ID: 1984-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort-Tour Cycle Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Roberson Comfort-Tour Cycle Products 8724 116th Avenue, N. E. Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Roberson:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1983, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, which was forwarded to this office for reply, concerning the legal requirements regulating the manufacture of motorcycle windshields. You requested information on how you as a manufacturer may obtain certification of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (FMVSS No. 205), Glazing Materials. FMVSS No. 205 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). These requirements include specifications for performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles and motorcycles, such as minimum levels of light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Copies of FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 have been enclosed in the letter sent to you by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance dated January l0, 1984.

You should be aware that the NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your windshields comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination.

There are other regulations and standards affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment of which you should be aware. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act a copy of which is enclosed, requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. In addition, Part 556 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's regulations. You should refer to the Act and its implementing regulations in order to understand the extent of your responsibilities as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1984-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce in the United States -- Rick Van Drie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Rick van Drie Junior International Trade Advisor The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce in the United States 303 E. Wacker, Suite 412 Chicago, IL 60601

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, you wish to know whether car mats and car seat covers sold not to car manufacturers, but to retailers and wholesalers must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. The mats and seat covers are required to comply with those requirements only if they will be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop. However, there are possible product liability consequences whioc could result if the mats and seat covers do not meet the flammability requirements and burn in a vehicle under circumstances where complying mats and seat covers would not have burned.

Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 specifies the components of a vehicle which must meet the flammability requirements of section S4.3. Included among the components listed in S4.1 are seat cushions, seat backs, head restraints, and floor coverings. These components would cover items like seat covers and floor mats. Hence, any seat covers or mats installed as original equipment in new vehicles would have to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. However, section S3 of the standard specifies that the standard applies to new vehicles and not to individual components. The effect of section S3 is that the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 are not directly applicable to the individual components like seat covers and floor mats that are sold as items of aftermarket equipment.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Act:; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,..." This agency would interpret the installation of seat covers and car mats which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 in a vehicle as rendering inoperative an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard (Standard No. 302), and therefore that installation would violate section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a potential civil penalty of $1000 for each violation of section 108.

While this language precludes manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair shops from installing seat covers or floor mats which do not comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 in a motor vehicle, it does not prohibit consumers from installing such items in their vehicles. Hence, if the manufacturer of noncomplying seat covers and floor mats intends that they only be installed by purchasers, no violation of Federal law or regulation would be involved.

However, if the seat covers or floor mats were to catch fire in a situation where a seat cover or floor mat complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, there would be possible liability consequences under State and common law. You may wish to consult a private attorney for further advice in this regard.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Ref. RvD/jh/94 January 20, 1984

Mr. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Council National Highway Safety Administration 4007th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

In reference to our telephone conversation of January 20 concerning car mats and car seatcovers, we hereby ask for your opinion regarding regulations, especially Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 302, on these products.

If these products are not sold to the car manufacturers but to retailers and wholesalers, so to the aftermarket, has the manufacturer in those cases still to comply with these regulations?

Awaiting an early reply on this matter, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Rick van Drie Junior International Trade Advisor

ID: 1984-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: EF Technology

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robort Sprafka EF Technology 1405 North U.S. 27 St. Johns, MI 48879-0189

Dear Mr. Sprafka:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a school bus that has a natural gas fuel system as original equipment. As discussed below, Standard No. 301 does not apply to a natural gas fuel system.

Standard No. 301 sets fuel system integrity requirements for certain vehicle types, including school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. The standard, however, only applies to those vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32oF. Since natural gas does not have a boiling point above 32oF, the standard would not apply.

Although there are no safety standards applicable to natural gas fuel systems, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects in their motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 151, et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed, provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

I am also enclosing, for your information, an agency letter discussing the legal responsibilities of persons who converted gasoline fuel systems to use propane and other gas.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1984-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: COSCO -- Don Gerken, Research and Development

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Gerken Senior Product Engineer Research and Development COSCO 2525 State Street Columbus, Indiana 47201

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S 571.213). Specifically you noted that your company would like to begin producing a child restraint system with a new shield design. The new shield would be substantially smaller than the shield your company currently uses. You noted that this type of shield is already being sold by other companies, and that in your restraint, the harness system, but not the shelf-like shield, would restrain the child's forward movement. A system with that characteristic would not comply with Standard No. 213.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that no fixed or movable surface shall be in front of the child, except surfaces which restrain the child. Since your proposed new shield does not restrain the child, it is expressly prohibited from being mounted on the child restraint.

