ID: 86-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1985, asking for confirmation of your interpretation that the location of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal system meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires motorcycle turn signal lamps to be located "at or near the rear" and to have "a minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline to centerline of lamps) of 9 inches." Further, the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches." The diagram you have attached shows that the minimum horizontal separation distance between the turn signal lamps is 12 inches, and therefore complies with that requirement of Standard No. 107. However, the turn signal lamps are not mounted adjacent to the stop/taillamp which is on the rear of the vehicle on what appears to be the body but forward of it so that in a two-dimensional side elevation the edge to edge separation distance of the stop/taillamp and the turn signals is 3.75 inches. A plan view indicates that the horizontal separation distance between edge to edge is 2 inches. The actual edge to edge separation distance as measured by a continuous straight line is 5 inches, and you believe that this satisfies the standard's requirement for a minimum edge-to-edge separation of 4 inches.

We do not agree with this interpretation since it is premised on a frame of reference different from that used in Table IV to express the location requirements for turn signals. The frame of reference used in Table IV is that of a rear elevation in which the motorcycle is bisected by a vertical centerline. This is the appropriate frame of reference since it implements the safety rationale giving rise to the location requirement. Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance to minimize the possibility that an observer will be confused as to a lamp's function. A motorist approaching directly from the rear will perceive an edge-to-edge separation distance between the stop/tail and turn signal lamp of only 2 inches if your configuration is used. Therefore, each turn signal lamp must be relocated 2 inches further outboard if it is to comply with Standard No. 108.

Your request for confidentiality is honored, to the extent that the copy of this letter made publicly available will include neither the identification of you and your company, nor the diagram you provided.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Hakaya -- Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in response to your letter of June 21, 1985 requesting, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512, confidential treatment for your letter of that date and of the two attachments thereto.

Your request has been granted. NHTSA will treat your June 21, 1985 letter and the attachments confidentially. Pursuant to a January 22, 1986 telephone conversation between and Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, our letter to you regarding this matter will be made publicly available to the extent indicated on the copy which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of this confidentiality determination, which indicates the extent to which it will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

Dear

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5 provides in relevant part:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(1) Transport more than 10 persons:

(2) Provide temporary living quarters:

(3) Transport property on an open bed:

(4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume: or

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in order to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983, which addresses some of the issues involved in making such classification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (sec, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (in the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meet the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MVP is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into a MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan difference mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Originally Signed By

Frank Herndt Chief Counsel

ID: 20127.ztv

Mr. Tom Shreeve
Manager of Engineering
Trident Automotive Lighting
P.O. Box 821
Kentwood, MI 49518-0821

Dear Mr. Shreeve:

This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1999, asking for an interpretation of S5.1.1.18 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as modified by footnote 1 of Figure 2.

Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108 require motor vehicles as specified in these Tables to be equipped with a backup lamp complying with SAE Standard J593c Backup Lamps February 1968. However, under S5.1.1.18, a backup lamp is not required to meet the minimum photometric values at each test point specified in Table 1 of SAE J593c if the sum of the candlepower actually measured at the test points within a group listed in Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 is not less than the sum of the total minimum candlepower specified in Figure 2 for test points in that group.

Figure 2 specifies minimum luminous intensity for backup lamps for five groups of test points, or "zones" as you refer to them. Both J593c and Standard No. 108 permit more than one backup lamp to be used. Footnote 1 of Figure 2 states that:

When 2 lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite design are used, the reading along the vertical axis and the averages of the readings for the same angles left and right of vertical for 1 lamp shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements. If 2 lamps of differing designs are used, they shall be tested individually and the values added to determine that the combined units meet twice the candela requirements.

When only 1 backup lamp is used on the vehicle, it shall be tested to twice the candela requirements.

You interpret this as meaning that,

when using two lamps that are symmetrically opposite in design, the intent of this footnote was to allow the average of the two lamps combined output. That is, the right hand lamp output in zone 2 added with the left hand lamp output in that same zone 2, and that the average of those two lamps for that zone must not be less than the minimum candela requirements.

