ID: nht92-7.40

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Salton -- Performance Friction Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/5/92 from Robert Salton to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 6953)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows:

The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between lo pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.1.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits:

(1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

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

ID: nht92-7.41

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brad Beach

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/92 from Brad Beach to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6982)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff, inquiring about Federal safety standards that apply to objects designed to be attached to the rear and side windows of passenger automobiles. Although you did not specify what this object is, you described the object as being "not transparent," rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 12 inches in width by 18 inches in length. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your product.

Some general background information on the Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that might affect your product. These are Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials, and No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger automobiles). Standard No. 111 sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standards No. 205 and 111. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install a device that was not readily removable over the glazing and that impaired the field of view to the rear of the vehicle, that subsequent manufacturer or dealer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and 205 with this additional device installed.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, none of these commercial entities may

legally install a sun screen device or other device on a vehicle, if the device would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and/or 205.

In addition, any, manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a device that is mounted on the glazing of motor vehicles and that is not readily removable, is responsible for the recall and remedy of all such devices, if it is determined that the device contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

You should note that the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108 (a) (2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their own vehicles as they please, without violating any provision of Federal law. Thus, Federal law would not prohibit you, as an individual vehicle owner, from installing any devices you wish in the windows of your own vehicle, even if such installation causes the vehicle to n longer comply with Standards No. 205, No. 111, or any other of our safety standards. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of the safety features designed into their vehicles.

However, you should also note that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles by their owners and modifications owners can make to their own vehicles. Each of the States have exercised this authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered and operated within their borders. I cannot advise you about the laws established by each of the States. If you wish to learn whether Virginia or any other State prohibits the installation of your device in a vehicle, you may wish to contact the Department of Transportation for those States in which you are interested.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht92-7.42

DATE: April 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/24/92 from Neil Friedkin to Erica Z. Jones (OCC 7027)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the certification of a converted vehicle. You explained that your client leased a 1986 Mercedes and that as part of the lease agreement, Coachbuilders Ltd converted the vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. In a pending lawsuit, your client is alleging that Coachbuilders did not recertify the vehicle after conversion and that the conversion did not conform with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked the agency to explain our regulations about conversion and recertification. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The agency's certification regulation requires the manufacturer of a new vehicle to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture (S567.4 and S567.5). Persons that alter certified vehicles before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale are required to allow the original certification label to remain in place and to add an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered continues to conform to all applicable standards (S567.7).

Once a vehicle is purchased for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement for an alterer to certify the vehicle's compliance with the standards. The Safety Act, in S114, requires manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles to certify the vehicles' compliance, but does not extend this requirement to other persons. The Safety Act further provides, in S108 (b)(1), that the requirement for a vehicle to comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

In this case, we would consider the purchase by the leasing company to be the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. If the modifications were made before that purchase, the modifier would have been required by S567.7 to certify that the altered vehicle continued to conform with the applicable safety standards. If, however, the modifications were made after the leasing company had purchased the vehicle, the modifier would not have been required to make any certification that the modified vehicle continued to conform to all applicable safety standards.

If modifications were made after the leasing company purchased the vehicle, the only provision of Federal law that would apply would be section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business

shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle complies with those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

In the case of your client's 1986 Mercedes, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition if the car, as modified, complied with those standards that were applicable to 1986 convertible passenger cars.

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

ID: nht92-7.43

DATE: April 13, 1992

FROM: L.J. Sharman

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/92 from Paul J. Rice to L.J. Sharman (Redbook (2); VSA 108(b)(2))

TEXT:

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 details the procedure to be followed when testing the flammability of interior materials or cars etc. The Standard further states how to calculate the burn rate of the material under test. The Standard does not however indicate what information is to be recorded and how long the records must be kept. I am writing to enquire if NHTSA has published any such requirements or has any recommendations on what records are to be kept and for how long.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

ID: nht92-7.44

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Watt -- Director of Engineering, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Lance Watt to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6972)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 11, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes."

To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht92-7.45

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industires, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/21/92 from Masashi Maekawa to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 7026)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1992, asking for a clarification of our letter of December 18, 1991.

In that letter we discussed "a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ('Lamp B') immediately adjacent to a combination tail/stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ('Lamp A')". You informed us that each lamp complied with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but that neither complied with photometric requirements. You asked whether Ichikoh could consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring photometrics. We replied that it was not possible to consider the two lamps as one, and that we regarded the lamp that was on the vehicle body as the one that should be designed to conform to Standard No. 108.

You have asked whether this advice is consistent with an interpretation given Mazda on June 28, 1985, with respect to a similar design. That letter informed Mazda that compliance of the design would be judged with the vehicle in its normal driving position, thereby implicitly agreeing that the two lamps could be considered one for photometric purposes.

The difference in the interpretations originated in the way each manufacturer described its design. Ichikoh referred to its design as two adjacent lamps. Mazda described its configuration as a (single) lamp constructed so that a portion of it is fixed to the body and a portion on the decklid. Our review of the two designs shows that they are essentially similar, and that the Mazda design comprises, in fact, two adjacent lamps. As it was not our intent to change the earlier interpretation, we confirm that the June 1985 interpretation remains valid, and that the December 1991 letter is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with it.

ID: nht92-7.46

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc. (ALTECH)

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Larry Nunn (A39; Std. 108; Std. 218; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

LeGrand Systems Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan has contracted Automotive Lighting Technologies Inc. of Southfield, Michigan, to design and develop a helmet lighting system for use by motorcyclists, snowmobilers, moped operators, and other recreational vehicles. LeGrand applied for patent on the lighting system on February 13, 1990.

LeLite, the products assumed name, is intended to improve safety in the industry by increasing rider visibility. Many motorcycle accidents result from poor visibility or failure of other motorists to see motorcyclists in time to react.

The idea is consistent with reasoning for the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp introduced in 1986 to decrease rear end collisions. However, LeLite includes a wrap around rear stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals. (Enclosure)

The electrical system of the unit is accomplished via a three (3) wire cord which snaps into the base of the unit and connects to a simple harness unit mounted at a location of the operator's choosing on the handlebars, fairing, or rear portion of the motorcycle. This supply harness attaches directly into the associated brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal. Since it is wired directly in the motorcycle's existing wiring harness, the LeLite works in perfect harmony with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

Automotive Lighting Technologies is dedicated to excellence in vehicle lighting design and development and to any role it can play in the improvement of vehicle safety. We believe this product has merit and could prove effective in reducing accidents.

ALTech realize that there are no SAE or FMVSS requirements for this lighting system. However, it is our opinion that this system will not interfere with the function of any other lighting component on the vehicle but rather augment their purpose.

Due to size, weight, and heat limitations of mounting such a system on a helmet, it is not practical that the system can be design to meet vehicle standards. Therefore, ALTech will take every precaution insure the integrity of the product. During product development, we will keep you informed of test results on vibration, moisture, dust, heat, corrosion, photometry and any other area determined to be prudent.

ALTech is asking for your comments on any legalities which we should consider and your support in bringing this product to market in a manner that does not conflict any state or federal requirements. But more important, we ask for any comments or ideas that will enhance the practicality of our product and the safety of our customers.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office. I have enclosed a business card.

Your support in this matter is appreciated.

Attachment

Legrand Systems Inc. 1-800-848-0894

Welcome ...... to the Future

(drawing of helmet omitted)

We bikers have a right to be seen. It is the sincere goal of the people at LeGrand Systems to improve biking safety. With a soon to be introduced line of attractive helmet light packages, we can concentrate on what we enjoy most -- the joy of the road.

Look for our ads in your favorite cycle magazine coming soon - and SEE you on the road!

ID: nht92-7.47

DATE: April 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl C. Clark -- Safety Systems Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/92 from Carl C. Clark to Paul J. Rich (Rice) (OCC 6973)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S 571.205). More specifically, your letter indicated your belief that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to designate an item of glass-plastic glazing that it manufactures as "Item 14" glazing if that glass-plastic glazing item passes all the tests specified for Item 14 glazing. It is your view that it is irrelevant whether the individual glass layers in the glass-plastic glazing are tempered or annealed glass. Your understanding is correct.

Standard No. 205 specifies the performance requirements for Item 14 glazing, through a series of 14 tests designated for that item of glass-plastic glazing material. No test applicable to Item 14 glazing specifies that any individual layer, either glass or plastic, of this laminated glazing is to be tested separately. Instead, the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing set forth performance levels that must be achieved by the glazing as a laminate.

One of the 14 tests designated for Item 14 is Penetration Resistance, Test No. 26. You are correct in noting that, effective September 23, 1991, Test No. 26 specifies the glass-plastic specimen is to be clamped into a test fixture before the specimen is tested. If an item of glass-plastic glazing passes each of the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing, including Test No. 26, with clamping, and complies with Standard No. 205's labeling and certification requirements, the prime glazing material manufacturer of the material may designate that item of glass-plastic glazing as Item 14 glazing.

You were also correct in your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits Item 14 glazing to be used for passenger car glazing in any position except the windshield of convertibles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht92-7.48

DATE: April 6, 1992

FROM: Gonshiro Miyoshi -- Manager, Design Administration Dept., Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Our Reference LO4-11

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/92 from Paul J. Rice to Gonshiro Miyoshi (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter is in regards to the interpretation of headlamp arrangement in FMVSS No. 108.

We would like to know your opinion regarding the below mentioned arrangement of headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing two light sources.

Is it permissible to have the bulb center of the lower beam lower than that of the upper beam (maximum height difference is 10mm) if they are arranged horizontally?

Kindly let us know your opinion concerning the above matter.

ID: nht92-7.49

DATE: April 6, 1992

FROM: John J. Jacoby -- President, Cleartec

TO: Samuel K. Skinner -- Secretary, Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to John J. Jacoby (A39; Std. 104; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Safety people everywhere are positively excited about previews of a new vehicle accident avoidance safety feature soon to enter the marketplace.

To improve visibility for safety and comfort, Cleartec presents windshield wiper cleaning systems to work with all wipers on all windshields.

Manufactured into new windshields or applied onto existing windshields by application of easy-to-apply Clean Sweep Strips, self-cleaning, maintenance-free wiper clearing fields are created in the path of the wipers to work whenever the wipers are turned on.

Although inexpensive, Clean Sweep Strips transfer durable and attractive, transparent wiper clearing fields which are intrinsic and complimentary to any windshield, while yet remaining removable.

A brochure is enclosed. If you would like more information, or would like to receive a cost-free,pre-marketing package of Clean Sweep Strips as it will soon become available worldwide, simply write or return an annotated copy of this letter and/or enclose a letterhead with correct address information for return mail.

We believe we have considered and provided for universal use of this product as presented; however, please let us know if your jurisdiction has any other special requirements for allowance of which we are unaware.

Thanking you for your attention and interest, I am very truly yours.

Attachment One page from Clean Sweep brochure. (Text and graphics omitted.)