ID: nht90-4.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: John M. Marcum -- Chairman and CEO, Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to NHTSA Administrator; Also attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A37; VSA Sec. 108(2); Part 591)

TEXT:

Electric Vehicles, S.A. of 1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20006, is applying for a temporary exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EVSA prototype electric minibus. The firm is incorporated in Geneva, Switzer land and manufactures both electric minibuses and delivery trucks. EVSA has built its first two 16 passenger electric minibus prototypes (13,700 GVWR). They are currently being tested and evaluated in Allentown, Pennsylvania and Hong Kong. Through this testing program, EVSA plans to improve the performance and establish conformity to FMVSS requirements of our production vehicles. However, meeting all of these standards for our prototype would impair the development and field evaluation of this electri c vehicle. The 16 passenger minibus is powered with a Chloride 55 kw traction motor and carries 128 two volt batteries in four battery packs placed on top of the chassis and in sealed compartments under the passenger seats on either side of the the vehi cle. The batteries are accessible through fiberglass doors that run the length of the vehicle on either side. The minibus is a hybrid vehicle in that it is equipped with an optional 7 kw gasoline powered generator or range enhancer which is in a compar tment at the rear of the bus.

If this exemption is granted it will allow the vehicle to be used in a "free" test and evaluation passenger service operated in Allentown in the downtown shopping area. The bus will operate on a 1.7 mile loop that averages 20 stops per loop and where th e average speed is less than 10 mph. EVSA requests that this exemption be for a period of three months. During this time the minibus would be operated on the downtown loop by the Lehigh and Northhampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) as part of a join t test and evaluation program between EVSA, LANTA, the Pennsylvania Energy Office, Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and others.

The prototype vehicle in Allentown differs in several respects from the FMVSS requirements. The first is that due to the use of thick "show type" fiberglass it is overweight. The vehicle unloaded is approximately 13,200 lbs. This means that when fully loaded to the 16 passenger (17 persons including the driver) capacity it will be about 2,000 lbs. or 15 percent over the GVWR of the chassis.

This vehicle also does not meet fully the requirement for emergency exits. It does not have a roof top emergency exit or the required one exit per three seating positions. However, it does have one side emergency door near the rear on the opposite side from the main entry door which does provide the total emergency exit requirement of 1139 square inches.

EVSA believes this should provide adequate egress in the event of an emergency in this limited operating mode.

The vehicle also fails to meet the standards in other areas including windshield washer, seat belt warning light and so on. These are in the process of being added to the vehicle during the test program. The chassis has passed its brake tests under ful l load at the Bendix proving ground and additional tests of the integrated vehicle are being carried out at the Mack Truck test track in Allentown.

The minibus has already demonstrated the capacity to carry 20 or more persons safely at its first showings in exhibitions in Athens, Greece and Houston, Texas. Moreover the front wheel drive heavy duty rail type chassis is conservatively rated and the m inibus will be driven at very low speeds on flat ground under passenger loads ranging from within the GVWR up to a maximum overload of 15 percent. Consequently, EVSA and its partners in the Allentown project do not believe there is any appreciable risk to the public resulting from the non-conforming aspects of this prototype vehicle. Operating this minibus in the downtown area during this experimental program would allow EVSA and LANTA to acquire valuable data for the designing and fabrication of futu re electric vehicles that would meet all of the applicable standards and would help fulfill the objective of the Alternative Fuels Vehicle Program of UMTA.

ID: nht91-3.14

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary P. Toth -- General Motors Corporation Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Gary P. Toth to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5757)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209) would affect some dual-spring retractor designs GM is considering. Your letter said that these dual-spring retractors are designed so that a spring with a lower retraction force is or can be engaged when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant. When the safety belt is removed, a spring with a higher retraction force is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Your letter also said that the retractor for the shoulder belt portion of the lap/shoulder belts on which these designs would be used is an emergency locking retractor (ELR).

