ID: nht90-4.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 6, 1990

FROM: J. P. Henries -- Captain, Safety Officer, Virginia State Police

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-26-90 from P.J. Rice to J.P. Henries (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Attached you will find a copy of your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Rembert Ryals, Esq., concerning an interpretation of Standards No. 208 and 209.

At present the rules and regulations of Virginia's Official State Inspection Program require any 1963 and subsequent model vehicle designed and licensed primarily for passenger use, to be equipped with adult safety lap belts for at least two front seats or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses.

In your letter to Mr. Ryals, you describe certain vehicles which were permitted to be manufactured without lap belts if they meet certain criteria. This being the case, how can our safety inspectors readily identify a vehicle which is not required to be equipped with a lap belt?

Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.

ID: nht90-4.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence W. Rusk -- Project Engineer, Drum Brakes, Bendix Automotive Systems, Allied-Signal, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-28-90 from L.W. Rusk to P.J. Rice (OCC 5264)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent inquiry concerning adjustment procedures for hydraulic brakes during testing in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105; Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether, following the revisions effective Sep tember 1, 1991, the Standard will authorize manual brake adjustment on a vehicle equipped with duo-servo brakes and automatic brake adjusters following the initial burnish and three subsequent reburnishes. Although your letter did not specify that the f ocus of your inquiry is vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, based on the context of your letter, I am assuming that this is the case. The answer to your question is yes, if manual adjustment is the published procedure recommended by the vehic le manufacturer.

Standard 105 currently provides that where automatic brake adjusters have been locked out during testing, the brakes may be manually adjusted following the initial burnish and each subsequent reburnish. Where the automatic adjusters have not been locked out, the Standard requires that the brakes be adjusted at these points by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. See, S7.4.1.2, S7.6, S7.12 and S7.14.

On September 29, 1989, NHTSA published a final rule (54 FR 40080) which requires that as of September 1, 1991, for all vehicles equipped with automatic brake adjusters being tested to Standard No. 105, that the automatic adjusters be operational during t he test. In addition, the rule revises the provisions in S7.4 governing brake adjustment after burnish to delete language requiring that vehicles equipped with automatic adjusters be adjusted by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recomme ndations. These provisions are revised to state that following each specified burnishing, the brakes are to be adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's published recommendations (e.g. recommendations set forth in service literature). Thus, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted manually, notwithstanding the automatic adjusters, they are to be manually adjusted. Alternatively, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted by completing a series of specified stops , that procedure must be followed.

In conclusion, under the new provisions in Standard No. 105, brakes on a vehicle with automatic brake adjusters and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less should be manually adjusted at the end of the initial and subsequent burnishes if the manufacturer's publi shed recommendations call for manual adjustment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1990

FROM: Lennard S. Loewentritt -- Deputy Associate General Counsel, Personal Property Division, General Services Administration, Office of General Counsel

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-26-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lennard S. Loewentritt (A37; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

We are in receipt of your August 23, 1990 letter regarding applicability of the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) to buses purchased by the General Services Administration's (GSA) use of Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS) for the Sole the Armed Forces . The exception states that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles that are "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications." This exception has perm itted the Army to acquire vehicles designed to satisfy multi-use requirements, specifically buses equipped with seating designed for adults and painted in a color other than school bus yellow. This exception made it possible for the Army to utilize the buses for their primary mission of troop movement, and, as needed, for transporting military dependents to and from school.

In our letter to Mr. Felrice dated February 2, 1990, we requested a deviation for "vehicles or items procured by GSA's IFMS for use solely by the Army." We believe this language may have caused confusion concerning the IFMS's role in purchasing vehicles and may have led to the erroneous assumption that the IFMS acts as a purchasing agent for the Army. GSA plays two roles with respect to the purchase of vehicles. GSA's Automotive Center acts as a purchasing agent for agencies that wish to purchase veh icles through GSA. In addition, GSA purchases vehicles for its own fleet, the IFMS. These vehicles are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS. These agencies are charged a monthly fee for use o f the vehicles assigned the them. In 1985, the Army began a program to consolidate approximately 45,000 nontactical vehicles into the IFMS. The program is currently being completed and, as a result, the IFMS is now responsible for purchasing and leasin g vehicles for the use by the Army. The potential to consolidate the Air Force's fleet and to provide similar services also exists.