Even assuming that the proposed new shield did act to restrain the child, there is still a question of whether the shield would comply with section S5.2.2.1(c), since your drawing does not indicate which portions of the shield would restrain a child's torso and thus would need to comply with the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement.

At this time, the Enforcement Division of this agency has several investigations pending concerning potential violations of the standard by firms using shields along the lines of the shield you propose. These investigations focus primarily on whether such shields satisfy the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement of section S5.2.2.1(c) of Standard No. 213.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information or have further questions on this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

September 27, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

My present project is to reduce cost of our Child Restraints and, at the same time, comply with the Standards.

We make a shield, illustrated as Design "A" attached, that is costly and we cannot produce it in-house. The shape illustrated as Design "B" lends itself to injection molding that we could do in-house. If this shape were used in such a way that it was spring loaded upward and moving it down in front of a child would also place a harness system on the child, would this design violate the Standards, assuming it met all the test criteria?

In effect, the harness system would restrain the child's forward movement -- not the shelf-like shield.

This is not something new. The concept now is being sold; but before pursuing this concept further ourselves, we would like assurance that the concept will comply.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Don Gerken

Senior Product Engineer Research and Development

rm

Encl.

INSERT GRAPH

ID: 1984-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 21, 1984 Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your further letter of December 15, 1983, regarding your lighting device, asking me to reconsider my views of November 22 that it offered the potential for impairment of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

To recap, your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lamps to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, it operates by lights (red? amber?) spreading from the center of the red translucent panel outward, in either or both directions. I concluded that the novelty of the device offered a great potential for confusion; in the stop mode, a following driver will see the steady red light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, and also the dynamic lights spreading out from the center of the red panel. You have indicated that modification of the flash rate will not be a problem, and were the light spread activation perceptually almost simultaneous with that of the stop lamp, the possibility of impairment would diminish.

I also commented that the same dynamic light spread is seen but meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously (your system's hazard warning mode). Since all lamps are flashing, we believe that the potential for impairment is much less in this instance.

We note that you have added two further functions since last writing us about your device: displays of words in the hazard mode indicating whether road service or police aid is needed. This is an interesting concept and we regard it as a supplement to the hazard signal which would not impair its effectiveness.

In the final analysis, aftermarket equipment such as you propose to offer, which is not itself incorporated into the Federal lighting standard, is subject to the "approval" or "disapproval" of the various jurisdictions in which motor vehicles equipped with it are being operated. It is a mistaken impression that the Federal Government "approves" or "disapproves" aftermarket equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives us no authority to "approve" or "disapprove." We can and do, however, point out potential problems of a safety nature that may arise from use of a device that is not covered by a safety standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304 (213) 347-2695

December 15, 1983

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

Attn: Chief Counsel, Frank Berndt, Vincent Taylor

Dear Sir:

This letter is in response to your response letter dated November 22nd and my subsequent phone conversation to Mr. Taylor. Both sets of communications have indicated a lack of approval but no legal disapproval of my product. The purpose of this letter is to achieve approval from your department.

In response to the letter or Mr. Berndt, I do not believe that there is any potential confusion between my "emergency flasher" indication and "brake" indication since they are presently totally different in current usage. One of these is normally used for a stopped vehicle while the other is used to indicate that a vehicle is stopping. In either case the response of the other driver is to stay clear of the indicating vehicle, thus the desired response is in all cases preserved. If this still concerns you and this is the only obstacle to approval then the emergency response can be changed to a flashing CAUTION indication.