The minimum and maximum retractor force requirements for ELRs are set forth in S4.3(j)(5) and (6) of Standard No. 209. Those sections specify minimum and maximum retractor force requirements when the retractors "are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)." S5.2(j) specifies that, for the purposes of measuring the retractor forces, the webbing shall be fully extended from the retractor and then retracting the webbing to 75 percent extension plus or minus 2 inches.

Your letter stated that your dual-spring retractor designs will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). This is because the higher retraction force will always be engaged under those conditions. It appears that, when the higher retraction force is engaged in these dual-spring retractor designs, the retractors will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements. However, when the lower retraction force is engaged, the retractor force is less than the minimum retractor force requirement. Because these dual-spring retractors comply with the retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209, your company is ready to certify these designs as complying with Standard No. 209.

You are, however, concerned with the implications of a February 16, 1984 NHTSA interpretation addressed to Mr. Frank Pepe. In that instance, Mr. Pepe stated that the ELR had two tension modes that were activated by the vehicle door. The subject retractor operated in a high tension mode when the vehicle door was open, and in a lower tension mode when the vehicle door was closed. The agency concluded that, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, the subject retractors would have to comply with all the requirements of the standard, including the minimum and maximum retraction force requirements, in both tension modes. Your letter asked us to reevaluate the conclusions reached in our February 16, 1984 letter to Mr. Pepe.

We believe that the facts presented in your letter are significantly different than those that were presented in the Pepe letter, so the conclusions reached in the Pepe letter are not the same we would reach for your company's dual-spring retractors. In the case of the Pepe letter, the starting point for our analysis of whether the retractors would comply with the minimum and maximum retractor force requirements was the language of S4.3(j) in Standard No. 209, which directed us to the test conditions set forth in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209. However, the test conditions in S5.2(j) (complete extension of the webbing, followed by subsequent retraction to 75 percent extension) did NOT adjust the Pepe retractors to either the high or low tension mode. Some additional action beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) had to be taken to select either the high or low tension mode. Since the selection of the high or low tension mode was not specified in S5.2(j) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209, NHTSA concluded that the retractor would have to be certified as complying with the retractor force requirements when adjusted to either the high or low tension mode.

The GM retractors present a significantly different situation. According to your letter, the conditions set forth in S5.2(j) will adjust the GM retractors in a way so that the higher retraction force will always be engaged. Assuming this to be the case, no adjustments beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) would be necessary to select a tension mode for the retractors. In these circumstances, compliance with the minimum retractor force requirements would be determined only under the conditions specified in S5.2(j).

ID: aiam3415

Dear Mr. Littlefield: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of m staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.; Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.; Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably 'pneumati tires,' as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR S 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR S 570.9(a) and 49 CFR S 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.; Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers o these tires.; According to the representations made by your organization and som individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.; Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casing which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of the States, and because the manufacturers' subject intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).; As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truc tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.; Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importin these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5324

"Dear Mr. Metz: This responds to your letter to this agency regarding new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshields. I apologize for the delay in responding. The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, 'the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement.' You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared. The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas 'A', 'B', and 'C.' Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as 'that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels through a cycle) (emphasis added). A 'cycle' is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of 'wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme and return' (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met. As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system. Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 86-5.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1986, asking three interpretation questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 101, Controls and Displays, and 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The answers to your questions are provided 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 motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the visibility requirements for the upper beam telltale (indicator). As noted by your letter, section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101 provides that the light intensity of each telltale shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. The upper beam telltale is one of the telltales subject to that requirement. You note, however, that section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 requires a high beam indicator that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a (except that the signal color need not be red). J564a provides that the upper beam indicator should be "plainly visible to drivers of all heights under normal driving conditions when headlights are required." Based on this provision, you suggest that the upper beam telltale is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when headlamps are not needed. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.