In the case at hand, the IFMS would be purchasing buses for indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school. In the remote event that any such bus we re reassigned to another agency, IFMS would require that it be used solely for the transport of adults. Although IFMS would not be acting as a purchasing agent, we still believe that a deviation is proper, and we request that NHTSA grant a deviation for buses procured by GSA IFMS and assigned for use by the Armed Forces, such vehicles to be manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications. GSA would use specifications for buses which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safet y Standards for buses

rather than school bus specifications.

We believe a deviation from the requirements in 49 CFR 571.7 to permit buses purchased by IFMS to be assigned solely to the Armed Forces would be appropriate. This deviation would allow the Army and any other consolidated military activities to continue to use the buses for the purpose of transporting adults as well as military dependents, without requiring them to purchase school buses specifically designed for this latter purpose. This deviation would not permit any transportation of children that i s not already permitted by the current exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c).

Pursuant to the additional information provided in this letter explaining that GSA, in this case, is not a purchasing agent for the Armed Forces, but rather provides motor vehicles to the Armed Forces under the authority of section 211 of the Federal Pro perty and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 491) which provides for fleet services for use by Executive agencies, including the Armed Forces, we request that NHTSA grant a deviation from 49 CFR 571.7 to permit procurement of and assignment by the IFMS of buses for use by the Armed Forces.

If we may provide any assistance or further information concerning this request, please contact me on 501-1156.

ID: nht90-4.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1990

FROM: Mitch L. Williams -- President, Hella, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; NHTSA

TITLE: Re Proposed new product from Hella

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mitch L. Williams (A37; FMVSS 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-90 from Mitch L. Williams to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 5441)

TEXT:

In addition to my letter to you of November 1, 1990, Hella is considering another new product which could have vehicle safety implications.

As you know, pick-up trucks are not currently required to have a third brake light originally equipped. We feel that adding a third brake light to these vehicles would significantly reduce the chances of rear end collisions for the following reasons:

A) Pick-up trucks are selling in record numbers and are becoming a larger portion of the vehicle population, therefore diluting safety advantages created by adding third rear brake lights to automobiles in 1986.

B) Pick-up trucks are among the most difficult vehicles on the road for a following driver to see around. Any added safety must have a positive effect for following drivers.

Since there are no current regulations on this subject, Hella would like to ask NHTSA's opinion on the following questions:

1) Does NHTSA agree with Hella that a third brake light would be an added safety feature for pick-up trucks?

2) Does NHTSA intend to regulate this subject matter and if so, when and how?

3) The major technical point for us as manufacturers is where to mount the third lamp. The obvious place is on the tailgate, but this presents certain technical problems such as operating the vehicle with the tailgate down, and insuring a good electrical connection with a tailgate which moves. Also a good place is the upper edge of the back window, but for trucks with caps or campers on them, this will not work. Assuming NHTSA will address this area, how will NHTSA view the mount ing location?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

ID: nht90-4.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from W.C. Glasscock (OCC 5237)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Fede ral law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and stat e law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal c ourt. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific level s of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 per cent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in complianc e with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperati ve, within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter

from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor ve hicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-4.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 from W. Shapiro to P.J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). More specifically, you asked about the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 safety belts (i.e., la p/shoulder belts), set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those regulatory requirements for you.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the design drawings for this proposed new safety belt design. We hereby grant your request. We will make available t o the public your incoming letter and this response, but not the design drawings.

Your letter stated that Volvo is designing lap/shoulder belts for the rear seating positions of proposed future vehicles. The retractor for the upper end of the shoulder belt portion of these safety belts would be located in the seat back, and not withi n the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. However, the shoulder belt webbing would pass through a device on the top of the seat back that you called a "belt anchor" on the way to the retractor. This "belt anchor" w ould bear most of the loads imposed on the shoulder belts from the forward direction, and would redirect the shoulder belt webbing downward to the retractor. This function is similar to that performed by D-rings for many current designs of manual lap/sh oulder safety belts. The "belt anchor" would be within the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. You asked if this design would comply with the requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question is yes.

Both the "belt anchor" and the retractor would be "anchorages" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 210 for the shoulder belt, because both would transfer belt loads to the vehicle structure. However, S4.3.2 does not require that both these anchorag es comply with the anchorage location requirements. Instead, S4.3.2 provides that, "the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range shown in Figure 1." NHTSA has interpreted this langu age as follows. If there is a single "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, that single "anchorage" must comply with the anchorage location requirements. If there is more than one "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, the upp ermost of these multiple anchorages must comply with the anchorage location requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht90-4.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Joe W. Humphrey

TO: Paul Jackson Rice

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to J.W. Humphrey from P.J. Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I have an idea for the safety of cars (illegible) for truckers. Will it be excepted in the federal law to add (illegible) lights to the center break lights in the back of cars above the back seat the break light red in the center orange or yellow on each side for (illegible). Lights all of them in the center of the cars for breaks and (illegible) lights only if this is excepted send me letter of approval please sir.