In response to my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor, your concern was solely related to the "brake" indication in that the moving arrows might cause a confusion to other drivers. I strongly disagree with this opinion as my road tests confirm. The movement of the arrows cause the operator of other vehicles to be able to respond at least as quickly as with just the normal brake indications. I do expect that an improvement does exist because the physiology of the human mind is such that a driver can respond to movement very quickly due to origins of the human species. The normal brake indication depends upon this by a causing an intensity transition, but this can be ineffective due to the wide range of brightnesses of brake lights found on automobiles today which can cause a confusion if the operator is distracted during night-time operation. You stated that your objections would not exist if the arrows were not moving. I agreed that a very slow movement would be ineffective and distracting. The difference between our positions is just the speed of movement, infinity being your position, my position being approximately 3/4 second to complete the arrow or approximately the same speed of a blinker I think further consideration would show that my proposal is in no way detrimental and may actually be a safety feature (the speed may be further increased if it will allow me to obtain an approval).

Further functions have been added to reflect a need of at least my local police department. These needs are that emergency flashers only indicate a problem but not the type of attention needed. Thus I have added two indications for this identification:

BREAKDOWN ROAD SERVICE REQUEST

POLICE HELP POLICE AID REQUEST

In conclusion, it appears that active disapproval is not forthcoming from your department but I still would appreciate obtaining at least a passive approval. Your comments would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell

ID: 1984-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. Detroit Office 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfie1d, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFRS571.120). Specifically, you noted that section S5.2 of that standard required that certain information be labeled on the "weather side" of each rim or wheel disc. You then offered your interpretation of the term "weather side", and asked for my comments on that interpretation. My comment is that Standard No. 120 explicitly defines "weather side", and that the definition of the term in Standard No. 120 is somewhat broader than your interpretation of the term.

Section S4 of Standard No. 120 contains the following definition: "Weather side" means the surface area of the rim not covered by the inflated tire. The interpretation you offered in your letter was consistent with this definition, because it would require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by the inflated tire. However, your interpretation would also require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by any axle mounting components, and this requirement is not contained in the definition set forth in Standard No. 120. You are free to use your narrower interpretation for your own purposes since it is consistent with the definition in the Standard, but the definition set forth in the Standard would be used to determine whether a rim complies with the requirements of the Standard.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on the requirements of Standard No. 120.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 13, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 120; Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The above Standard provides guidelines regarding the nature and display of tire and rim specifications. Within these guidelines, reference is made in Section 5.2 that the specifications, placed on the rim or wheel disc, " . . . shall appear on the weather side".

Mazda believes that this terminology refers to the surface of the rim or wheel disc that is not obscured by the mounted tire or any axle mounting components. This would result in ready accessibility of all specifications to personnel as the tire is mounted to the rim and avoid the obliterating effects that often occur between mating surfaces.

Please clarify the above terminology and comment on Mazda's interpretation of this requirement.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

ID: 1984-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Talbott Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry D. Day, P.E. Talbott Associates Inc. 7 S.E. 97th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97216-2498

Dear Mr. Day:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571-208). Specifically, you asked if Standard No. 208 requires that all bus passengers be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment. Standard No. 208 specifies that the designated seating position for the driver must offer full automatic protection for the occupant in those circumstances or that the seating position must be equipped with a seat belt assembly that conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. No requirements are specified for the other designated seating position on the bus.

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies the protection which buses must afford the occupants, and allows the bus to comply with one of two protection requirements. The first option, set forth in section S4.4.1, is for the vehicle to meet the crash protection requirements set forth in section S5 of the standard (which include restraining the occupant from ejection in the event of a rollover) by means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. This requirement, however, must be met only with respect to an anthropomorphic test device in the driver's designated seating position. The second option, as specified in section S4.4.2, is for the vehicle to be equipped with either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. Again, this option applies only to the driver's designated seating position. Neither of these options sets forth any requirements applicable to any other designated seating position in the bus.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 TAI File 830203

Legal Counsel, FMVSS 208 NHTSA U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 208, S6.1 as required by S5.3, Rollover. Specifically, my question is,

"Does S6.1 require that all passengers of a chartertype bus, transit bus, or school bus (e.g., multipurpose passenger vehicle with GVWR of more than 10,000 lb.) be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment."

I am working on behalf of a bus manufacturing client who is concerned the present "compartmentalization concept" of restraint is insufficient to meet S6.1 under the above conditions. Your response in this matter is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

TALBOTT ASSOCIATES INC.

Terry D. Day, P.E.

