which is required.; Please note that these two ratings differ in legal status. The ratin that is expressed in pounds is the official rating for the purposes of the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. The accompanying equivalent kilogram rating, however, will be considered as optional, supplementary information provided for the guidance of the reader. This distinction is necessary, because the measurement values, including weights, that appear in our safety standards and regulations are specified in exact terms, without tolerances. While a measurement in English units can be 'equal' to one in metric units to any preselected number of significant figures, the two can never be exactly equal.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2338

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the labe required by S 567.4(g) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*.; The certification label is required by paragraph (g)(3) to includ ''GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING' or 'GVWR' followed by the appropriate value in pounds...' Paragraph (g)(4) specifies a similar requirement for Gross Axle Weight Ratings.; You have pointed out that the Canadian motor vehicle safety regulation require a similar certification label with these weight ratings expressed in kilograms. You have asked whether a single label that expresses the weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms would be permitted by 49 CFR Part 567. The answer is yes, provided that each kilogram rating, which is optional, appear after the corresponding pound rating, which is required.; Please note that these two ratings differ in legal status. The ratin that is expressed in pounds is the official rating for the purposes of the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. The accompanying equivalent kilogram rating, however, will be considered as optional, supplementary information provided for the guidance of the reader. This distinction is necessary, because the measurement values, including weights, that appear in our safety standards and regulations are specified in exact terms, without tolerances. While a measurement in English units can be 'equal' to one in metric units to any preselected number of significant figures, the two can never be exactly equal.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0560

Dear Mr. Tatarski: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971, to Lawrence R Schneider requesting an interpretation on the mounting of front identification lamps.; Standard No. 108 requires that identification lamps be mounted 'a close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' (Table II). The 'vehicle' is the vehicle as completed, and not the incomplete vehicle. Therefore, if the 'top' of the vehicle, *i*.*e*., the highest point, is a location other than the cab, the identification lamps must be mounted at the 'top', and not on the cab, if it is practicable to do so. Generally, manufacturers of van-body vehicles have found it practicable to mount identification lamps on the van body. Modified lighting diagram O-1 which you enclosed originally depicted the correct location of identification lamps for a truck with a van body.; If the manufacturer of the cab portion of a truck has place identification lamps on the cab, the lamps need not be removed when the lamps necessary for conformance are added at the 'top.'; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4378

Dear Mr. Romansky: This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1987 asking for ou 'evaluation and comments' on your proposed product. This product is an adhesive label that is applied to the center highmounted stop lamp. When the brakes are applied the words 'buckle-up' become visible to the driver of the car behind.; Our comments relate to the acceptability of your product under th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, and its relationship to State laws. The simplicity of the decal is such that it may be readily applied by anyone with no special expertise or tools. There will be no violation of the Act if the decal is applied by the vehicle owner. However, a vehicle in use is subject to the laws of each State in which it is registered or operated. We are not familiar with State laws governing partial obscuration of the center lamp. We suggest you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 for further information. There is at least the theoretical possibility that it may raise a question of liability, or provide a defense, in accident suits involving rear end collisions.; Questions of compliance would be raised were the decal applied by moto vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, either before or after sale of the vehicle. In essence, a new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of its first sale, and the persons listed above must do nothing during the life of the car to affect the compliance of a device installed in accordance with a safety standard. If the decal reduces the effective projected luminous area of a lamp to less than 4 1/2 square inches, interferes with light output at any of 13 specified photometric test points, or renders the signal not visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the lamp will not conform. A person creating a noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation.; If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2339

Dear Mr. Currie: #This is in response to your March 24, 1976, lette concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in 'auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. #You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high. #Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not 'brake hose' as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of 'brake hose'. Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity. #In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, there NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced. #You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: 1984-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Standards Attache; The French Embassy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. Chambord Standards Attache The French Embassy Suite 715 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Chambord:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Katzke of my staff, asking for information on requirements applicable to tire rims for vans. The three points set forth in your letter are correct statements of the requirements, but I will reiterate them to be certain that you provide accurate information.

(1) Vans are considered "motor vehicles other than passenger cars" for the purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120), and Standard No. 120 sets forth requirements which must be met by all new rims for use on vans. No other standard contains requirements applicable to those rims.

(2) Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 requires the rim manufacturer to permanently label each of its van rims with the letters "DOT" as a certification that the rim satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 120. The manufacturer is expected to exercise due care before making such a certification. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, need be consulted by a manufacturer before certifying the compliance of its rims.

(3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided that the package containing the rims or the van on which the rims are installed bears an appropriate certification label. The only inspections at the port of entry are checks to see that a certification label is attached to the package of rims or the van.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 10, 1988

Mr. Steve Kratzke Legal Department Vehicle Systems Group Crash Avoidance Division NHTSA (NRM 11) 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Our reference: NOTEL 273 (NOREX/LNE)

Subject: Tire rims for vans

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Mr. Arturo Casanova referred me to you for help with NHTSA regulations. In order to ascertain my understanding, would you please send me written confirmation of the following points:

1) Vans are considered "Motor vehicles other than passenger cars" and the only standard applying to van rims is FMVSS No. 120;

2) Certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 120 is conducted by the manufacturer of the rims. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, is required;

3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided the package or the van on which they are installed bears an appropriate certifications label. Are there any inspections at the port of entry?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

A. CHAMBORD Standards Attache

ID: aiam1451

Dear Mr. Stevens: Some time ago you asked our regional office in Chicago for advic concerning the sufficiency of the odometer disclosure form developed by Michigan for use on its certificates of title and other vehicle transfer documents. This will serve to confirm the informal opinion you received from Dick Cook of the regional staff.; As pointed out in the letter sent you by General Motors, the Michiga form lacks certain informational items that are specified in the Federal odometer disclosure regulation. To comply fully with the regulation, the Michigan form would have to include space for the vehicle model and the last plate number. However, we do not regard the absence of these items to be serious enough to mandate an change in the Michigan form, in that the other information provided on the form appears sufficient to accurately identify the vehicle. A transferor who completes the present form and thereby fails to give the additional information would not be misleading the transferee and would therefore not be subject to civil action under the Act. It is our view that a transferor who completes the disclosure statement on the Michigan form would not need to submit an additional disclosure form.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3863

Dear Mr. Walsh: This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1984, to Mr. Vinson o this office, asking for confirmation of a 1972 agency interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; In pertinent part, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that, at minimum, a motorcycle be equipped with one taillamp, one stop lamp, and four turn signal lamps. Table IV directs that the stop lamp and taillamp be placed on the vertical centerline, and that the turn signal lamps be placed on each side of the vertical centerline with a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp 'and tail or stop lamp.' Table IV expressly permits dual stop and taillamps 'symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.' No express exception is made to the 4-inch spacing requirement if dual stop or taillamps are installed, raising the question whether the minimum distance must be maintained no matter what the rear lighting configuration may be.; You have called our attention an (sic) interpretation of July 1, 1972 that Motor Vehicle Programs of this agency provided Stanley Electric Company Ltd. In that instance the proposed rear lighting configuration consisted of two combination stop, turn signal, and taillamps placed on either side of the vertical centerline. The agency opined that the minimum separation distance was not applicable to combination lamps when there was 'no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline.' You have asked for confirmation that this remains the agency's view.; As you have pointed out Suzuki's proposed design of a unit combinin amber turn signal lamps with red stop and taillamps is similar to current passenger car practice where the minimum distance requirement does not exist. Therefore, this will confirm that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and stop and taillamps applies when single stop and taillamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and taillamps are installed on either side of the centerline.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel