ID: 1983-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State Purchasing and General Services Commission; Texas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.222). You indicated that you have been informed that section S5.1.2 of that standard requires that 90 percent of the total projected area of the seat backs on school buses must lie between a horizontal plane passing through the seating reference point and a parallel horizontal plane 20 inches above the seating reference point, and that this requirement appeared to be a geometric impossibility. The information you received about the requirements of section S5.1.2 is erroneous.

Section S5.1.2 does not specify any requirements for the total projected area of the seat back. It simply mandates that the projected area of the seat back between the two planes you described be at least 90 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. This requirement is very simple to satisfy geometrically by using a rectangle. If the seat back were rectangular, the area between the two planes would be 100 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. The agency allows the width of the seat back to be multiplied by 90 percent so as to permit the use of seat backs which taper up at the top, but which still provide an adequate level of safety protection for the occupants.

The reason for specifying a requirement for the amount of area a seat back must have between these two planes is to ensure that "compartmentalization" is not compromised. Compartmentalization is the term for protecting the occupants in the event of a crash by confining them within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. If the seat back in front of a school bus occupant occupied less than 90 percent of the area between the two planes (the area that occupant is most likely to contact in case of a crash), the padded area to cushion the blow of that occupant might not be sufficient.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address and at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 11, 1983

Mr. Steve Kratzke, Attorney Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

As you requested during our recent telephone conversation, I am asking for an interpretation of Paragraph S5.1.2. of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection." I understand that the value

90% X Seat Width X 20

to be the projected area in square inches of the seat back (in a vertical plane) that lies between two horizontal planes, one going through the seating reference point (SRP), and the other through a point 20 inches above the SRP.

I have been informed by one of the engineers at a school bus body plant that 90% of the total projected area of the seat back must lie within these two planes. It appears to me that this is a geometric impossibility!

Your consideration of this request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief

TCM/dh

ID: 1983-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rivkin; Sherman & Levy

TITLE: CSA INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Donald M. Schwentker Rivkin Sherman and Levy 900 l7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

This is in response to your August 29, 1983 letter regarding the classification of a four-wheel drive vehicle with variable ground clearance, for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. The vehicle's suspension is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode, to provide increased on-highway stability. In the high clearance mode, the vehicle meets the criteria in 15 U.S.C. 2001(3) and 49 CFR 523.5 for "automobiles capable of off-highway operation," but it would have insufficient ground clearance to meet that definition in the cruise mode.

As you correctly note in your letter, the phrase "capable of off- highway operation" focuses on the ability of a vehicle to perform off-highway functions." (Emphasis added.) The vehicle in question has high ground clearance capability when needed to facilitate off-road driving. You also note that four-wheel drive capability, one of the necessary criteria to meet the "automobile capable of off-highway operation" definition is typically not a permanent operating mode, but is selectable by the driver when needed. We conclude that the off-road driving criteria on 49 CFR 523.5 need not be met on a permanent basis, so long as the driver can control the availability of the off-road capability.

Therefore, we agree that the vehicle in question, based upon your description, would be classified as an "automobile capable of off-highway operation," and therefore included in the light truck category for standards compliance purposes. See 15 U.S.C. 2001(2) and 49 CFR 523.5.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 29, 1983

Roger C. Fairchild, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Interpretation of 49 CFR S523.5, Light Truck Definition

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

As you know, 49 CFR S523.5 defines a light truck for for corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) purposes under Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

A vehicle may qualify as a light truck if it is an automobile (other than a passenger automobile) designed for off-highway operation . Section 523.5(b) provides that an automobile may be classified as one "capable of off-highway operation" if it ".. . has 4-wheel drive .. . and .. . at least four of the .. . (five characteristics ( specified in S523.5(b)(2)."

I interpret this regulation to mean that if these characteristics are met during certain driving modes, the automobile is "capable of offhighway operation" and is , therefore , a light truck. Specifically, if the vehicle's suspension system is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode to provide increased on-highway stability (during which mode only two of the five specified criteria are met, rather than the required four) , the vehicle should still qualify as a light truck. The logic of this interpretation is supported by the fact S523.5(b) refers to "an automobile capable of off-highway operation" and that the 4-wheel drive characteristic specified in S523.5 (b) (1) is virtually always selectable by the operator, and not full-time. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, I would appreciate, at your earliest convenience, confirmation of the interpretation that the required four of the five characteristics specified in 49 CFR Section 523.5(b) (2) need not be met under all driving conditions for a vehicle to be classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes.

Sincerely yours,

RIVKIN SHERMAN and LEVY Donald M. Schwentker DMS:kg

ID: 1983-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in response to your September 23, 1982, letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle, Safety Standard No. 118, Power-Operated Window Systems, to power sunroofs. The agency apparently has never previously addressed this question.

Standard 118 specifies requirements only for power-operated window and partition systems. A power sunroof would be considered neither a "window" nor a "partition" and therefore would not be subject to the standard. Our standard was intended to apply to the typical power side windows and the power tailgate window of station wagons. The reference to "partitions" in the standard was adopted as part of the July 23, 1970, final rule establishing Standard 118 and was intended to assure that power-operated interior partitions, such as might be used in a taxi or a limousine, would comply.

Although Standard 118 does not apply to power sunroofs, we strongly recommend that safety precautions along the lines of those established in that standard be incorporated in power sunroof designs. It appears possible that the types of accidents which the standard was intended to prevent could also occur as a result of the unsupervised operation of power sunroofs.

If you have any further questions to this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by Frank Berndt Cheif Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt: We sincerely request information concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118: "Power Operated Window Systems" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of MVSS 118 are applicable to a power-operated sunroof.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this inquiry. We are looking forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

ID: 1983-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steve Lampeas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steve Lampeas: 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset, New York 11030

Dear Mr. Lampeas:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the legality under Federal laws of your patented device, the "Trunk Truck." It appears from the material you enclosed that the device extends in twin booms from the rear of the car, and that a stop lamp or taillamp is mounted at the end of each boom (you refer to it as a "natural extension" of these lamps).

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no person (except the vehicle owner) may modify a vehicle so that equipment that is on the vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Therefore, you must assure yourself that all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 continue to be met with respect to rear lighting. This would include not only the lamps at the end of the booms, but those remaining on the car. In addition to stop lamps and taillamps, rear lighting includes, turn signal lamps, back up lamps, and license plate lamps. As on other load-bearing vehicles, such as boat trailers, these lamps should continue to be visible even with a load installed.

You should also ask the States whether such a device is legal. States have jurisdiction over the use of motor vehicles within their borders.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr.Frank Berndt Chief Council of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington D.C. 20590

RE: Trunk Truck

Dear Mr. Frank Berndt:

As per my telephone conversation today with Roger Fairchild, I am enclosing in this letter and sending to you a description and illustration of the Trunk Truck, which is a new patented devise that I have invented.

Before I go into production of this item I want to check with your legal department to be sure that there are no laws that the federal level that my be violated or any safety test that may be required, when this item is attached to a motor vehicle and is in use.

I believe your office has jurisdiction in this matter and would very much appreciate an early opinion and response.

Sincerely,

Steve Lampeas

TRUNK TRUCK

Need to move something quickly? It can be done with a Trunk Truck.

With this new patented device, you can transform your family car in minutes into a van, truck, or trailer and after you have moved your items you can change it back to your family car.

The Trunk truck is a telescoping, self adjusting, precision designed, light weight, high tensile aluminum alloy device, ready for instant use. It is a natural extension of the tail lights and breaking lights of your car. It is road worthy, stable and safe to use.

The Trunk Truck is an inexpensive way to move almost anything. It can be used by merchants, campers, outdoor vendors, house owners, and many others.

This patented device is highly versatile, proving stretch space not thought possible before, to take and carry a variety of items for the occasional or frequent moving job you map have.

The Trunk Truck will free the active man, from the dependency of a second car, van, truck, or trailer.

There will be no further need for additional garage space, license plates, insurances or inspection stickers and registration fees.

Its user are limitless. For example: Taxi Cab Fleet owners can use the Trunk Truck as the start of a new line of moving services.

With a medium sized car, you can expect to have a loading area of 30 square feet, a loading volume of 90 cubic ft. and an approximate weight load of 600 lbs.

The Trunk Truck can be installed easily and at a moderate price in your foreign or domestic car, out of the way inside your trunk.

For further information on the Trunk Truck, contact Lampeas Assoc. at 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset L.I. N.Y. 11030

Trunk Truck Transform your car into a Van, Truck or Trailer in minutes

* Graph Inserted Here

ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill

ID: 1983-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company -- Paul Scully, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Company 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency.

With respect to paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Standard No.108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment you have stated your understanding that paragraph applies only to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978, and that turn signal lamps must now comply with SAE Standard J588e, September 1970.

Paragraph S.4.1.1.7 did allow vehicular compliance with SAE J588d as an option to J588e. J588d required that any turn signal lamp used on a vehicle whose overall width was 80 inches or more have a minimum of 12 square inches effective projected luminous lens area. On the other hand, SAE J588e requires a minimum of 8 square inches effective projected luminous lens area on all single compartment rear turn signal lamps, regardless of vehicle width. However, on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width, two turn signal lamps or compartments per side may be mounted closer together than 22 inches provided each meets single compartment photometric requirements and each has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches. Thus, your understanding is correct.

I would also point out that, pursuant to Section S4.7.1 of Standard No. 108, the continued manufacture of turn signal lamps meeting J588d is permissible as replacement equipment for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978.

Mr. Cavey has provided the copy of BMCS regulations which is enclosed.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 22, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

I need a copy of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and I no longer have in my files the address of that agency. Would you be kind enough to telephone them and request that a copy of that booklet be forwarded to me. I would certainly appreciate it.

On a completely separate subject, a question arose today concerning the meaning of Paragraph S4.1.1.7 in FMVSS 108. The specific question related to the square inches of area needed for a turn signal on vehicles over 80".

My interpretation of the regulation has been that turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80" must comply with J588e dated September, 1970. This standard requires 8 square inches of area for single compartment lamps. That standard also spells out that when lamps are mounted closer together than 22" on vehicles over 80", they must then individually meet all of the requirements and must be 12 square inches.

Paragraph S4.1.1.7 only applies to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978 and simply permitted compliance with the prior standard J588d. This specific paragraph, in my judgment, only relates to vehicles built between the dates spelled out above and does not impact the area requirements as otherwise spelled out in J588e. Specifically, it is our understanding that the rear turn signal area for single compartment lamps is eight square inches regardless of the width of the vehicle. The only exception to this requirement is spelled out in the SAE standard which states that the area must be 12 square inches if indeed the units are placed closer together than 22". Can you please advise me if my interpretation is correct?

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

PS/sld

ID: 1983-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/83

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PEKKA SUURONEN -- PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER RACEMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/27/83 FROM PEKKA SUURONEN TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Suuronen:

This is in reply to your letters of July 27, 1983, and October 6, 1983, asking whether a sealed headlamp with "replaceable European H4 bulb," or "Ford bulb (6 standard sizes)" are considered "legal," (like Cibie BOBI) "provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards."

Cibie certifies that its "BOBI" headlamp complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not contested that certification.

We do not understand your reference to the Ford bulb in "6 standard sizes." The only size of that bulb that may be used in the new replaceable bulb headlamp systems is the one specified in the recent amendment to Standard No. 108. However, Volkswagen has petitioned for rulemaking to allow the H4 bulb.

Sincerely,

ID: 1983-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. A. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany

Dear Mr. Wuddel:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1983, to August Burgett of this agency. With reference to the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permitting semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamp systems, you have asked whether a headlamp assembly would be allowed which also incorporated a European H1 or H2 bulb, "for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it."

It is our understanding that the H1 bulbs are commonly used in European lamps as the principal lighting source, and that H2 bulbs are used in high intensity supplemental front lamps. Therefore, use of one of these bulbs in a replaceable bulb headlamp would create, in effect, a system of four headlamps. The agency recently denied a petition by Volkswagen for a four-lamp system at this time using the standardized replaceable light source (copy enclosed), because of unresolved issues. We therefore are currently unable to allow a system such as you propose with the H1 or H2 bulb in a common housing with the standardized replaceable light source, creating in effect a four-lamp headlamp system. Further, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and there is the distinct possibility that this could occur through incorporation of the H1 and H2 bulbs.

Use of the H1 and H2 bulbs in separate and independent units for driving or fog lamps remains permissible, subject to regulation by the individual American States, as these items are not covered by Standard No. 108.

You may be interested to know that Volkswagen of America has recently petitioned us for rulemaking that would allow use of the H4 bulb instead of the standardized replaceable light source in replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A decision is pending whether to grant this petition.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

Mr. A. Burgett Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. USA - Washington, D.C. 20590

BV Wu/Mei 7509 09-09-1983

Dear Sir,

Since optional headlighting systems are allowed according to FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 81-11, Notice 3) on certain promises, we intend to develop a semi-sealed headlamp assembly with two adjacent reflectors, moulded as one part, and a lens covering both reflector sections. The lens and the dual reflector would be sealed. The outward reflector would be equipped with a standardized replaceable bulb (Ford bulb) for the required upper and lower beam, and the inward reflector would be equipped with a european replaceable bulb type "H1" or "H2" for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it. The optical axis of the system would be parallel. On surface of the lens area for upper and lower beam there would be three aiming pads by which a common aiming adjustment of both the upper/lower beam and the auxiliary driving or fog lamp beam could be carried out.

We would like to learn whether such a headlamp assembly would be allowed or it is required that the aiming adjustment must be possible for each reflector.

Please find attached sketch.

Yours sincerely

Westfalische Metall Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co. i. A. Wuddel Headlamp Assembly

*Insert diagram here

ID: 1983-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services Libby-Owens-Ford Company 811 Madison Avenue P.O. Box 799 Toledo, Ohio 43695

Dear Mr. Keim:

This responds to your letter of September 26, 1983, regarding the certification and marking requirements for glazing under S6 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated that you are interested in "out-sourcing some of your replacement auto glass requirements" to other manufacturers and sought clarification on four points concerning glazing identification.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 deals specifically with the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). You ask whether it is permissible under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to allow another manufacturer, using its own DOT code mark, to put an LOF trademark and logo on its glass.

Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that a manufacturer shall mark safety glazing materials with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." The purpose behind these markings was to aid in the tracing of glazing materials and the enforcement of applicable standards. Your letter states that the other manufacturer will place their DOT code mark on the safety glass. Since the other manufacturer is using its own DOT code mark, the tracing and enforcement policies will not be circumvented. Therefore, under these circumstances, the use of LOF's logo and trademark is not violative of Standard No. 205.

Further, you ask whether another glass manufacturer can use LOF's "M" number on his glass with LOF's permission. As long as the model number is an accurate description of the specific glazing material being produced, the other manufacturer may use it.

Lastly, you ask if the name of the country of manufacture must appear on the safety glass if not manufactured in the United States. The standard does not mandate that the country of manufacture be marked on the safety glazing materials.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 26, 1983

Mr. Steven Oesch Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration 400-7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

This is in regard to our phone conversation of September 22, 1983. We are contemplating out-sourcing some of our replacement auto glass requirements with other manufacturers but we feel we need a clarification of the requirements of manufacturers identification on the actual glass parts.

LOF's "DOT" registration No. is 15. This number along with the LOF logo "AS" number "M" number, etc. appears in the monogram on each piece of glass we produced in accordance with DOT regulations.

Our scenario is this. We have been told by other glass manufacturers that they could produce glass for LOF using LOF's logo ( or name ) and glass description in combination with their "DOT" registration number. An example of this is depicted below:

Typical monogram as currently placed on glass produced by LOF:

"INSERT"

Proposed alteration of monogram to be used by another manufacturer producing glass for LOF with LOF's permission, would be to substitute their own DOT Registration No. in place of DOT 15.

Questions which we have raised include:

1. Can another glass manufacturer put an LOF trademark on his glass with permission from LOF?

2. Can another glass manufacturer put the LOF logo on his glass with permission from LOF?

3. Can another glass manufacturer use LOF's "M" number on his glass with permission from LOF?

4. Must the name of the country of manufacture appear on the glass if manufactured in a country other than the U.S.? For example - Made in U.S.A does not have to appear on our glass.

If the answer to any of these questions is no, please explain if there is any other substitution(s) that could be made which would make it permissible for another manufacturer to put the name LOF on glass he manufactures.

It has been indicated to us that some manufacturers are already producing glass using other companies names on their glass, but using their own DOT number.

Your consideration of this issue and prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services

RPK/slj

cc: A. E. Riggs J. M. Oathout R. E. Miller C. C. Washing J. W. Leonard G. C. McNaul

ID: 1983-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 22 1983

Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President, LJH Associates. Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91034

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1983, discussing a lighting product that you have developed and asking for "the approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

Your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lights to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, your devise operates by lights spreading from the center of the panel outward, in either or both directions.

We think that there is a great potential for confusion that this devise could create since it is so unlike anything seen before on a motor vehicle. In the stopping mode the driver following will see the steady light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, but also the dynamic lights of your devise spreading out from the center. The same dynamic light spread is seen but is meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously in the hazard warning mode. Thus, the potential for impairment of the required lighting equipment exists.

Generally, we do not favor any lights on the rear of a vehicle that are not required by the Federal lighting standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

I am president of a small consulting firm in Los Angeles that has developed a product that at worst I believe to be a decorative device and at best I believe to enhance the safety of an automobile. I hope to be raising venture capital in the near future to allow me to go into production of this device but before I do so I would Like to obtain approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

This device is a display integrated into the standard rear grill many production automobiles. The intention of this device is to enchance the normal rear lights on an automobile and to exist in addition to and to not impair the effectiveness but to enchance the normal operating characteristics of the existing rear lights (Motor VehicLe Safety Standard No. 108 - S4.1.3).

The major functions of this device work in conjunction with normal light functions without any additional operator intervention. Some of these functions are:

BRAKE < -> < ---> < -----> BRAKE

RIGHT TURN

LEFT TURN

EMERGENCY FLASHERS

CAUTION

REVERSE BACKING UP

Some sample photographs are enclosed to illustrate these displays. Please feel free to contact me if necessary to insure a positive disposition of this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell President, LJM Associates, Inc.

INSERT GRAPH HERE

INSERT GRAPH HERE