TDD/sv

ID: 1984-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Louis Lemmens

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Louis Lemmens Decoba N.V. 3500 Hasselt Vaarstraat 4 Belgium

Dear Mr. Lemmens:

This responds to your letter to this office seeking information on requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether a foreign-based retreader would be required to put another tire identification number on the tires it retreads, or whether that retreader could simply leave the original manufacturer's identification number on the retreaded tire. As explained below, the retreader is required to mark its own tire identification number on each tire it retreads. You then asked for information on how a retreader obtains an identification number, and this procedure is set forth below.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.5 specifies that each tire retreader shall permanently label one sidewall of each tire he retreads with the information specified in that section. For a retreader, the first group of three symbols in the identification number would represent the retreader's assigned identification mark, the second group of two symbols would identify the retread matrix in which the tire was processed, the third group of four symbols may be used to identify characteristics of the tire at the retreader's option, and the fourth group of three symbols would identify the week and year in which the tire was retreaded.

Section 574.6 explains the procedures to be followed by the retreader in applying for an identification mark, and specifies the information which must be provided by the retreader. The agency usually assigns the identification mark within two weeks of receiving the necessary information from a retreader.

However, a retreader identification mark will not be assigned until the retreader has designated an agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that, for a designation of agent to be valid, it must contain the following six items:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the retreader under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the retreader;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the retreader's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in S551.45(b). When this agency has received both a completed application for a retreader identification mark and a designation of agent, a code mark will be assigned to the retreader promptly. This identification mark will be sent directly to the retreader and not to the designated agent.

Please feel free to contact me should you need any further information in this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION : TRUCK TIRES 400 7th Street South West WASHINGTON DC 20590 U S A

Hasselt, 1 december 1983.

Dear Sirs,

We are a Belgian tyre company and would like to export retreaded truck tyres to the USA.

We would like to know following :

1/ We are retreading casings from shoulder to shoulder. Those casings have original brand DOT-number (Michelin, Goodyear, a.s.o.). This number is still visible after retreading. Do we have to put on another DOT-number?

2/ If so can you please let us know how and how soon we can get it.

3/ If not please reply as soon as possible, by telex 39570 Belgium.

Awaiting your urgent reply.

Yours faithfully

for de Gonde LOUIS LEMMENS

ID: 1984-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pekka Suuronen -- Hella Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MR. Pekka Suuronen Hella, Inc. P.O. Box 1064 Cranford, NJ 07016

This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1983, clarifying your earlier requests for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You have asked whether replaceable bulb headlamps may be manufactured in sizes identical to the current sizes for sealed beam headlamps, provided that they meet Stardard No. 108 in all other respects.

The replaceable bulb headlamp amendment was adopted with the intent of allowing Vehicle manufacturers greater flexibility in the front end design in order to improve aerodynamics. The amendment allows an original equipment two-lamp system of no specified dimensions, and replacement lamps for these systems. It was not directed towards replacement lamps for existing headlamp systems. However, because no exterior dimensions for headlamps are specified by the amendment, replaceable bulb headlamps intended for use in a two-lamp system, with exterior dimension of sealed beam round or rectangular two-headlamp systems, would be permissible assuming that they meet all other requirements of Standard No. 108, including providing one of the two aiming pad locations specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. However, until Standard No. 108 is amended to allow a four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp system, these lamps are precluded from being manufactured to replace today's sealed beam round and rectangular sealed beem headlamps used in four-lamp systems.

I hope this provides the clarification you seek.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 30, 1983

NHTSA 400 Seventh St. NW Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1983, reference "NOA-30". I would like to clarify my question. I realize there is only one "legal" replaceable headlamp bulb which I call "Ford bulb", lacking a more official nomenclature.

By " six standard sizes" I mean headlamps, not bulbs. In other words, headlamps that would replace current six types 2D1, 1C1, 2C1, 1A1, 2A1, and 2B1. However, these proposed lamps would have a replaceable "Ford bulb" and a sealing just like in the Ford headlamp. In the case if Type 1 headlamp, only the high beam filament would be connected. The photometrics would meet the current SAE standards, the lamp would be mechanically rimable and the new proposed lamps would comply to all other applicable safety standards, as well.