However, your customer thinks that

the intent is for us to average the zones 2 and 5 of the same lamp. If this is done, it is measuring output of the lamp at angles opposite of each other and that these two zones actually are intended to illuminate a completely different target area. If the averaging is done in this manner, it will also default the third sentence of the footnote [which reads: "When only one backup lamp is used on the vehicle, it shall be tested to twice the candela requirements."].

SAE Standard J593c is straight-forward. If a single backup lamp is used, it shall comply with twice the minimum candela requirements specified in Table 1 of J593c. If two lamps are used (and they are identical or symmetrical), each lamp must meet the minimum candela requirements. Thus, the total light output of a backup lamp system is intended to be roughly the same, whether the system consists of one or two lamps. This is the basic backup lamp requirement incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

Unlike SAE J593c and as an alternative to it, S5.1.1.18 does not require a lamp to meet every test point if the sum of the candlepower measured for all test points within a group of test points described in Figure 2 is not less than the sum of the minimum candlepower required for all test points in that group.

The question that you have asked is how Footnote 1 shall be interpreted as to group photometric measurements in a backup lamp system consisting of two symmetrically opposite lamps. This requires an interpretation of the meaning of "the averages of the readings for the same angles left and right of vertical for 1 lamp shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements." We did not intend Footnote 1 to alter the concept of group photometrics. The quoted language simply means that each lamp shall meet the group candlepower minimum specified in Figure 2 for each group. It does not mean, as your customer thinks, that two groups within the same lamp left and right of vertical are combined into a larger group and averaged. The footnote deals solely with individual test points.

Footnote 1 clearly refers to a single lamp and not, as you argue, to the average of the output of the same group in two lamps, one on each side of the vehicle. We interpret it as saying that, if two lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite design are to be installed, the test for a single lamp in a pair shall be as follows. First, measure all test points. Second, take the values of the test points on the vertical axis and use them to calculate their respective group totals. Next, add the measured values of two symmetrically opposite test points, divide by two, and use this average as the value for each of the two test points when calculating the group sum in which each of the two test points is located. Then do the same for the rest of the test points. Finally, calculate the sum of each group and compare with the totals provided in Figure 2 for each group to determine whether the lamp meets the test requirements of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: nht90-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-25-90 TO T. VINSON--NHTSA, FROM J. CORNELL; (OCC 5035; ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCKET SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. 108 which were published on May 15 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in te rms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confus ion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedenc e over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May 15 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square i nches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch.

With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On may 15, Standard No. 108 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement." (S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together

to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp ... and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap ." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signa l", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple co mpartment lamp."

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

ID: 2624y

Mr. Jeff Cornell
Engineering
The Bargman Company
129 Industrial Avenue
Coldwater, MI 49036

Dear Mr. Cornell:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. l08 which were published on May l5 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in terms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confusion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. l08 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedence over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May l5 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square inches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch. With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On May l5, Standard No. l08 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement."(S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp . . . and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple compartment lamp."

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:8/22/90

ID: 1983-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 6, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. Your request was in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would contain common fluid for the brake circuits and the brake hydraulic power assist unit. The issue raised by your letter was whether section S5.4.2 of the stnadard permits the common fluid to be counted as part of the minimum capacity required for the braking system. As discussed below, the answer to that question is no.

The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard.

As noted by your letter, the agency has previously interpreted this section with respect to a brake reservoir servicing both the braking system and the clutch. In an October 9, 1981, letter to Toyota, we explained:

This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced bythe reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.

The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and the clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum requirements of section S5.4.2.

This same rationale applies to a reservoir which contains common fluid for the brake circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit. As indicated in our October 1981 letter, the minimum fluid capacity requirements were determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system for the purpose of assuring that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes, i.e., the wheel cylinders and pistons. More specifically, the requirement for minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position, was based upon maintaining a sufficient supply of fluid to enable a vehicle to stop even when there was complete brake lining wear-out in the service brakes. Put another way, the requirement assures an adequate supply of brake fluid over the lifetime of the brake linings, even if a driver fails to add fluid as part of routine maintenance.

