ID: aiam1380

Dear Senator Percy: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwardin to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.; The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation o campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion 'Consumer Information' regulation, 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.; Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, 'Certification') requir every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1378

Dear Senator Percy: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwardin to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.; The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation o campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion 'Consumer Information' regulation, 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.; Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, 'Certification') requir every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/88

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED TO HOWARD WOLPE, REDBOOK A33, SECTION 103(D) FMVSS 222, HSPG 17; TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY

TEXT: Dear Congressman Wolpe,

In response to a phone conversation with one of your staff I would like to ask you to forward the following questions to the Department of Transportation for their response to the individual questions.

I feel that part of Motor Vehicle Safety Program Standard 17 is in direct violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also feel that the manner in which S4.1 in Safety Standard 222 is being interpreted, influences the overloading of the passive restraint system, and nullifies the safety features of the passive restraint system.

Basically, the questions are in regards to the individual seating position for the passenger in the passive restraint system.

QUESTION #1; Is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act enforceable on the States, and school districts, and if so by whom?

QUESTION #2; If it is not enforceable, what is needed to make it enforceable?

QUESTION #3; It is my understanding that Standard 222 is the only enforceable Standard that address the passive restraint system, and is the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system.

Is the specifications in Standard 222 the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #4; S4.1 in Standard 222 says the number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Is the 15 mentioned in S4.1 the size of the individual seating position for a passenger?

If not, what is the width of the individual seating position?

QUESTION #5; I have been told by NHTSA that Standard 222 is for testing, and applies to the manufactures and is a condition of sale for new school buses.

As a result, NHTSA says the capacity for the standard 39 inch bench seat is 3. 39 divided by 15 is 2.6, and rounded to the next whole number is 3.

I have maintained that S4.1 says rounded to the nearest whole number, and the nearest whole number is 2, and not the next whole number of 3.

Understanding that the 6 tenths represents only 9 inches of the minimum 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system mentioned in S4.1, and can not be used as a seating position as it is in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 9 inches is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position in the applicable standard 222 which is still in effect.

The NHTSA says they carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number to insure that the bench seat is tested for the maximum number of seating positions.

I have maintained that the maximum number of seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat is 2, and there is not any need to carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number, even for testing.

I have maintained that the pounds of force that the symbol "W" is multiplied by should reflect the correct formula for testing the bench seat, and by adding a additional seating position to the bench seat to insure that the bench seat is tested for the m aximum number of seating positions, casts a shadow of dought on the formulas in Standard 222.

Also understanding that some fractional parts of the bench seats when divided by 15 is dropped, and others do not have fractional parts, and reflect the number of seating positions without adding the additional seating position as in the case of the 39 i nch bench seat.

The question is, what is the correct method for determining the number of the minimum 15 inch seating positions for any of the bench seats length?

QUESTION #6; It is my understanding that Safety Program Standard 17 is an elective Standard. In Safety Program Standard 17, under Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating (1); Seating shall be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufactures to provide seating accommodation for a

person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

It is my understanding that the manufactures have to comply to Standard 222, and by complying, Standard 222, and the 15 inch seating position mentioned in S4.1 is the intent of the manufactures, and the minimum seating position for the passive restraint system.

Regardless whether Standard 17 is, or is not adopted by a State, is Standard 222 the intent of the manufactures?

If not, what is?

QUESTION #7; It is my understanding that if Standard 222 is the minimum specification for the passive restraint system, the seating position for the 5th percentile adult female mentioned in Standard 17, would be in violation of Section 103 (d) of the Nat ional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 5th percentile adult female has minimum 15 inch seating position in Standard 222 which still is in effect.

Understanding that NHTSA has in an elective Standard, given directions for the use of a seating position that is less than the seating position mentioned in the enforceable Standard.

Also understanding that because of Standard 17 being an elective Standard by the states, and not a requirement of the manufacture, the 5th percentile adult female is not the intent of the manufactures.

Is the 5th percentile adult female seating position in Standard 17 in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #8; The school bus manufactures are rating the capacity of the bus by a 13 inch seating position instead of the 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system.

It is now my understanding that this is because the NHTSA has carried the fractional part of S4.1 to the next whole number instead of to the nearest whole number as S4.1 says.

I have maintained that the passive restraint system is to protect the individual, and the method used by NHTSA launders the individual minimum 15 seating position mentioned in Standard 222.

By NHTSA saying the 39 inch bench seat has 3 considered seating positions, the school districts are saying 39 divided by 3 is 13, and maintain that the 13 inch seating position is the seating position for the standard 39 inch bench seat, even though it i s the 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222, and not the 13 inch seating position.

At the same time the school districts are being told the manufactures have complied to the requirements of Standard 222.

Is the method the manufactures rate the capacity of the school bus in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #9; As a result of the manufactures rating the capacity of the bus by the 13 inch seating position, the third passenger in middle or high school is required to sit in a standard 39 inch bench seat on only 9 inches of the bench seat.

This puts the third passenger outside of the head, and leg impact zones as described in Standard 222, S5.3.1, and S5.3.2., understanding that only one leg is in the impact area, and the head would also miss the intended impact zone, and in the event of a collision that passenger would be thrown out of the bench seat and receive additional injuries that he would not normally receive if he remained inside of the passive restraint systems impact area.

Is the placing of part of the passenger outside of the passive restraint system in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #10; According to the Blue Bird letter, the school bus manufactures follow the specifications of the State, and the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), instead of f ollowing the specification for the seating position in Standard 222.

This is my understanding of a triple violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

First, the States specifications of a 13 inch seating position is less than the 15 inch seating position in the applicable Standard for the passive restraint system, and does effect the performance of the item of equipment by placing the third person in the standard 39 inch bench seat outside of the impact zones for the head, and legs.

Second, the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), is the same as above, and in addition is the recommendations in part of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, a political Subdivision of the States they represent, and they have recommended the 13 inch seating position for the 3-3 seating plan.

And third, the Manufactures have ignored the Standards for the passive restraint system in favor of the States

specifications for a seating position that is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 when rating the school buses capacity.

Also understanding that the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 is not a estimated seating position, and only a seating position above the minimum 15 inch seating position can be rated, or estimated.

Is the above three items in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #11; Standard 222, S4.1 makes reference to a 15 inch seating position. Standard 208, S7.1.1 makes reference to the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male, who has a sitting width of 16.5 inches. Understanding that the seat belt is t o fit a person who is as large as the 95th percentile adult male.

This is the same John Doe sitting in the same length bench seat, and the only difference is in one instance he is sitting on a bench seat in the passive restraint system, and in the other instance he is sitting on the bench seat with seat belts.

Why is there the need of a larger seating position for a person wearing seat belts, than there is for a person seating in the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #12; Because of the trend of wearing seat belts, some school districts are adding seat belts to buses already purchased.

The seat belts are being attached to the 13 inch seating position instead of the 16.5 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 7.1.1. because of the states specifications being 13 inch seating position.

This is also my understanding of a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Is the attachment of the seat belt suppose to be along side of the seating position, or behind the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male?

Respectfully,

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: 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)

ID: 1985-04.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Walsh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240

Dear Mr. Walsh:

Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985 inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Vo. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard Vo. 205. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 September 15, 1985 Dear Sir,

Recently I developed a product for use on four-door passenger cars; designed to act as a sun visor for rear seat occupants. This product, known as the Autoblind, is a fully functional mini-venetian blind. The attached photographs show an automobile with the Autoblind in place. The Autoblind is not a permanent fixture on the car, and the slats can be adjusted to allow sun blockage but continued vision.

I have contacted the Michigan Department of Commerce to determine the legality of this product in the state. From their standpoint, use of this product is legal provided the automobile is equipped with two outside side-view mirrors.

However, it has been suggested that I also obtain a federal ruling for this product. Would the use of the Autoblind, on the rear compartment side windows, violate any federal laws?

Also, if use of this product meets federal safety standards, could you suggest a method in which I could learn if its use would violate any state laws?

Many thanks for your attention. Sincerely Yours, David Walsh

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: 1985-01.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for three interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to motorcycle lighting.

Your first question is about the location of rear turn signals. Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires that rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles have a minimum horizontal separation distance "centerline to centerline" of 9 inches. You have asked whether this may be interpreted as filament center to filament center. The answer is no. The phrase means the distance from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other.

Your second question concerns the permissibility of an arrangement of lamps on the rear of a motorcycle. There would be a two-compartment combination stop/tail lamp on the vehicle centerline with separate combination lamps below it on either side of the centerline. The distance between filament centers of the separate lamps would be a maximum 16 inches, and there would be the same distance between the filament centers of each separate lamp and the compartment above it belonging to the two-compartment lamp. You have asked whether this is permissible if the minimum design candlepower complies with requirements for three lighted sections in SAE J585e and SAE J586c, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp is at least 3 1/2 square inches. This arrangement, though unusual, appears to be acceptable. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps and SAE J585e Tail Lamp state that if multiple compartment or multiple lamps are used, and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements, the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. Your design has four lighted sections, whereas the SAE Tables provide values for only three. In our opinion, your design would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Your final question concerns a combination stop/taillamp of four sections, two each on either side of the vertical centerline. Though no distance is given for the filament centers, they appear to be closer than 16 inches. You have asked if this design is permissible provided it meets the requirements for three lighted sections, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment is not less than 3 1/2 square inches. The answer is yes, this is acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 18, 1985

Att. : Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Required Lighting Equipment for Motorcycle

Dear Mr. Vinson,

1) Location of Rear Turn Signal Lamps

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies, is applicable SAE Standard or recommended practice to follow SAE J588e, September 1970. 2-. by 4.2 in the above SAE Standard it reads "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." 3-. Whereas by Table IV in FMVSS 108, when rear turn signal for motorcycle, it specifies, "having minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline of lamps) of 9 inches."

Our interpretation of the above -3 is between filament center to filament center. Please confirm.

As a matter of information, please refer to 6.1 in SAE J131 83MAR, Motorcycle Turn Signal Lamp - SAE Standard.

2) Location of two (2) Multiple Lamp Arrangement including one (1) Multiple Compartment Lamp and minimum design candlepower requirements of Stop/Tail Lamp (rear combination lamp) .

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies as applicable Standards to follow SAE J585e September 1977 for Tail Lamp and SAE J586c August 1970 for Stop Lamp. Would an arrangement on the next page be allowed to use when minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the above SAE Standards and the effective projected luminous Stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

3) Four (4) or more Multiple Compartment Lamp of Tail/Stop Lamp (rear combination lamp).

1-. Would the following lamp as long as minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the SAE Standards in the (2) on the page 1 and each effective projected luminous stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches be allowed to use?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

We would appreciate it very much having your reply as early as possible.

Sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

KW/es

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: 77-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states are preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which regulates maximum seat spacing.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Section 103(d):

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of the states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.

The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandate minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.

The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states as broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 29, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification regarding the seat spacing requirements of FMVSS 222 vs the seat spacing specifications which have been or are in the process of being adopted by the states.

FMVSS 222 specifies a maximum seat spacing of 20 inches in S5.2.1 measured from the SRP forward to the rear surface of the next seat or barrier.

Some states have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, minimum knee space dimensions from the front of a seat back measured forward to the back of the next seat back. As might be expected, in the specifications which have been adopted so far, there is a lack of uniformity. For example, one specification calls for "a minimum of 24 inches knee space measured horizontally at the seat cushion level at the transverse center line of the seat." This requires 24 inches knee space in the area of the seat back which is recessed for knees but allows less than 24" around the periphery of the seat frame. Another specification requires "24 inches minimum knee space measured across the full width of the seat back." With the latter specification, using a seat back pad recessed in the knee area, the 20 inches maximum spacing requirement of S5.2.1 can easily be exceeded in the recessed area when seats are positioned to get at least 24 inches knee space at the closet point between two seats.

The following is exerpted from the preamble to FMVSS 222 published in the Federal Register of January 27, 1976.

"Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in part:

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat spacing, other than one identical to the Federal requirement for maximum spacing of 20 inches from the SRP, is preempted under @@ 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d)."

Based on this discussion it is our understanding that states are preempted from adopting any school bus seat spacing specification which differs in any way from the requirements of FMVSS 222; i.e. a maximum of 20 inches from the SRP.

Is this understanding correct? If so, we believe it would be helpful if the NHTSA published a bulletin to this effect to the states. This would prevent the adoption of specifications by the states which conflict with FMVSS 222.

Please be assured there is considerable current activity in this area by the states and a solution to this dilemma is urgently needed.

Your early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services