ID: nht78-1.6

DATE: 12/15/78

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

TO: Bud Shuster - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable Bud Shuster House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Shuster:

This responds to your inquiry dated November 29, 1978, on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. C. Stake, requesting information about Federal safety standards concerning door locks on automobiles. Specifically, Mr. Stake is concerned that the doors on his 1977 Mercury Monarch can be unlocked by a child from the inside by lifting the door handle.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 572.206), which specifies performance requirements for side door locks and side door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact. That standard specifies that each door on a passenger car shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3.1 of the standard specifies that when the locking mechanism on a side front door is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. For side rear doors, however, paragraph S4.1.3.2 requires both the outside and inside door handles to be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

This latter requirement was specifically included in the standard to address Mr. Stake's concern, that is, to prevent children from unlocking rear doors by means of the door handle. The design restriction was limited to rear doors on the basis that the danger arises primarily with unattended children sitting in the rear seat. A child sitting in the front seat is likely under the watchful eye of the driver. Further, there is the consideration that in emergency situations the driver may need to unlock his front door as easily and quickly as possible.

Since the Standard No. 206 requirements have been in effect for some time, we assume that the situation Mr. Stake describes is true only of the front doors of his Mercury Monarch. As noted above, however, there are competing safety considerations involved with door locks on front side doors.

Please contact our office if your constituent has any further questions concerning this matter, or have him contact us directly.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

DATE November 29, 1978

FROM: BUD SHUSTER, M. C.

Room 1112 Longworth Building Washington, D. C. 20515

TO: Department of Transportation Congressional Laison Office 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

NAME OF SUBJECT Mr. Clair Stake

SS OR OTHER CLAIM #

ADDRESS Box 115

Spring Run, Pennsylvania 17262

PROBLEM:

Mr. Stake has contacted me concerning car door lock safety standards. He owns a 1977 Mercury Monarch. When the door is locked (by pushing the button on the inside of the door) he finds that his young child can still open the door by pulling on the door handle.

This concernins him because be beleives that there should be safety standards which should require the door handle to be immobile until the lock button is pulled up.

Will you please send me any information on door lock standards? Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht78-1.7

DATE: 12/05/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 5, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. BOX 937 Fort Valley, Georgia

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your September 20, 1978, letter asking whether a particular bus body joint is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. The joint in question is the connection of two body panels under which runs a continuous body member for the entire length of the bus body.

Standard No. 221 establishes strength requirements for body panel joints which are defined as "the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component..." Body panel is further defined to mean "a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus' occupant space." The exterior body panels to which you refer are involved in the enclosure of the bus' occupant space, and accordingly, their connection is a joint falling within the requirements of the standard. The fact that an underlying body member runs under the panels perpendicular to the joint in no way excepts the joint from the requirements of the standard.

Your analogy of these panels to rub rails whose joints are not tested according to the requirements of the standard is inappropriate. Rub rails are added on to the exterior of a bus over the body panels. All parts of the rub rails fall outside the exterior skin of a bus, and therefore, they serve no purpose in enclosing occupant space. The panels to which you refer, on the other hand, are the primary, sidewall components enclosing bus' occupant space.

You ask how the agency will test this joint since it has a body structure member that runs perpendicular to it. You suggest that the agency cut an appropriate size specimen of the panels' joint, and underlying body member and pull one panel and the body member against the other panel and the body member. The agency disagrees. This procedure would not test the strength of the joint, since the stresses imposed by the test would be carried by the continuous body member being pulled against itself.

The agency tests such joints by cutting a specimen of the panels that includes a portion of the underlying body member. The ends of the body member are then removed to allow the testing device to clamp the two body panels that are to be tested. However, rivets or other bonding materials that connect the panels and the body member at the joint remain intact. This is what is intended by the standard's requirement that the underlying body structure be included within the joint strength test. Leaving the underlying structure intact at the joint permits a test of the joint's strength that closely approximates the actual strength of the joint as it is installed in a completed bus.