My question is, would these kinds of headlamps be highway legal?

Please note that Racemark no longer is the importer of Hella. Please correspond to the address shown on the letterhead.

Sincerely,

PEKKA SUURONEN PS / lP

ID: 1984-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; NONE; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars Inc. -- C. Diane Black, Legislation and Compliance

TITLE: NHTSA RESPONSE TO PETITION

TEXT:

February 9, 1984

RE: FMVSS 101 Docket 1-18, Notice 23 7-27 Notice 24

Dear Ms. Steed:

On December 22, 1982, BL Technology Limited submitted a petition to your predecessor regarding a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Controls and Displays.

We are nearing the point of no return with a new model where "substantially resemble" and ISO parking brake symbol become extremely important.

I have attached one copy of our 1982 request and need to know if you and your staff require any other information from us to allow a decision on this request.

Sincerely,

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation & Compliance

CDB:as Attach.

22nd December 1982 Mr. R. Peck, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street SW, WASHINGTON DC 20490, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Peck

FMVSS 101 Controls & Displays Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Dockets 1-18, Notice 23 70-27; Notice 24)

The following petition is submitted on behalf of BL PLC (Cars Group) manufacturers of Austin, MG, Jaguar, Rover and Triumph cars.

We refer to the NHTSA proposal to update FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, by adding or modifying several symbols to bring the standard into harmony with the latest documents promulgated by the International Standards Organization.

As manufacturers of automobiles for markets throughout the world, we strongly support proposals that lead to the harmonization of vehicle standards. Notwithstanding this principle, we also feel that vehicle standards should not impede the introduction of new technology into the automobile.

The size and shape of symbols for controls, indicators and telltales is constrained by the ISO grid pattern, and in general, the shape of symbols is defined by a template in the display, the shape and continuity of which can be readily controlled. However, with the introduction of Informational Readout Displays and their associated 'dot matrix' character generation system, exact reproduction of smooth continuous curved shapes or lines may not be possible. The drivers recognition of such displays is not adversely affected and the ability to present additional information selectively, whilst not saturating the driver with an array of individual displays, has distinct economic advantages.

In Docket 1/18 Notice 13 the Administration recognized that minor deviations such as we have described should be permitted, provided the symbols so produced substantially resemble those in Table 2. To give effect to the Administration's position we therefore petition that S.5.2.3 be amended by the addition of a final sentence:-

'The provisions of this Section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2.'

With regard to the specific NHTSA request for comments on the use of a parking brake symbol, we request that the ISO symbol should be permitted as an alternative to words when a separate parking brake indicator lamp is provided.

Yours sincerely,

M. W. Lewis, Chief Engineer, Admin. & External Affairs

MWL/KD/VLS/A70/2e

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation and Compliance Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in response to your letter in which you request information on the status of your Petition for Rulemaking on Controls and Displays submitted December 22, 1982, and granted on December 12, 1983.

Your petition along with several others is being reviewed by a Task Force set up by the Administrator. Its purpose is to rewrite FMVSS No. 101 to reflect changes in technology which impact the control and display systems planned for future production.

A number of the petitioners have requested modifications to permit various Informational Readout Displays or combinations of telltales and displays which are currently not permitted by one or more sections of the standard. Your petition asks for inclusion in the standard of this statement. "The provision of this section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2." While providing manufacturers great latitude for interpretation, this addition would make the standard unenforceable without some design or performance boundaries on the words "substantially resemble."

We do not know how to set these performance limits and thus are retaining the policy established in the preamble to Notice 13 which asked manufacturers to produce symbols which substantially resemble those in the Tables. This approach allows thc agency to treat each symbol noncompliance on a case by case basis by weighing the impact on safety produced by the noncompliance.

To date all symbols have complied with the standard regardless of the technology used to make them visible to the driver. We note that you have not described the limitations of your dot matrix display in quantifiable terms and suspect that, like us, you have not found an easy way to define the relationship between density, color, distance from the driver, etc, vis a vis the perceived shape by the driver.

We have decided to terminate rulemaking on this subject at this time and, thus, will not be placing the words you recommended in the text of the standard. However, although the specific words are not included in the standard, the agency's intent should be clear from Notice 13 and this letter.