I hope you can understand what I am try to say.

ID: nht90-4.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-10-89 from W. Shapiro to S.P. Wood (OCC 3848); Also attached to drawing of child booster seat (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the built-in child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding.

You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of standard 213 because the seat is not a "child restraint" as that t erm is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 poun ds."

The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children wh o weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We woul d also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner m anual.

You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213.

You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783; January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system.

You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specif ic requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e.,

provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system.

Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs f irst ("submarining").

The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vul nerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S3.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen.

The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small chil dren. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program.

ID: nht90-4.60

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Photometric Measurement Procedures for L.E.D. CHMSL

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to M. Iwase from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice concerning photometric measurement procedures for L.E.D. center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Photometric output of L.E.D. lighting device decreases as the time passes after activation, as shown in Figure 1. This is caused by the thermal characteristic of L.E.D. discrete itself. Our question is about the timing of photometry when the photometri c output of L.E.D. CHMSL should be measured for the verification of compliance with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108. It is reasonable that it shall be measured when 5 minutes has elapsed after the lamp is energized, with the following reas ons, we think;

(1) Our real-car field test has been performed to see how often and how long foot brake application (stop lamp operation) is raised during actual driving in the certain urban area. As the result of our field test, it was found that the c ontinuance is for 5 minutes at best for our brake application (refer to Figure 2).

(2) Section 3.1.5.3 "Photometric Minumums" in SAE J1889 JUN88 specifies, as follows;

Photometric Minumums: For measurements to photometric minimum requiments, the test "device light output shall first be stabilized by energizing the device at laboratory ambient temperature (23 +/- 5 degrees C) until either internal he at builtup saturation has occured or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first.

This provision is true of steady burn lamps, for example tail lamp, parking lamp, etc., however not true of stop lamp which is energized during just the period of service brake operation.

(3) S4.8 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" and Table 1 "Cycle Time (Min)" in SAE J575 JUL83 specifies 5-on/5-off operating cycle for stop lamps.

Whether could our interpretation above-mentioned be legally accepted? Upon your kind review, your prompt reply would be highly appreciated.

Attachment

Figure 1. Photometric Output Of L.E.D. And Incandescent Bulb (Graph Omitted) Figure 2. Brake Application Period (Graph Omitted) Test Method: Three (3) vehicles (A, B and C) chosen at random were chased and measured brake application periods. Date: January 10, 1990 Location: Urban area (in Nagoya city)

Remark: Each test data of three vehicles is continuous, namely Vehicle A was measured the brake application for 72 minutes, and Vehicle B and C were measured for 24 minutes, respectively.

ID: nht90-4.61

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1990

FROM: Jeffrey S. Malinowski -- Small Business Center

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey S. Malinowski (A37; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

This letter is a request for information in regards to an inventor who has designed a tie rod "safety bracket." He needs to know if it would have to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations.

I am a private consultant employed with the Small Business Center, located in Port Huron, Michigan. I was informed by Mr. Carl Clark from the Department of Transportation that you would be the person to contact for this information.

Product Feature Benefits and Advantages:

This new product is composed of five sub-parts that once installed will require no maintenance and will virtually last the life of the vehicle.

The Product is:

1. Simple in design requiring less than three minutes to install. The bracket can be installed by the do-it-yourselfer.

2. Universal in application, probably requiring less than six different part numbers to fit all the vehicles currently making up the new and used vehicle market.

The Product will:

1. Reduce tie rod end wear by up to 300%, thereby extending the tie rod end life by up to three times its normal life expectancy.

2. Increase safety by eliminating any possible tie rod seperation due to excessive wear.

3. Improve steering by giving the vehicle a tighter response and feel.

We will be waiting for your reply to confirm our belief that the tie rod "safety bracket" does not have to adhere to the Code of Federal Regulations.

Attachment

Diagrams and accompanying text regarding Tie Rod Safety Brackets (for the outer and inner tie rod ends). Invented by Leo McCallum. (Text and graphics omitted)