Responding finally to your last comment that the agency by its testing technique is hindering the development of integrally constructed bodies, the NHTSA disagrees. The agency believes that the strength of the entire bus body is dependent upon the strength of its parts. Each joint must be examined independently to ensure that it is strong enough to withstand accident forces. Since those forces vary with the nature of any impact and can result in severe stress on one small section of a bus, it is appropriate to measure the strength of individual joints. However, the agency's testing technique as outlined above considers the effect of the underlying bus structure thus encouraging the development of integrally constructed bodies.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 20, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 1) Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, April 26, 1976 N40-30

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek an interpretation on two questions:

1. Whether a particular area on our bus body is a joint subject to FMVSS 221 and,

2. What constitutes a joint specimen for testing to determine compliance with FMVSS 221.

These questions arose recently during tests at Mobility Systems and Equipment Company under contract to NHTSA No. DOT-HS-7-01670. These issues must be resolved for future compliance testing both by Blue Bird Body Company and NHTSA. The questions are dealt with independently below.

1. The area in question is circled on the enclosed photograph which shows the basic location on the body. The most basic issue is that this should not even be considered a joint. As shown in the attached sketch 41, the alledged joint is only skin over a continous, one piece, 16 gauge structural member which runs the full length of the body parallel to the direction of force application. Even if the skin panels were removed, the body would be fully enclosed beneath them by the solid one piece structural member. The skin in this case in analogous to the rub rails in reference 1 wherein it states that "...the rub rails... are not themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for the purposes of the requirements." We therefore ask for confirmation that the area shown in the enclosed photograph, and represented by sketch #1 is not a joint.

2. Irrespective of this basic issue, for this particular joint however, there are other questions which must be resolved that apply to all joints. Therefore, even though we do not agree that the particular area in question is subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221, the remainder of this letter is written as though it were a joint so that the other issues can be resolved.

The question is what should be gripped and pulled, in order to test a joint? In other words, what constitutes a joint specimen? Our interpretation is that, as defined in the enclosed simplified sketch #2, parts 1 and 3 should be gripped on one end of the specimen and parts 2 and 3 should be gripped on the other end of the specimen.

We have arrived at this conclusion through the following analysis of FMVSS 221:

S 6.3.1 says "Grip the joint specimen on opposite sides of the joint..." Although "joint specimen" is not explicitly defined in S 4, Definitions, it is implicitly defined in S 6.1, Preparation of the test specimen. This says "...cut a test specimen that consists of any randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint, together with a portion of the bus body whose dimensions to the extent permitted by the size of the joined parts, are those specified in Figure 1, ..."

The underlined portion above tells us we must, in cutting the specimen from the body, cut parts 1, 2 and 3 as defined in the enclosed sketch. Indeed, because of the integral nature of the way parts 1 and 2 are assembled to part 3, it would be impossible not to include part 3 in cutting the specimen from the body. Therefore, the assembly of parts 1, 2 and 3 constitute the joint specimen referred to in S 6.3.1 for the particular joint under consideration.

An explanation of how parts 1, 2 and 3 are assembled together is in order at this point. Parts 1 and 2 are fastened to part 3 not only at the "alleged body panel joint" but continuously along the length of the body by rivet row A, making a continuously integral assembly of part 3 to parts 1 and 2. Therefore, the strength of the body panel joint in question is meaningless without considering the strength of part 3. Part 3 is a continuous structural member running the full length of the body. Therefore, "failure" of the alleged body panel joint in question cannot occur without failure of rivet row A and part 3.

The issue involved here is more than the simple resolution of how to test one particular joint segment on one manufacturer's bus body or what constitutes a joint specimen. It involves the basic economic incentive or disincentive the NHTSA is creating for manufacturers to build stronger, integrally assembled body structures. NHTSA briefly touched on this fact in the preamble to FMVSS 221 in the January 27, 1976 issue of the Federal Register by acknowledging comments stating that manufacturers could take the approach to FMVSS 221 of weakening the overall body structure in order to lower the required joint strength. This approach is very possible since FMVSS 221 does not set an absolute strength requirement but rather a relative strength requirement; i.e. 60% of the weakest joined body panel.

If the NHTSA does not agree with the interpretations outlined above, it will be establishing a policy which will discourage manufacturers from designing strong, integrally constructed bodies, and encourage them toward the most cost effective means of meeting the letter of FMVSS 221 regardless of total body strength.

For these reasons then, we look forward to your early confirmation of:

1. The alleged joint in question is not for the purposes of FMVSS 221, and

2. What constitutes a joint specimen.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht78-1.8

DATE: 11/20/78

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

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nov. 20, 1978

Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven, Connecticut 06507

Dear Mr. Cheetham:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1978, requesting approval of the tread labels Armstrong Rubber Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a trend label identifying the tire brand, type and size. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule, including a listing of all possible traction and temperture grades, with the text on the label oriented along the tread circumference instead of across it.

Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacement tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, the specific grades for the tire must appear on the same label that contains the explanation of the grading system. The regulation calls for a depiction of all possible traction and temperature grades with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations of the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation. Your proposed labels also fail to meet the regulation's requirement that applicable traction and temperature grades be denoted by circling the appropriate letter in a display of all possible grades. Finally, the general UTQGS information in your proposal is not in the form illustrated in Figure 2, since the text in your example will appear along the tread rather than at right angles as specified by Figure 2.

While your proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirements of Part 575.104(d)(l)(i)(B), NHTSA will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking and consider amending the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 19, 1978

Dr. Cecil Brenner Automotive Rating NRM-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Brenner:

Subject: Part 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading page 30549 of the Federal Register, dated Monday, July 17, 1978.

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of October 19, 1978, concerning the labeling requirements of the subject part.

The Armstrong Rubber Company requests an interpretation of this section. As stated to you, Armstrong requested that the treadwear, traction, and temperature identification be added to our regular label, which identifies a specific tire. In addition, the legend labeled as figure 2 in the subject part number would be affixed to the tread surface a maximum of 1/2" from the end of the label, which has the identification symbols. In this manner we will minimize the possibibities of mislabeling tires.

The Armstrong Rubber Company has requested that only one identification symbol be placed on the label which clearly defines the traction and temperature resistance of the particular tire. This would replace indelibly circling on the label one of the three grades under the traction and temperature resistance characteristics.

The Armstrong Rubber Company respectfully requests that part 575.104 be modified so that the labeling can be interpreted as indicated above.

Please find attached a copy of the two labels that the Armstrong Rubber Company would appreciate your consideration and concurrence. Label number 2, which is the legend describing the D.O.T. quality grading, was not printed verbatum and will be changed as shown in figure 2 of part 575.104. Figure 2 on page 30552 of the Federal Register was changed to reflect your thinking on the traction grades as A, B, C.

I trust this request will meet with your approval. If additional information is requested, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance

cc: J.A. Walsh R. L. Donnelly

RWC/eam

ID: nht78-1.9

DATE: 12/26/78

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

TO: Marque Motors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 26 1978

Mr. Sheldon C. Brooks Marque Motors 8711 Lyndale Ave., So. Bloomington, Minnesota 55420

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1978, requesting an exemption from the requirements of Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), for ten Lamborghini Countach vehicles currently under construction. You state that the Lamborghini Company's small size and difficult economic situation preclude immediate redesign of the Countach model to bring it into compliance with the bumper regulation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 215, Exterior Protection (49 CFR 571.215), from which Lamborghini had been granted an exemption, was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act). Section 123 of the Safety Act permits the exemption of motor vehicles from safety standards when compliance would cause a manufacturer substantial economic hardship and the manufacturer has attempted in good faith to comply (15 U.S.C. 1410). Standard No. 215 was revoked effective September 1, 1978.

The present bumper regulation, Part 581, effective September 1, 1978, was issued under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1901), which permits exemptions only for passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. In view of the narrowness of this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to grant an exemption from Part 581 on the basis of economic hardship or limited production.

Part 581 applies to passenger motor vehicles, other than multipurpose vehicles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1978 (49 CFR 581.5(a)). Therefore, vehicles manufactured by Lamborghini which are completed after August 31, 1978, must meet the requirements of the regulation, if they are imported into or sold in the United States.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 4, 1978

Richard Hipolit NASSIS Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

With regard to our telephone conversation of December 1st regarding the Lamborghini Company, I would like to state that I am an associate of the company and I have been asked by them to work with the proper authorities here in the United States in order to extend the bumper exemption on the Lamborghini Countach.

In speaking with Joe Levin he suggested that I take the matter up with you, and that if you were in a position to interpret the law that something could be done if it fell within the interpretation of that law. Speaking with you, you stated that you could call me back today, Monday, regarding the possibility of accepting approximately 10 cars that are under construction to be exported to the United States. As the Lamborghini factory is undergoing extensive reorganization it would take us approximately 18 months to design the automobile in a fashion that would meet the present bumper requirements. As you know, the company is very small and its production is extremely limited. Especially limited are those cars that find their way to the United States. I would estimate that a maximum of 25 cars enter the United States, cars of the Countach variety, in any given year.