The difference between these two requirements is not so great as you suggest. The reference to "normal driving conditions" in J564a includes a variety of non-nighttime conditions (e.g., driving at dusk or dawn, and driving in daytime rainstorms) when headlamp use may be required by the States. To the extent that Standard No. 101 requires the telltale to be visible under daylight driving conditions not covered by Standard No. 108, manufacturers must meet the broader requirement. Manufacturers are required to meet all applicable safety standards. We note that while Standards Nos. 101 and 108 each cover upper beam telltales and specify different requirements, it is possible to meet the requirements of both standards simultaneously.

You stated that under daylight conditions the upper beam cannot dazzle oncoming drivers and that there is therefore no need to inform the driver that the upper beam is on. While there may be less need for this telltale during daylight than at night, Standard No. 101 reflects our belief that there is still a need and requires that the telltale be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions (if the upper beams are actually on).

Your second question concerns the upper beam telltale minimum area requirement. SAE Recommended Practice J564a, which, as noted above, is referenced by section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108, provides that the upper beam indicator should consist of a "light, with a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle." You asked how this requirement would apply to two designs.

In the first design, the outline of the telltale symbol would lighten while the area within and around the telltale symbol would not. You suggested that the framed area, i.e., the area within the telltale that is framed by the outline but not lighted itself, can be counted into the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is incorrect. In the second design, the telltale symbol would be superimposed on a rectangle. In this case, the entire area within the rectangle would lighten, except for that covered by the symbol itself. You suggested that the lighted area other than that covered by the symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is correct.

In referencing SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Standard No. 108 requires that the upper beam indicator must consist of a light, and also specifies the minimum area for that light. It does not specify the shape of the light. If the light is a simple circle which is lighted in its entirety (with the identification required by Standard No. 101 placed adjacent to the circle), that lighted circle must be at least 3/16 inch in diameter. If the light is some other shape, such as the shape of the upper beam symbol or a rectangle in which only part of the area is lighted, the total area which is lighted must be at least as large as the area of a 3/16 inch circle. Thus, in the case of the first design discussed above, only the outline area (i.e., the blue lighted area) of the upper beam symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. The unlighted interior part (i.e., the black area) of the symbol cannot be counted toward the minimum area requirement. In the case of the second design discussed above, the entire (blue) area within the rectangle that lightens can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. However, that part of the rectangle which does not lighten, i.e., the (white) part covered by the symbol, cannot be counted.

Your third question concerns Standard No. 101's illumination requirements for a side marker lamp control that is incorporated into the master lighting switch. As suggested by your letter and as discussed below, illumination is not required if the identifying symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the master lighting switch.

While Table 1 of Standard No. 101 requires that side marker lamp controls be identified with the side marker lamp control symbol and that such identification be illuminated, it also provides that separate identification is not required if controlled by the master lighting switch. Thus, for side marker lamp controls that are incorporated into the master lighting switch, use of the side maker lamp control symbol is voluntary. Since such identification is not required by Standard No. 101, it is our opinion that the standard does not require manufacturers to illuminate such identification if they choose to provide it voluntarily.

SINCERELY,

AGENDA 4-b DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

Additionally to the questions which we sent by letter date Feb. 18, 1986, would you please kindly answer the questions with regard to the interpretation of FMVSS Nos. 101 and 108 as described on the following pages?

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

ENC.

1. FMVSS Nos. 108 & 101; Highbeam Indicator Visibility requirement

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that each tell-tale and its identification shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and night time conditions. According to this provision, highbeam tell-tale shall be visible even under daytime condition.

On the other hand, paragraph S4.5.2. of FMVSS No. 108 requires a highbeam indicator which conforms to SAE J564a on each vehicle, and SAE J564a provides that the highbeam indicator shall be plainly visible to the driver under normal driving conditions when head lights are required. That means, under daytime conditions whenhead lights are not required, the highbeam indicator is not needed to be plainly visible.

