ID: aiam4245

Dear Mr. Jensen: Your letter of September 10, 1986, has been forwarded to this offic for reply. You have devised a way 'to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck taillights so that when the brakes are applied the lettering is seen.' You asked if there are any laws that apply to this concept.; Because you wish to produce this concept we shall consider it as bot original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer, and as equipment available in the aftermarket, for purchase by a vehicle owner. The Federal regulation governing vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It requires a manufacturer to produce vehicles with certain specified lighting devices meeting specific requirements. Further, under it, additional lighting devices and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible provided they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The requirements for stop lamps (you called them 'tail lights', but taillamps are the rear lights that are on when the headlamps are on, and are not brake activated) are those of SAE Standard J586c, August 1970. It specifies photometric requirements to be met at specific test points, and a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for lamps.; With respect to compliance with the stop lamp requirements of Standar No. 108, the lettering must not prevent the lamp from meeting photometrics at the applicable test points, or from complying with the minimum area requirements. As to whether the concept would nevertheless impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, this is a decision to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, though it is subject to review by this agency. Anything that distracts the observer of a stop lamp from instantaneously perceiving its message could be considered an impairment.; As an aftermarket device, it is not subject to Standard No. 108, bu only to the restriction imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that manufacturers, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses must not render inoperative in whole or in part devices such as stop lamps that are installed as original safety equipment. If your device created a noncompliance in the stop lamp, or impaired the effectiveness of it, we would consider this the equivalent of rendering the stop lamp partially inoperative.; Your concept would also be subject to the laws of any State in which device embodying it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you as to these laws, but you must consider them as well.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0791

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In you letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).; The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. 'Designated seating capacity' is defined to mean 'the number of designated seating positions provided,' while 'designated seating position' means 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats' (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of 'intent,' is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).; Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in complianc with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).; We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirement for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: D. BURKARD; H. T. EBNER; ALFRED TEVES

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, AND MAY 24, 1974 FROM TEVES TO GREGORY

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You raised several issues concerning the standard in regard to a brake system you are considering p roducing. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The master cylinder reservoir of your proposed brake system can be described as follows. The master cylinder services two brake circuits, Brake Circuit 1 and Brake Circuit 2, and an ancillary unit which itself services Brake Circuits 1 and 2 directly. The total volume (V) of the master cylinder equals V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], where:

V[1] represents the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[1] servicing Brake Circuit 1. The fluid represented by V[1] is not available to Brake Circuit 2 or the ancillary unit.

V[2] refers to the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[2] servicing Brake Circuit 2. The fluid represented by V[2] is not available to Brake Circuit 1 or the ancillary unit.

The sum of V[3] + V[4] refers to the volume of the portion of the reservoir which provides a common supply to Brake Circuits 1 and 2 and the ancillary unit. V[4] refers to that portion of this volume which is above the level where a fluid level indica tor lamp is activated.

You noted that your proposed brake fluid reservoir design differs from conventional designs in having the exit for the ancillary unit. You stated that you believe your design meets the requirements of sections S5.4.2 and S5.3.1(b), and requested confirm ation of your interpretation.

Section S5.4.2 reads as follows: S5.4.2 Reservoir capacity. 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 m ove 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. Reservoirs shall have completely separa te 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 respect to the requirement expressed in the first sentence of section S5.4.2, you stated that the total volume (V), i.e., the sum of V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], of your reservoir is "greater or equivalent to fluid displacement resulting when all whee l calipers move from a new lining position to a fully worn lining position." An issue raised by this statement is whether you are correctly calculating the total volume for purposes of section S5.4.2. More specifically, the issue is whether fluid which i s available for use by the ancillary unit, i.e., the fluid represented by V[3] and V[4], can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2.

It is our opinion that such fluid can be counted, since, even with the presence of the ancillary unit, the fluid is solely available to the brakes. In an October 9, 1981 interpretation to Toyota (copy enclosed), the agency interpreted section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. In that letter, the agency concluded that fluid which was available to both the brakes and the clutch could not be counted, since some or all o f the fluid might be used by the clutch and thus not be available for the brakes. The ancillary unit in your design is not comparable to the clutch, however, since it is part of the brake system and does not use brake fluid for purposes other than for t he brake circuits.

With respect to the requirement expressed in the second sentence of section S5.4.2, your letter indicates that V[1] and V[2] are each greater than or equivalent to the volume displaced by a full stroke of the related master cylinder piston. Given this s tatement, and the fact that compartments V[1] and V[2] are separate compartments such that their fluid is neither available to the other brake circuit or to the ancillary unit, we do not see any particular interpretation question raised by your design fo r this requirement.