I would appreciate hearing from you as to whether it is possible to extend the bumper exemption for 18 months or so on these 10 cars. This would relieve the company of a great deal of pressure and might make the difference between its existence and nonexistence. As this company is one that produces one of the hallmark type of automobiles of the Italian people, it would be a good bit of public relations for all to extend the exemption. I'm at your disposal at any time to be in Washington to explain the case personally or to help in any way that I possibly can. I appreciate your interest and cooperation and do hope that we can get affirmative results.

Kind regards,

Sheldon C. Brooks President

SCB:dlw

ID: nht78-2.1

DATE: 12/06/78

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

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

Dear Mr. Gill:

This is in response to your letters of October 9, 1978, and October 20, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.

The type face shown in the attachment to your letter of October 9, 1978, meets the requirements of S4.3.1. Since the standard does not specify a location for the placement of the VIN on motorcycles, it may be stamped on the certification label. However, Honda should also consider stamping the VIN on the cycle frame as well, to aid in recovery if the motorcycle is stolen.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosures

October 9, 1978

Office of Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Sir:

Attached are sheets showing the format of the type face which Honda Motor Co., Ltd. intends to use for the vehicle identification number required by FMVSS 115.

Please inform me as soon as possible whether this type face meets the requirement of S4.3.1 of Standard number 115.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:lw

Enclosure

October 20, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation as to the suitability of a method for compliance with the requirement of section S4.3 of FMVSS 115, Vehicle Identification Number (V.I.N.). That section gives the general requirements for the part of the vehicle upon which the V.I.N. must appear.

Section S4.4 of the standard gives specific requirements for the location of the V.I.N. for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVNR but there is no such specification for other vehicles, such as motorcycles.

We respectfully request your confirmation that the requirements of S4.3 for motorcycles will be met if the V.I.N. is stamped on the label required by S 567.4 (e) of Part 567 - Certification.

Your earliest response will be appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:rk

ID: nht78-2.10

DATE: 11/29/78

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

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason of our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978.

Your questions and our answers are:

1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579c with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place "DOT" and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight?

Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded by S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of the option has the effect of allowing the higher maximum candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the "DOT" symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum.

2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamps "be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?"

I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichikoh may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a.

3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the same vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp.

NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply to your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem.

4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade.

The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 20 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

ISEHARA-PLANT

September 22, 1978

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Subject: Motor Vehicle Headlamps

We, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., are an original equipment manufacturer of sealed beam headlamps, signalling lamps, rear view mirrors and other accessories for motor vehicles.

With regard to the recent amendment of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Docket No. 78-5 : Notice 3, issued on July 27, 1978, we would like to confirm you the following matters:

1. All our sealed beam headlamps (circular and rectangular types) have been approved in each States including AAMVA compliance with the applicable (photometric) requirements of FMVSS 108 : that is, SAE Standard J579c.

At the present, the maximum candlepower of each headlamp is maintained as not exceed 37,500 cd, and we have no intention changing to the higher wattage allowed in the above new amendment.

In such a case: Does it permit to indicate "DOT" and new "designation code" defined in new paragraph S4.1.1.21 on each lenses of our headlamps?, and

2. May we interpret that, by the new amendment, the old requirements of the maximum candlepower 37,500 cd to headlamps will be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?

This problem concerns to our quality control system.

3. Besides, according to the amended regulation, it can not install both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on one (1) vehicle.

However, if the above item No. 1 is accepted, it result in allowing to use the different type headlamps with the same code on a vehicle, that is, the lower candlepower headlamp(s) (not more than 37,500 cd) and the higher candlepower headlamp(s) not more than 75,000cd.

This means headlamp users can not select such different type headlamps with the same identification code, and such mixed use of headlamps would give rise to undesirable influence on the visibilities for road users.

Besides, it would lead to substantially allow the use of both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on a vehicle.

We would like to hear your view point on this problem.

4. As you well know, ECE Regulation No. 20, Halogen Headlamps, requires to mark on each headlamp lens severally graded identification indicating the reference of the maximum candlepower. This make easy to know the headlamp grade.

On the other hand, it is impossible to know the headlamp grade (candlepower) with the identification code on the lens under the amended regulation of FMVSS 108.

Do you have the intention to adopt the conception of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future?

With regard to the above matters, your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Suminori EGUCHI, Chief Engineer Technical Department.