We believe that the purpose of the highbeam indicator is essentially to indicate the driver that the upper beam of the head lamps are on to prevent the opposite driver from being dazzled by passing each other with the upper beam on. Under the daytime condition, as the upper beam can not dazzle the opposite driver any longer, and there is no need to indicate the driver trat the upper beam is on.

Therefore we believe that the high beam indicator (tell-tale) is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when head lights are not needed.

Is our understanding right?

2. FMVSS No. 108; Highbeam Indicator Minimum Area Requirement

As stated above, S4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires a highbeam indicator which conforms to SAE J564a on each vehicle, and SAE J564a provides that the highbeam indicator shall have a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle.

A. In case that only the frame of the tell-tale will be lighten

We believe the framed area can be counted into the minimum area requirement.

B. In case that the background of the tell-tale will be lighten

We believe the entire shaded area can be counted into the minimum area requirement.

If our understanding is wrong, please explain in the above requirement in detail.

(Graphics omitted)

3. FMVSS No. 101; Side Marker Lamp Control Illumination

Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires that the identification of side marker lamp control shall be illuminated when the head lamps are on, and it also provides in its footnote that separate identification (for the side marker lamp control) are not required if the side marker lamp are controlled by the master lighting switch. In case that the side marker lamps are are controlled by the master lighting switch and the identifing symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the switch voluntarily by the manufacturer, we believe that the illumination for the side marker lamp control is not required, because the side marker lamp control which is combined into the master lighting switch is easily identifiable.

Is our understanding right?

ID: 2971yy

Gary P. Toth, Esq.
General Motors Corporation Legal Staff
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Blvd.
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Toth:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) would affect some dual-spring retractor designs GM is considering. Your letter said that these dual-spring retractors are designed so that a spring with a lower retraction force is or can be engaged when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant. When the safety belt is removed, a spring with a higher retraction force is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Your letter also said that the retractor for the shoulder belt portion of the lap/shoulder belts on which these designs would be used is an emergency locking retractor (ELR).

The minimum and maximum retractor force requirements for ELRs are set forth in S4.3(j)(5) and (6) of Standard No. 209. Those sections specify minimum and maximum retractor force requirements when the retractors "are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)." S5.2(j) specifies that, for the purposes of measuring the retractor forces, the webbing shall be fully extended from the retractor and then retracting the webbing to 75 percent extension plus or minus 2 inches.

Your letter stated that your dual-spring retractor designs will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). This is because the higher retraction force will always be engaged under those conditions. It appears that, when the higher retraction force is engaged in these dual-spring retractor designs, the retractors will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements. However, when the lower retraction force is engaged, the retractor force is less than the minimum retractor force requirement. Because these dual-spring retractors comply with the retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209, your company is ready to certify these designs as complying with Standard No. 209.

You are, however, concerned with the implications of a February 16, 1984 NHTSA interpretation addressed to Mr. Frank Pepe. In that instance, Mr. Pepe stated that the ELR had two tension modes that were activated by the vehicle door. The subject retractor operated in a high tension mode when the vehicle door was open, and in a lower tension mode when the vehicle door was closed. The agency concluded that, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, the subject retractors would have to comply with all the requirements of the standard, including the minimum and maximum retraction force requirements, in both tension modes. Your letter asked us to reevaluate the conclusions reached in our February 16, 1984 letter to Mr. Pepe.

We believe that the facts presented in your letter are significantly different than those that were presented in the Pepe letter, so the conclusions reached in the Pepe letter are not the same we would reach for your company's dual-spring retractors. In the case of the Pepe letter, the starting point for our analysis of whether the retractors would comply with the minimum and maximum retractor force requirements was the language of S4.3(j) in Standard No. 209, which directed us to the test conditions set forth in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209. However, the test conditions in S5.2(j) [complete extension of the webbing, followed by subsequent retraction to 75 percent extension] did not adjust the Pepe retractors to either the high or low tension mode. Some additional action beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) had to be taken to select either the high or low tension mode. Since the selection of the high or low tension mode was not specified in S5.2(j) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209, NHTSA concluded that the retractor would have to be certified as complying with the retractor force requirements when adjusted to either the high or low tension mode.

