ID: nht90-3.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 24, 1990

FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Fasel

TO: Arthur H. Neill, Jr. -- Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, Office of Vehicle Safety

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing entitled "Eye-Level Turn Signal" (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-25-90 from P.J. Rice to Mr. and Mrs. A.J. Fasel (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to copy of Standard No. 111 (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for sending the Rules and Regulations.

In the Safety Standard No. 108, could you give us a positive interpretation that says there is no law or regulation that prohibits turn signals being amber and in no way is an impairment to the function of the center high mounted red stop lamp.

Red is used on a traffic signal and amber is always caution. This idea has been used for years. For 80 years, they used red tail lights exclusively. Not until recently have they incorporated amber into their signals.

On Page 48237, a field test results shows a signal lamp design more effective.

On Page 48239, to Delay Safety Standard No. 108 to await new improvements will result in delay of implementing requirements known to appreciably reduce accidents and save lives.

This draws your attention. You know the vehicle ahead is slowing or stopping, with the addition of the amber turn signals, you would also know if the car is going to turn.

In conclusion we feel the principals that apply to the center high mounted red stop lamp applys to the amber eye-level turn signals and merits this improvement.

Please give this some expert consideration and reply.

Enclosed is a picture. We have a photo-type and to really see its effectiveness it has to be seen in action.

"EYE-LEVEL TURN SIGNAL" Albert J. Fasel - #P3788

ABSTRACT:

This invention relates to automotive turning signals and in particular to a signal that is used in conjunction with the rear bumper signal lights. The signal is mounted in the rear window of the vehicle. Two different models are used. One model for use with an already existing rear window

light or without one. The unit would straddle the already existing light or it comes with a brakelight if there is not one. By using this it aids in seeing the directional in poor weather conditions such as bright sun, rain, snow or fog.

MARKETS & DISTRIBUTION:

Based on the effectiveness, efficiency, safety and convenience, market potential is good. It could be sold through parts & accessories retailers and wholesalers, miscellaneous merchandise stores, department stores and mail order catalogs.

STATUS:

This invention is currently Patent Pending.

This invention now has a Patent No. 4,896,250 issued Jan. 23rd, 1990.

ID: nht90-3.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8-1-90 to T. Vincon from C. Zeitlow; (OCC 5067); also attached to photocopies of Federal Register (text omitted)

TEXT:

This in reply to your letter of August 1, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You ask for confirmation that "the hazard warning light should always over-ride the stop lamp" when they are "together on a vehicle." I am pleased to provide that confirmation. Under the relevant SAE materials on stop lamps that are incorporated by ref erence in Standard No. 108, when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. Because the hazard warning system operates through the turn sig nal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use.

You have also noted that in your version of Standard No. 108, no reference is made to SAE Standard J1395. It was not until May 15 of this year that Standard No. 108 was amended to incorporate SAE J1395 (with an effective date of December 1, 1990). I en close a copy of that amendment for your information.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht90-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Heracilio R. Prieto -- President, Easton Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-89 from H.R. Prieto to E. Jones (OCC 3378); Also attached to literature entitled Codedge Label Dating Machine (text omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the marking and labeling requirements in Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR 571.116). You asked whether you could comply with the requirement in Standard No. 116 that each brake fluid container be labeled with a "serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging" by means of a "label notch coding system," which you described as a mechanical device which permanently notches a label. Standard No. 116 does not prohibit the use of a label notch coding system provided that it is not susceptible to being torn. However, any label notch coding system must be permanent and unambiguous, and satisfy all other relevant provisions of the standard.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2 requires each packager of a brake fluid to include information that is either "marked" directly on the container or marked on a label that is "permanently affixed to the container." Section S5.2.2.2(a)-(g) sets forth the specific information that must appear directly on or be labeled on every brake fluid container. Section S5.2.2.2(d) requires that the container be marked with "a serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging."

Information about the label notch coding system enclosed with your letter and samples of your notched labels show that you use the system known as "code-dating," which uses uniquely spaced notches to represent a code that can be translated into a packagi ng date by means of a "Codedge decoder card." With this number or date represented by notches, tbe number could be traced by the packager to the packaging date and lot number through its production quality control records. While the "Codedge" system on ly identifies the year of manufacturing by means of a single digit, your recent letter indicates that an additional notch will be added to identify the decade.

With respect to the label notch coding system, if the notches clearly identified the packaged lot and date of packaging, the combination would be a "serial number" and would appear to comply with the requirement of S5.2.2.2(d).

I would also like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1407) requires every manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. For this reason, this agency has no au thority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance with respect to any system of labeling brake

fluid containers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 210, Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W. Shapiro (A36; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Section 4.3.2 of FMVSS 210 sets forth the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of type 2 seat belt assemblies. Section 3 defines seat belt anchorage as the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structu re.

Volvo is currently designing a type 2 seat belt assembly for the rear seating positions of a proposed vehicle. The retractor is mounted within the seat back, in order to improve the seat belt geometry, to increase the comfort of the occupants, and to al low movement of the seat back. The retractor is located outside of the zone specified in Section 4.3.2, figure 1. However, the shoulder portion of the belt travels from the retractor through a device we are calling a "belt anchor", which is the functio nal equivalent of a d-ring. Kindly see the attached drawings, Appendices A & B, for clarity.

The belt anchor is located within the specified zone. Its function is to transfer the seat belt assembly load to the vehicle structure, and to determine the angle the belt crosses the vehicle occupant.

This belt anchor complies with the force requirements of the standard. Please see the attached drawings, Appendices C, D & E for the forces in the proposed design. For comparison, Appendices F & G show the forces on a current vehicle.

Volvo believes that a correct interpretation of FMVSS 210 in this case is that the belt anchor is the upper anchorage point for this seat belt system. Please confirm this for us.

Our engineers must finalize the design by this Fall. As such, we respectfully request that you reply by November 1, 1990.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, kindly contact Linda Gronlund of my office at 201-767-4815.

ID: nht90-3.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re REF: 2013-138

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. J ones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas

TEXT:

I have written letters to you in the past regarding the FMVSS compliance in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), but have never seen any action.

It is my understanding that the FMVSS apply in full force to the CNMI. As such, I have dutifully refrained from bringing in nonconforming vehicles. Due to the apparent complete failure of any local enforcement (as admitted by local officials--see enclos ed letter), my competitors are not so constrained and are engaging in what seems like unfair competition by bringing in cheap nonconforming vehicles.

Now it is okay with me if you have no interest in "compliance enforcement" in the CNMI. Perhaps it's better for the people? I can get the cheap nonconforming cars too. All I want is a level playing field, and to know the rules. Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?

Attachment

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Governor Capitol Hill, Saipan MP/USA 96950 The Honorable Ben Blaz Phone: (670) 322-5091/2/3 Member of Congress Telefax: (670) 322-5096/99 1130 Longworth House Office Building Telex: 783-622 Gov.NMIWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blaz:

Re: Triple J Motors - Bob Jones - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Applicability to the CNMI

We reply to your letter to us of October 5, 1990. You explain that Mr.

Bob Jones, of Triple J Motors, has a problem. It goes like this. Triple J, apparently, makes sure all the vehicles it imports and registers in the Commonwealth are in compliance with the FMVSS. Triple J fears possible federal enforcement action or. po ssibly worse, a customer law suit arising

from an auto accident and grounded on the company's failure to sell cars safety equipped to federal standards.

Compliance with these standards raises Triple J's investment in the automobiles so equipped. This added investment must be taken into consideration when Triple J sets its retail prices. Triple J's competitors in the Commonwealth, by design or accident, don't uniformly follow the federal standards. The competitor's retail prices need not, therefore, include consideration of the added cost of equipping vehicles for compliance with the FMVSS. Because of this, Triple J feels at a competitive disadvantag e in the market place. Triple J seeks a level playing field: It wants all CNMI automobile dealers compelled to follow the federal safety rules or, alternatively, that none of them including itself, be compelled to follow the rules.

Mr. Jones asks you for help. What would he have you do? He wants you to see to it that the CNMI enforces the FMVSS or he wants you to obtain a declaration, preferably from the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Transportation, that the federal safety standards don't apply in the CNMI. Before taking action, you ask for our comments and views. Here they are.

We only enforce laws that apply in the CNMI. Do these federal safety standards apply in the CNMI? By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979. It looks like we get the law. But this is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for sel f-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. Besides, consider the practicality of the situation. We move slowly on two lanes roads up and down twelve and fourteen mile long islands. Our drivers aren't hooked into a vast system of U.S. interstate highways where uniform safety equipment might be necessary to protect highspeed free ways carrying commerce between the states. We can't even drive to Tinian. We're small, wind-swept islands out here without even a traffic light.

I will say this, however: If I find that our people need the protection of some or all of the motor vehicle safety standards included in the FMVSS program, I'll be the first to move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law. Until then , it is our position that the FMVSS does not apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

If you address this matter on a national level, Congressman, please take our views into consideration. Thank you so much for consulting us. You

are a true friend of the Northern Marianas.

Sincerely,

LORENZO I. DE LEON GUERRERO Governor

cc: Lt. Governor Resident Representative to the United States Director, Department of Public Safety Director, Department of Finance Triple J Motors

ID: nht90-3.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8-2-90 to R. L. Van Iderstine from S. Watanabe; (OCC 5094)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Although rulemaking notices provide the name of a NHTSA staff engineer, such as that of Mr. Van Iders tine, to contact for further information, correspondence asking for interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards should be addressed to the Chief counsel.

It is your understanding that as of September 1, 1990, "lamp manufacturers such as Stanley, not car manufacturer) have to manufacture the external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps which conform to the downward torque deflection requirement s." You ask for confirmation of your understanding.

Your understanding is correct. The last sentence of Section S7.7.5.1(a) of Standard No. 108 states that "Each headlamp system that is designed to conform to paragraph S7.5 and that is designed to use such external aiming devices, and which is manufactur ed on or after September 1, 1990, shall comply with the downward torque deflection requirements of S7.7.5.1(a). Because it is the headlamp system that must comply with the requirement, it is the manufacturer of such system that is required to comply on a nd after September 1, 1990.