This purpose would not be met if fluid available to both the brake circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit was counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements. Some of the common fluid would be used by the brake hydraulic power assist unit in normal service and thus be available to the brake circuits. Moreover, in some instances of brake hydraulic power assist unit failure (e.g., a failure in the brake hydraulic power assist unit return line), all of the common fluid might be used by that unit.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 11, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 105-75

Dear Mr. Berndt

For future models, BMW is considering a new braking system with hydraulic power assist. Included in this system is a brake fluid reservoir which would contain common fluid for the brake circuits and the brake hydraulic power assist pump. This design is shown in the attached drawing, where X and Y are the individual reservoir compartments for the brake circuits and Z is the compartment for the brake hydraulic power assist pump. The area marked W represents fluid available to both the brake circuits and the brake power assist pump.

We request an interpretation of S 5.4.2 (reservoir capacity) of FMVSS 105-75, with respect to the proposed brake fluid reservoir described above.

We have reviewed the various interpretations given by NHTSA, and are unable to find any opinions which apply to our specific reservoir. Among the interpretations applicable to "multi-purpose" reservoirs is one given to Toyota in a letter from Mr. F. Berndt, dated October 9, 1981. The response to Toyota presented the agency's position that "the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is not available to the clutch, either during normal use or in the event of clutch failure".

We believe that the agency's position is appropriate with respect to a common brake/clutch system. A leak in the line to the clutch would not necessarily cause failure of the clutch itself; hence, there would be no warning that a leak existed and that the fluid level in the reservoir was being depleted. Thus, a driver could go through a complete set of brake linings without recognizing the leak. It is therefore brake and clutch systems should not be counted towards meeting the reservoir capacity requirements of S 5.4.2.

If, however, a leak should occur in the brake power assist subsystem of BMW's proposed design, the braking power assist ("boost") fails after a few brakings, Because the Boost pump compartment (Z) of the reservoir has been emptied. In this case, the fluid level warning lamp would be activated, due to the fact that the fluid level warning point is located above the walls of the boost compartment. Additionally, the warning lamp provided specifically for power assist unit pressure will be activated. Vehicle braking can be achieved through the application of increased pedal pressures, in compliance with S 5.1.2.1, S 5.1.3.4, S 6.13, and S 7.9 of FMVSS 105-75. Further, the amount of fluid remaining in compartments X and Y of the BMW reservoir is sufficient to meet the requirements of the second sentence of S 5.4.2., which is as follows:

"Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston."

With regard to the total minimum capacity requirements of S 5.4.2 (full lining wear) under the condition of a power assist unit leak, neither the sum of the two brake circuit compartment volumes (X,Y) nor either of them are equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all wheel cylinders move from a new lining condition to a fully worn position.

We believe it highly unlikely that, under the conditions just described (lack of power assist, 100 - 150 pound pedal force for deceleration, and activation of two warning lights) a driver would wear down a complete set of brake linings over a typical range of 20,000 to 40,000 miles. In such a case, it would be reasonably expected that a driver would seek repair at a dealer or service station immediately upon loss of brake power assist and long before the brake linings were fully worn.

We respectfully submit, therefore, that the power assist unit should be considered an integral part of the brake system and should be recognized as a subsystem of the brake system for which the same requirements applying to brake subsystem leakage should also be valid. In our view this is a reasonable assumption because, as detailed earlier, the driver will receive immediate warning of a fluid leak, in the form of a loss of brake power assist, as well as activation of two warning lights. Similarly, a loss of fluid from a brake circuit would also be obvious to the driver, since pedal effort would increase noticeably and a warning light would be activated. As a further example, the proposed BMW system would comply with the following sections of FMVSS 105-75, if the power assist unit is considered a subsystem and if a leak developed in that subsystem (compartment Z):

S 5.1.2 Partial Failure S 5.4.1 Master Cylinder Reservoir S 6.13 Control Forces S 7.9 Service Brake System Test Partial Failure

We believe a final point which should be considered by the NHTSA regarding BMW's proposed design is international harmonization. As an exporter of vehicles to a number of markets throughout the world, our goal is to design components (including brake fluid reservoirs) to comply with as many different national regulations as possible.