The GM retractors present a significantly different situation. According to your letter, the conditions set forth in S5.2(j) will adjust the GM retractors in a way so that the higher retraction force will always be engaged. Assuming this to be the case, no adjustments beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) would be necessary to select a tension mode for the retractors. In these circumstances, compliance with the minimum retractor force requirements would be determined only under the conditions specified in S5.2(j).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:209 d:4/9/9l

ID: aiam0092

Dear Mr. Yamada: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1968, in which you requeste clarification of the term 'optically combined' as applied to motor vehicle lights.; 'Optically combined' in this context means that the same lens area i used for more than one function such as tail and stop lights or stop and turn signal lights or tail, stop and turn signal lights. The normal means used to accomplish this 'optically combined' lamp has been to incorporate a single dual-filament bulb with a reflector and lens.; Since the design of your Toyata (sic) Crown combination stop, tail an turn signal lamp is such that a different part of the lens area is used for the turn signal lamp, we do not interpret it to be optically combined with the tail and stop lamp.; The concurrence of the above interpretation with yours and that of th California Highway Patrol should not be construed to be an approval of your design. The results of recent research on lighting and signaling reviewed by this Bureau indicate that signal lights should be separated 4 1/2 to 5 inches minimum (centerline to centerline separation.) Although no dimensions are specified on your drawing it appears to be approximately full scale with a separation distance of 2 1/4 inches between the stop and turn signal lamps. The steady-burning stop lamp may therefore 'wash out' or significantly reduce the effectiveness on the turn signal lamp. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 does not require a minimum separation distance between signal lights, however, upon completion of our present research contracts on rear lighting and signaling, we may consider such a requirement in the future.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam3001

Dear Mr. Jackson: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerize anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.; As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, *Theft Protection*. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.; The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards i to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. your device appears to fall in this latter category.; The NHTSA does not provide evaluation or approvals of inventions, an we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner if a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 86-6.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager, Kawasacki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of April 26, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Specifically, you have called our attention to a proposed motorcycle accessory, consisting in part of a "nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens" and intended to protect the "headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris." You have asked whether this accessory would be permissible under paragraph 54.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which in effect allows optional equipment that does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. You have advised us that "the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp" but that testing of the specific headlamp that the mask is designed to fit "has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 1208 of the minimums specified by SAE J584.. . " You have quoted a 1983 letter from the former Chief Counsel giving two examples of impairment, one a plastic cover causing a dislocation of beam pattern, or a cover that is subject to accelerated hazing or cracking, but you have stated that it is unclear whether any degree of impairment is unacceptable, or only an impairment that causes light output to fall beneath the minimum photometrics prescribed by Standard No. 108.

Because Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards, the fact that the mesh causes some reduction in photometric output does not mean that it "impairs" the effectiveness of the headlamp unless it reduces light output below the minimum levels imposed by the standard. You have stated that with the mesh installed light output is still more than 120% of the minimum required. If Kawasaki is satisfied that this output will be met with any original equipment headlamp, then it may certify compliance with Standard No.

108 of any motorcycle on which the mesh is an original equipment accessory.

The question of the permissibility of the mesh as an after market accessory is not easily answered. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits actions by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that "render operative in whole or in part" equipment which has been installed to comply with a Federal vehicle safety requirement. We would view dealer-installation of the mesh as rendering a headlamp partially inoperative if it resulted in a diminution of headlamp light output below the standard's minimum level. The prohibition does not apply to owner modifications. Whether an owner modification is legal is answerable under the laws of the States where a vehicle is registered and operated.

A further observation is that although an original equipment headlamp-mesh combination may meet or exceed the minimum photometrics, it is possible that a replacement headlamp would fall beneath the threshold of photometric compliance with the mesh in place. We suggest that you consider these safety issues before proceeding to offer the accessory.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 26, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the acceptability of a proposed motorcycle accessory, a device to cover and protect the leading surface of a motorcycle fairing and headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris.