ID: nht78-2.11

DATE: 07/10/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Paul Trible - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the letter (enclosed) you received from your constituent Mr. Randy Churaman of Hampton, Virginia, concerning plexiglass covers for headlights.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1972 proposed rulemaking to allow fixed plastic covers over motor vehicle headlights. However, during the comment period of the proposed rule-making some controversial items that were raised regarding fixed plastic headlight covers initiated concerns with respect to motor vehicle safety. These concerns were that: (1) moisture condenses inside the plastic covers and greatly increases headlight glare to oncoming traffic, (2) the plastic covers get scratched, thus reducing headlight output and increasing headlight glare at the same time, (3) plastic headlight covers have to be removed to mechanically aim headlamps, which becomes quite expensive to the vehicle owner and (4) correct aim of headlights is often made incorrect when installing fixed plastic headlight covers. Finally, the change in air drag by use of plastic headlight covers is extremely small since the air drag is primarily related to the overall frontal area projection of the vehicle.

Because of the foregoing disadvantages, and no major advantage to fixed plastic headlight covers other than styling, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prohibits fixed plastic covers over headlamps. Specifically, FMVSS No. 108 references SAE Standard J580a, which states in part . . . "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." There is, however, no prohibition on the installation of original equipment retractable clear plastic headlamp concealment devices on newly manufactured motor vehicles.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

ENC. CONSTITUENT'S LETTER

EXECUTIVE TOWER, BOX 59 2101 EXECUTIVE DR. HAMPTON, VA 23666

Dear Mr. Trible

I own a Datsun 280 Z sports car which has a very aerodynamic front end except for the cutouts for the headlights (see sketch). In other countries there are clear plexiglass covers available for the headlights, which fit over the cutouts, and complete the aerodynamic lines. In this country these covers are illegal for reasons which are beyond my comprehension since they would reduce the air drag of the car, and therefore give better gas milage. I would like to see the law changed to permit the use of these headlight covers, or know why they are illegal.

Randy Churaman

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-2.12

DATE: 08/29/78

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

TO: Cibie Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated reply to your letter of December 15, 1977, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your request concerned the legality of installation on motor vehicles of remote manual or of automatic headlamp aiming equipment.

If a headlamp assembly meets the requirements of Standard No. 108 when installed with or without auxiliary means of aiming, we consider the assembly to be in conformance. Your device does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the prohibition of S4.1.3, and either device that you described would apparently provide an additional safeguard against glare when the rear of the vehicle is heavily loaded.

SINCERELY,

CIBIE CORPORATION

Office of the Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

December 15 1977

Dear Sir

Headlamp "Aim Correction"

Cibie Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, the American subsidiary of CIBIE PROJECTEURS of Bobigny, France. Cibie Projecteurs manufacturers automotive lighting equipment of every description: headlamps, fog and spotlamps, combination lamps, etc. In addition, headlamp aim correction units are manufactured for passenger cars.

In Europe, these aim correction units are referred to as headlamp levellers; this terminology may lead to confusion with suspension levellers in the United States, hence I have coined the name "aim correction units" in the absence of a recognized term.

The aim correction units manufactured by Cibie are of two types: manual and automatic. Both types are additional to the normal aim features of the headlamp system to which they are applied. That is to say, the correct aim of the headlamps is first established by means of a screwdriver adjustment made externally to the headlamp by a person standing at the front of the car. (Sometimes the screwdriver is not required, where the slotted-head screw has a finger-tip knob molded onto it, allowing the basic aim to be made with the fingers directly.)

The movement of the headlamps that is applied by the aim correction units to the basic correct adjustment is in a downward sense only, to compensate for a full luggage load in the trunk. Thus, the aim correction units cannot of themselves produce dazzle; however, failure by the driver to take advantage of them can allow dazzle to persist (due to luggage load) that could otherwise be removed by their use.

Dealing with the two types of aim correction unit, taking the manual type first: there are two types of manual aim correction unit, two-position and variable.

The earlier two-position type incorporates a cam in the headlamp mounting itself. A small lever, moved by hand, produces a downward correction of the headlamp aim; this lever is accessible by raising the engine hood of the car.

The later variable type incorporates a small piston unit and control knob under the instrument panel, operable from the driving seat. Hydraulic tubing connects the piston unit to a slave unit on each headlamp, lowering the headlamp aim by any desired amount within the design limits of movement. Again, the aim correction is downwards only.

The automatic aim correction unit incorporates hydraulic sensors on the vehicle suspension which, by means of hydraulic tubing and the same slave units, correct the headlamp aim downward without any action on the part of the driver. In the case of the automatic system, headlamp aim is also corrected dynamically for vehicle pitching movements as well as statically for luggage load.

These three types of aim correction unit have been in use in Europe for many years. The automatic unit is currently standard equipment on the Lancia Beta.

Council Directive 76/756 of the European Common Market now requires passenger cars to be fitted with headlamp aim correction units, operable from the driver's seat or automatic. Thus, it is entirely possible that European passenger car manufacturers may wish to export to the United States models of cars in which the European headlamps have been replaced with SAE sealed beams, in accordance with FMVSS 108, but still retaining the aim correction feature, whether manual or automatic.

Cibie Projecteurs, as manufacturer of the aim correction units, would wish to be in a position to advise its customers as to the eligibility of these units for importation into the United States.

Therefore, Cibie Corporation requests a legal opinion as to whether a passenger car that complies in all respects with FMVSS 108, but in addition is equipped with manual or automatic aim correction as described above, would be deemed still in compliance with FMVSS 108.

Inasmuch as the application of the Council Directive takes effect during 1978, the earliest possible answer to this enquiry would be greatly appreciated.

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht78-2.13

DATE: 06/02/78

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

TO: Minnesota State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your letter of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.

The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you have quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J584. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be "motor driven cycles" as defined by 40 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.

I hope this answers your question.

SINCERELY

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

May 3, 1978

Jim Downey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Office

Dear Mr. Downey:

We are having difficulty in determining whether FMVSS 108 permits single beam road lighting for mopeds.

Page 32914 of Federal Register 39, No. 178, dated September 12, 1974, contains a reference to NHTSA exploring forward lighting needs of motor-driven cycles and indicates that a decision would be made as to whether a reduced minimum standard would be appropriate.

We are unable to locate any writings as to the conclusions arrived at beyond that point other than reference in FMVSS 108 (S4.1.1) that ". . . each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps . . . specified in Tables I and III, as applicable. Required equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended Practices referenced in those tables."

Table III indicates one (1) white headlamp for motorcycles and cites SAE Standard J584. This standard (J584) contains the general requirement of ". . . one 7-inch sealed beam unit or one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units meeting the requirements of SAE J579 may be used on a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle."

Since compliance with either option of J584 results in having a high beam and a low beam we are unable to conclude that one (1) single beam headlamp on a moped constitutes compliance with FMVSS 108.

Our concern arises from the fact that our state recently adopted moped legislation requiring the same lighting equipment as is required of motorcycles and we must give due consideration to federal requirements in view of the fact that Minnesota law requires motorcycles to have both an upper beam and a lower beam.

Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated.

Colonel James C. Crawford Chief Minnesota State Patrol

ID: nht78-2.14

DATE: 08/23/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nippondenso Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting confirmation of interpretations of Paragraph S4.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This confirms your interpretations.

Paragraph S2, Application states the coverage of the standard: to specified vehicle types "and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" i.e. those vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. The equipment items listed in Tables I and III are required motor vehicle lighting equipment, and any item manufactured as a replacement for one of these items that has been original equipment on 1972 or later model vehicles, must meet Standard No. 108's requirements and be so certified.

Paragraph S4.7 allows certification by means of a DOT symbol placed on the item itself. No specific design or size is required. The manufacturer may certify by other means as well, specifically those set forth for all equipment items covered by a standard, in Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403): "a label or tag on [the] item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered". We would view an indelible stamp on the container as "a label" within the meaning of Section 114 if Nippondenso wished to certify by this means.

I have no other suggestions regarding use of the DOT symbol, except that it should be of a size and in a location sufficient to readily identify the item as meeting Federal requirements, thereby avoiding any possible misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

August 10, 1978

Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of August 8, 1978 in which I requested information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section 4.7.

Question: Is the DOT symbol required on replacement equipment?

Answer: The DOT symbol can be used on either of the following: 1. Stamped on the equipment.

2. Label or tag attached to the equipment stating that the equipment is certified by DOT.

3. Stamped on the container in which the equipment is packaged.

Question: Is there any specific design or size required when using the DOT symbol?

Answer: There is no specific design or size required by DOT.

Question: Please define replacement equipment?

Answer: Replacement equipment is defined as any item of equipment which replaces original equipment that is required to meet compliance specifications set by DOT.

The above information you supplied was transmitted to our head office in Japan. However, they would appreciate the above information in a letter form signed by you. They have also requested any additional information which will be helpful to them in understanding the requirements regarding the DOT symbol.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Anna Racanelli Assistant General Manager