As you appear to understand, vehicle manufacturers need not equip their vehicles with the new systems on September 1, 1990, and may continue to manufacture vehicles with the old systems until their inventory is exhausted.

ID: nht90-3.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 from S. Watanabe to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1990, requesting an interpretation of how the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 would apply to a combined taillamp and side marker lamp. Your letter indicates that "the light output of side marker lamp is als o emanated toward the rear of the vehicle mixed with tail lamp light, and similarly, the light output of tail lamp is also emanated toward the side mixed with side marker lamp light." You requested answers to the following two questions.

"1) Should the Tail lamp function of this lamp meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections, or 3 lighted sections?"

Although NHTSA and the SAE have not defined "lighted section", we understand it to be that portion of a lens that is illuminated, either singly by a single light source, or in common by more than one light source. Your question assumes that the number o f bulbs in your lamp is equal to the number of lighted sections, that is to say, that each bulb illuminates a separate section of the lens. However, in your design, all bulbs contribute, without interruption by a divider or other light-directing feature , to the illumination of the lens. Therefore, we regard your lamp as a single compartment lamp to which the single lighted section requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), September 1977, apply, even though the illumination i s provided by three light sources.

"2) Should the Side marker function of this lamp meet the photometric requirement of SAE J592e by 3 lighted sections or 1 lighted section?"

Standard No. 108 also incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972. Unlike SAE J585e, SAE J592e does not contain different photometric requirements depending on the number of lighted sections. Therefore, we interpret your question as asking whether photometric compliance is determined on the basis of the bulb that is dedicated to that purpose, or by all three bulbs. Because there is no clearly defined side marker lamp other than the portion of the lamp that is visible from the side, compliance should be measured using all three light sources in the lamp.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht90-3.72

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-90 from R.E. Portors to Z.R. Fraser; Also attached to Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-85 Edition), page 218 (text omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 5, 1990, to Zachary R. Fraser of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of a requirement applicable to center highmounted stop lamps. You attached a copy of the requirements for our convenience.

Section S5.1.1.41(a) of Standard No. 108 (S4.1.1.41(a) in your copy) requires the center lamp to have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches. You report that the lamp on the 1990 Cadillac measures 6 square inches in ar ea. When a boomerang TV antenna is installed, the shaft area displaces 1.125 square inches of area which would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a)." You further state that subsection (b) (re lating to visibility of signal throughout the horizontal angle from 45 degrees right to left of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle) would not be affected. Further, "without window glazing", section (c) relating to compliance with the photometrics of F igure 10, would not be affected either, in your opinion.

First, we note that your interpretation of subsection (a) is not correct. The effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp remains at 6 square inches, because no modifications are performed on the lamp that affect the lens itself. The question for compliance is whether the photometric requirements of subsection (c) are met. We do not understand your phrase "without window glazing", as compliance is determined with the back window in place. However, in our experience, a TV boomerang antenna is, like the lamp, mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, usually the rear deck. In this position, even a shaft that displaces 1.125 square inch of area will block the light from the lamp at test point H-V, and the lamp will not comply with the photometric requirements of "Figher 10, as specified by subsection (c). Therefore, we cannot concur in your interpretation that the design you describe "would not affect the requirements of 571.108."

ID: nht90-3.73

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Michael Mascho -- Safety & Compliance Specialist, Kenworth Truck Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from J.M. Mascho to T. Vinson (OCC 4988) with photograph

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Kenworth builds a wide truck that is equipped with a sleeper, located behind the cab and extending somewhat above it. On this model, the clearance and identification lamps are mounted on the cab. A customer has asked for an additional set of clearance and identification lamps to be mounted on the sleeper. You have enclosed photographs of this configuration, and asked whetber such a vehicle would be in compliance with Standard No. 108.

The answer is yes. Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment to be installed provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The duplicate clearance and identifica tion lamps that your client wishes Kenworth to provide would appear to enhance, rather than impair, the effectiveness of the original equipment clearance and identification lamps installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

ID: nht90-3.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roman L. Cepeda

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-24-90 from R.L. Cepeda to F. Berndt (OCC 5039)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 24, 1990, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You wish to import 8 to 12 stainless steel parts. After importation, the parts would be put together to form a Jeep body. Ultimately, an engine , chassis, and all other parts, which are from Guam, would be added to form a completed motor vehicle.

You have asked for confirmation that "the stainless steel jeep body is not a motor vehicle and is not required to meet any provision of the U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 to 999." Apparently, you are having a misunderstanding with Guam Customs on this point.

We are pleased to provide confirmation of your interpretation. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the stainless steel body parts that you describe. This means that you may import them, as individual body parts, into Guam without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 CFR 591.5(i)(2), the appropriate declaration for entry is that they were manufactured on a date when no Federal motor vehicle safety standards were in effect that applied to t hem.