More specifically, the product consists of a vinyl or leather "mask" which fits snugly to the front of the fairing and incorporates a nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens.

Our question relates to the issue of whether this mesh covering over the headlamp lens is permissible according to FMVSS 108. Your attention is directed to the letter of October 20, 1983 from then Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW North America (file ref. NOA-30), copy attached.

In this letter, Mr. Berndt indicates that NHTSA has "concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard 108." Mr. Berndt continues to indicate " if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp." He goes on to describe two examples of impaired effectiveness that the agency would presumably consider contrary to the intent of FMVSS 108: an extreme installation angle of the cover or deterioration of the cover itself.

What remains unclear from Mr. Berndt's letter is whether any degree of impairment of the light output is to be considered unacceptable, or whether the unacceptable level might be reached if the impairment caused light output to drop below the photometric standards applicable to the lamp.

In the case of the mask under consideration by Kawasaki, the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp. However, testing of the specific headlamp that this mask is designed to fit has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 120% of the minimums specified by SAEJ584, the applicable standard. Thus, while some "impairment" is acknowledged, performance with the mask in place still exceeds the requirements of FMVSS 108.

In conclusion, Kawasaki seeks NHTSA's opinion whether a mesh headlamp cover which is not subject to hazing, cracking or discoloration, and which does not cause light output to drop below the minimum levels specified by FMVSS 108 would be considered in Compliance with FMVSS 108 if offered for sale on a specific Kawasaki motorcycle.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager

See 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

ID: nht87-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John B. Walsh -- Corporate Attorney, Manager, Legal Affairs Dept., U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/21/84 letter from Frank Berndt to U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Std. 108)

TEXT:

John B. Walsh, Esq. Corporate Attorney Manager, Legal Affairs Dept. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, CA 92621

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite Table IV's requirement that the minimum edge to edge distance from a motorcycle's front turn signal to the headlamp be a minimum of inches. Referring to a similar requirement for rear lamp spacing and previous agency interpretations stating that this applies only when there are single rear lamps mounted on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and tail lamps are mounted on either side of the centerline, you have asked for an interpretation that an exception from the minimum turn signa l spacing requirement is also permissible when a motorcycle has two headlamps rather than one.

We are unable to provide the requested interpretation because of SAE J588e, September 1970. SAE J588e is incorporated by Standard No. 108 and applies to turn signal lamps in use on passenger cars, motorcycles, and all other motor vehicles. Paragraph 4.2 of SAE J588e establishes the requirement that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." This requirement applies reg ardless of the number or location of motor vehicle headlamps. SAE J588e did not prevent the issuance of the earlier interpretations regarding rear lamp spacing since that SAE standard does not establish requirements for minimum separation between turn si gnals and rear lamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

15 August 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel. NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

On November 21, 1984, the Chief Counsel confirmed a 1972 agency interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (copy of 1972 interpretation, 1984 request, and your office's 1984 response enclosed). The 1972 interpretatio n was for a motorcycle rear lighting configuration. This letter is to request confirmation that the July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 could apply to a motorcycle front lighting configuration as well as the addressed rear lighting configuration.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 required that motorcycle front turn signals be separated by 16 inches or more (centerline to centerline). and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the headlamp be 4 inches or more.

We are exploring the possibility of using a front lighting configuration essentially comparable to current practice in passenger car front lighting configurations. This proposed front lighting configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located nea r the outer edge of each side of the front of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp unit would be the headlamp and the outboard part of the lamp unit would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would be equal to or greater than the 16 inch minimum required (see sketch attached).

We would like you to confirm, as in the 1972 and 1984 interpretations, that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and headlamp applies when single headlamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when du el headlamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

(See 11/21/84 correspondence between Frank Berndt and Suzuki)