In the case of our proposed reservoir, the U.S. and Japanese requirements conflict with regard to total reservoir capacity. FMVSS 105-75, based on previous NHTSA interpretations, refers to the fluid volume available exclusively to the brake system. On the other hand, Japanese requirements apply to the total reservoir capacity, including every and all subsystems. If the volumes of X and Y were increased to provide sufficient fluid within them to meet the requirements of S 5.4.2., we would be forced, in order to comply with Japanese regulations, to increase the volume W as shown on the attached drawing. The total reservoir capacity, already a significant amount (700 cc), would have to be increased dramatically (43 ?) to approximately one liter in order to meet NHTSA's interpretation of brake/clutch reservoirs. Further, we would be required to raise the position of the switch point for the fluid level warning light. This could result in unnecessary activations of the warning signal. Through normal use, the fluid could drop to a level which would switch-on the warning light, but this level of fluid would still meet S5.4.2 requirements and would not represent a "low" fluid level condition.

Interpretation of the power assist unit as a subsystem of the proposed BMW brake system will allow BMW to market a common reservoir worldwide, rather than being forced to manufacture a unique reservoir exclusively for the U.S. market.

To summarize, the proposed BMW brake fluid reservoir would contain the S 5.4.2 total minimum capacity fluid requirement when the brake power assist unit is considered to be a subsystem of the total brake system. We believe that inclusion of the power assist unit circuit as a brake subsystem is valid for the following reasons. First, in the event of a fluid leak in the power assist unit circuit, the driver would receive multiple warnings (increased pedal effort, warning lights) in a manner analogous to the warnings received when a brake circuit leak occurs. Second, the proposed BMW system, including the power assist unit subsystem would be accurately described by the S 4. definition of "split service brake system", which "...means a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem."

Accordingly, we believe that the proposed BMW brake fluid reservoir described in this letter would fulfill the requirements of S 5.4.2 with regard to total minimum reservoir capacity. We ask that you confirm our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

WS/fw 0104 - 83

Encl.

BMW PROPOSED BRAKE FLUID RESERVOIR

***Insert Diagram Below***

ID: aiam0711

Dear Mr. Oliver: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1972, requesting a opinion as to whether 'Abcite,' a product of the Dupont Company, may be used in campers and 'mini-mobile homes.'; Whether a particular glazing material may be used in motor vehicles o campers depends upon whether the material meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials' (49 CFR 571.205), which incorporates, as you indicate, the American National Standards Institute Standard Z26.1-1966. That standard also specifies the locations in motor vehicles where specific materials may be used.; Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers. While we are not familia with the phrase 'mini-mobile home,' we consider mobile homes to be trailers, and the standard does not apply to them. With respect to campers, Standard No. 205 allows the use of any material meeting the requirements of Z26 in any location except for forward-facing windows. Forward-facing camper windows may not be manufactured of item 6 and item 7 material (AS6, AS7), but may be manufactured of any of the other materials (AS1-AS5, AS8-AS11) that meets the requirements of Z26.; Whether Abcite conforms to the requirements for glazing allowed to b used in campers is a determination that should be made in the first instance by its manufacturer, Dupont. If the manufacturer determines that such use is within the requirements of Standard No. 205, he is required by section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that the material conforms to the requirements of the standard. He is also required by the marking requirements in Section 6 of Z26.1-1966 to indicate on the material its AS designation. Any material that is so certified can be used in the camper locations listed on the standard as appropriate for that designated type.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3052

Dear Mr. Hiribarren: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the tw vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) define motor-driven cycle (moped) as 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.; The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, woul not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.; All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.; The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has ha serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4116

Dear Mr. Fish: We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) date September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011. Your letter was referred to my office.; In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213 *Child Restraint Systems*, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The two answers to your specific questions are as follows:; 1. Page 12--*Resistance to Microorganisms*. Polyester and nylon, whic comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.; 2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. *Seating Systems*. The requirements of S5.4.3. apply to child restraints that are 'designed for use by a child in a seated position.' Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2410

Dear Mr. Heath: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing a opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated 'December 5, 1975'. (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).; The 1969 letter informed you that 'if one compartment or lamp [in multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.'. The letter also stated that 'lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States.' Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.; There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 10 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.; The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is 'in addition to the minimum required number' as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.; We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 o lens color.; Sincerely,Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel