ID: nht95-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vladimir Salita

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERESA THOMPSON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/30/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WAYNE FERGUSON (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/10/95 LETTER FROM VLADIMIR SALITA TO CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA (OCC 10907)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Salita:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to three inventions you are developing a warning and teaching device for improving driving habits and fuel economy, a deceleration warning light, and a self-adjustable wi ndshield wiper. The first item would "warn drivers by indicating the excessive deceleration, acceleration and dangerous speed at turns by emitting sound signals," and would be mounted on the dashboard. The second item would measure "actual vehicle dece leration" and control "the frequency of light flashing (preferable high-mounted brake light)," to alert the drivers of following vehicles. The third item would control "the rate of windshield wiper sweeps according to the intensity of rain." I am please d to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not provide appr ovals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do no t meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your devices would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the devices installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your devices, I would like to bring three standards to your attention.

Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, would be relevant to your dashboard-mounted warning and teaching device. That standard specifies requirements to protect occupants from impact with interior components and could affect where or h ow the device could be installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would be relevant to the deceleration warning light. That standard requires, among other things, that all original motor vehicle lighting equipment be steady burning in use, unless t he standard provides otherwise. Since the standard does not specify deceleration warning lights as an exception to this requirement, they must be steady burning. Therefore, your added flashing deceleration light could not be installed on new vehicles. Because center high mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) are not permitted to flash and must be activated only by the service brake, your use of the CHMSL as a deceleration light also is not allowed on new vehicles.

I am enclosing copies of two recent letters (addressed to Mr. Wayne Ferguson, July 30, 1993, and Ms. Teresa Thompson, May 11, 1995), which provide a more detailed discussion of requirements relevant to deceleration lights.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, would be relevant to your self-adjustable windshield wiper. That standard specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping systems. The standard would not preclude the inclusion of a self -adjustable windshield wiping feature. However, a vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that the windshield wiping system with such a device met all of the requirements of that standard.

No standards would apply to your devices to the extent that they were sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance wi th any safety standard. Therefore, your flashing deceleration light could not be installed by such businesses on used vehicles. If your device affects a CHMSL installed in compliance with Standard No. 108, it could not be installed by the above named bu sinesses. Similarly, your other devices could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modification s that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You may wish to seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22 303.

Finally, all three of your devices are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that the manufacturer would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You have obviously spent a great of time and effort thinking about how to improve driving safety. We appreciate your efforts in this area and the contributions that inventors such as you make to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. If you have an y further questions about lighting requirements, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992. For further information about other safety standards, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at the same telephone number.

Enclosures

NHTSA INFORMATION SHEET ENTITLED "INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT" (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht95-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, North American Operations Safety, Affairs and Regulations, GM

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry, raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the "park" position. Under those p rocedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm .

The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a "static" measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving.

This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the "park" position and that the transmission remains locked in "park" after key removal. (60 FR 30006; June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective.

Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that "[each] vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." To demonstrate that the vehicle is in "park" prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state:

Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). n1 Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service bra kes . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes.

n1 The parenthetical reference occurs only in S5.3(b).

In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The "dynamic" method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The "static" method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop.

Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the "rocking" motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily stori ng some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented te st data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non-production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring.

NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, u sing the "static" method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are re leased. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again "static").

This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual test s GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114.

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

ID: nht95-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

We have received the application of Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The application meets our procedural requirements, and a Federal Register notice requesting comment is being prepared for pub lication.

We shall inform you when the Administrator has reached a decision on this matter, which we estimate will be between the middle of September and the middle of October.

Cantab's previous exemption from Standard No. 208 expired on May 1, 1993. Accordingly, Cantab may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) if it has manufactured for sale and sold vehicles manufactured after that date. Its application states that "[in] the preceding twelve months, Cantab has manufactured nine Morgans for sale in the United States." Within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, please furnish the total number of Morgans that Cantab has manufactured for sale after May 1, 1993, and sold in the United States, between May 1, 1993, and the date of your response. Cantab should be aware that any sales of nonconforming vehicles before a grant of its application may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). If Cantab determines that it has manufac tured and sold noncomplying vehicles, then it is required to notify and remedy the noncompliance according to statute. Alternatively, it may file an application for a determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 that its noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. If this application is granted, Cantab would be excused from the statutory requirement to notify and remedy.

As a final matter, the application indicates Cantab's belief that it would be exempt from the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 for 1995 since only .75 car would be subject to the requirement. Although .75 car is less than one vehicle, the agenc y rounds up from .50 vehicle in its calculations of compliance. For the same reason, the 1.87 vehicle estimated for 1996 compliance would be two vehicles, not one. The application is sufficient to cover both years.

If you have any questions on this matter, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 201)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

This letter is in regard to a request for legal interpretation falling under the regulations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 201- Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. MGA Research Corporation is an independent automotive safety te sting laboratory. FMVSS 201 falls under my testing responsibilities at MGA. Recently, I was requested to conduct FMVSS 201 impacts on a front bucket seat.

The seat has an inertial latch on the recliner. During the first few tests, the seat back dumped forward due to the inertial latch not engaging. Then, my customer requested that the inertial latch and adjustable tracks be welded in place to avoid th e previous test result. I conducted a test under such conditions and the seat back did not dump forward. In my final test report, my customer would like me to make a statement that says that this seat "passes" FMVSS 201 and all its criteria are met. I would like to obtain a legal interpretation of FMVSS 201 relative to pre- and post-test latch position and its view on inertial latches.

Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht95-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We a re not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht95-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants Inc.

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/04/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GEORGE W. WALTON (REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

We represent a client who wishes to obtain your written comment on the use of the following glazing material in a motor vehicle:

Our client wishes to use laminated "AS-1" Glass for motorcycle windshields.

A motorcycle is described as a "Motor Vehicle", and the FMVSS-205 standard indicates by reference in the ANSI Z26.1 standard that "AS-1" glazing for use "Anywhere in a Motor Vehicle".

Our client would like to have your written comment prior to producing several thousand motorcycle windshields from AS-1 glazing.

Would you kindly address your comment to the undersigned.

ID: nht95-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government And Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company

TO: Walter K. Myers -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK (STEPHEN WOOD) TO D. L. O'CONNOR (A43; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Walt:

Goodyear is encountering difficulties in importing tires that meet all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) into Colombia, South America. It appears that Colombia is attempting to regulate the quality and safety of all products being im ported into the country which is certainly a worthy goal.

Colombia recognizes and accepts the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as adequate to meet the quality and safety levels they desire. The problem Goodyear is encountering is verification that we are a company that complies with all the safety standa rds when we place the DOT symbol on a tire.

The Colombian Institute of Technical Standards (ICONTEC) requires a Certificate of Conformity which we provide. A copy of this Certificate is attached.

Per our conversation on July 12, 1995, reference this subject, we believe that Goodyear-U.S.A. will be permitted to continue exporting tires to Colombia if NHTSA would recognize/endorse the fact that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and the DOT stamping on our tires is valid.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Attachment

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

July 13, 1995

CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY

We certified that all tires manufactured by Goodyear-USA which are exported into Colombia are of first quality, and in compliance to the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, either FMVSS # 109 for new pneu matic tires for passenger cars, or FMVSS # 119 for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

J C Whiteley Vice President Government Compliance & Product Quality

D L Knight Director, Tire Technology Latin America Region

ID: nht95-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Wans

TO: Mary Versailles, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YVONNE ANDERSON (A43; VSA 108 (A) 2))

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

Our company, Todd Vans in the state of Minnesota does handicap van conversions. We are currently converting a van for a school system. The van was purchased by the school system at a local car dealer and was then brought to us to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns and a wheelchair lift. The original manufacturers rating of the vehicle is that of a "Bus". When the handicap equipment is installed and a seat removed it would change the vehicle to a MPV and thus reducing the seating in a 12 passenger van.

My question is this, "Does this vehicle have to be recertified by us or anyone else to conform with Federal guidelines?"

I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible, as they want the vehicle in use by the end of August.

ID: nht95-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Norman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NORMAN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Norman:

This responds to your letter of June 30, 1995, with respect to the "Auto Truckers Courtesy Light." This is the device that you discussed with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 29. You have applied to the Virginia Department of Transportation for eval uation of this product who will make a decision on July 13. We assume that you wish to know whether the product is permitted by Federal regulations.

As we understand it from the description, photos, and drawings that you enclosed, the device consists of a large sign with a "thank you" message that would be illuminated by two small amber lamps in the upper corners. The device could be mounted on the rear underride guard of a large truck or trailer, or on the rear cargo door. The purpose of the device is to enable the driver of the vehicle on which it is installed to show appreciation "to a trailing motorist for blinking his lights to assist the tru ck operator in changing back to the right hand lane after passing." In addition "[the] device operates with audio and visual indicators with three second automatic delay cut off."

You told Taylor Vinson that the intent is to sell this product in the aftermarket. As Mr. Vinson indicated, the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting (Standard No. 108) contains no specifications applicable to the manufacture a nd sale in the aftermarket of supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment such as this. This means that the device may be manufactured and sold without violating any Federal law administered by the Department of Transportation.

There remains, however, the issue of whether its installation and use would violate a Federal proscription that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" motor vehicle lighting equipment i nstalled in accordance with Standard No. 108 (or equipment installed that was necessary to comply with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). With respect to supplementary lighting equipment, we generally ask ourselves whether the "message" s ent by required lighting equipment is likely to be made less effective if it and the device are used simultaneously. The effectiveness of the required lighting equipment is especially important with respect to oversized vehicles such as large trucks and trailers. With respect to your device, we foresee the possibility that the driver of a large vehicle on which it is installed might have to apply the brakes at the moment that the two small amber lamps are activated that illuminate the "thank you" sign , thus impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps (we would probably reach a different conclusion if the message was related to the brake lamps, i.e., if it said "Stop"). Therefore, the installation of your device by a manufacturer, dealer, distribut or, or motor vehicle repair business would appear to violate the Federal proscription against making safety equipment inoperative.

The proscription, however, does not apply to the owner of the vehicle which, if a company, could have the device installed in its own private repair facilities, or if the owner is a person, by the owner. This means that the individual States in which th e device is to be used may accept or reject the device as they determine to be appropriate. We are unable to advise you how the laws of the individual States would apply to the device, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Associatio n of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to assist you (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Miyashiro -- Northrop Grumman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/22/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS MIYASHIRO TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 11011)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miyashiro:

This is in response to a memo dated June 22, 1995 that you faxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff on July 12, 1995. Your memo states that Northrup Grumman's System Engineering Department is defining design requirements for an Advance Technology Transit Bus (ATTB), and, as part of that effort, researching whether the Federal Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581 would apply to such vehicles.

As noted in your memo, 49 CFR 581.3 states that the standard "applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles." The standard itself does not define the term "passenger motor vehicle," but does state, in section 581.4, that "all terms defined in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act . . . are used as defined therein." Section 2(1) of that Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101(10)), defines "passenger motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, design ed for carrying twelve persons or less . . ."

In light of this definition, the ATTB would not have to comply with the Bumper Standard unless it is designed to carry twelve persons or less.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.