For manufacturers choosing to meet Standard No. 105's brake system indicator lamp requirements by means of a fluid level indicator lamp, section S5.3.1(b) requires activation of the lamp under the following condition:

A drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

With respect to this requirement, you stated that (V[1] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[1] + V[3] + V[4]), and that (V[2] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[2] + V[3] + V[4]). An issue raised by this stat ement is whether you are counting the correct fluid in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b).

The issue of which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b) was addressed in the letter to Toyota, discussed above. As discussed in that letter, the minimum warning level is determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment and not the capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommends a higher safe level. In reference to your design, the compartments in question are compartment V[1] and compartment V[2]. Thus the warning level for compartment V[1] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[1]. Similarly, the warning level for compartment V[2] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[2]. This interpretation differs from your stated understanding, and ma y result in a lower minimum warning level. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in your design.

Enclosure

ID: 10-005859 df samani

ID: nht93-1.32

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

COPYEE: UNDER SECRETARY -- KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-2-92 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8088); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: This responds to your letter about our November 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other "motor vehicles." You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term "motor vehicles" only refers to vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on highways."

We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term "motor vehicle." "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a "motor vehicle." In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway.

Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: 2884o

Robert R. Keatinge, Esq.
Durham & Associates, P.C.
Suite 1750
950 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Keatinge:

This is a response to your letter of December 4, 1987, asking this agency to clarify your understanding of 49 CFR 571.7(e). That section reads in part as follows:

Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured ...unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

You referred to my August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer, and expressed concern that my having discussed only one aspect of 571.7(e) in that letter has led to some confusion. My letter to Mr. Farmer states that "a modified school bus or truck is not considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle." You stated that while my statement is "correct," my response did not address the first clause of this provision: "When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck..." You asserted that, "a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis." Your assertion is correct with respect to 571.7(e), but there is another regulation that specifies a vehicle is "new" if an old body is combined with a new chassis.

By its own terms, 571.7(e) applies only in situations where a new body is combined with either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used components from different vehicles. You were correct, then, in asserting that 571.7(e) applies only to situations involving a new body. For the purposes of the Farmer letter, it was understood between Mr. Farmer and a member of my staff that the bus bodies in question were new, so that letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bus body with new and or/used chassis components. Many of our prior interpretations have stated that a person who adds a new or used body to a new chassis to produce a school bus is considered the manufacturer of a new school bus, and must certify that the new bus conforms with all applicable safety standards, just as every other school bus manufacturer must. In this case, the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 568.3 as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis is used to produce a vehicle, the person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, within the meaning of 49 CFR 568.3. Final-stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture for these buses cannot be earlier than the date on which the chassis manufacturer completed its work on the chassis and cannot be later than the date the final-stage manufacturer completed its manufacturing operations. See 49 CFR 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Note that neither 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to certify that a school bus complies with all applicable safety standards, if that person merely rebuilds or replaces an engine, drive axle, or transmission in a bus, or if that person places a used bus body on a used chassis.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:57l#567#568 d:5/2/88

ID: 2171y

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1989, forwarding Representative Morella's letter inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations as they apply to the tinting of motor vehicle windows for medical reasons. We recently began a rulemaking proceeding on the issue of tinting, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter.

The enclosures to Ms. Morella's letter described a case in which a person suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo and was advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays. The presumption is that this person needs more protection from the sun than that afforded by vehicle windows that conform to the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a minimum 70 percent light transmissibility for glazing at levels "requisite for driving visibility," which includes all windows in passenger cars. When a requirement is established in a Federal safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new vehicle that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not provide for individual medical exemptions.

Similarly, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" an element of design required by a safety standard, such as minimum light transmissibility. This "render inoperative" prohibition applies to vehicles after sale to purchasers. Neither this "render inoperative" provision nor any other Federal requirement would prohibit an individual vehicle owner from modifying their own vehicles, even if the modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the Federal safety standards. Thus, an individual vehicle owner can make whatever modifications he or she likes, for medical or any other reasons, without violating Federal law. However, the individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and many States have chosen to regulate window tinting. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of our July 8, 1988 letter to Representative Shumway and our November 1, 1988 letter to Representative Byron on this subject.

The minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205 represents a balancing of legitimate competing interests. On the one hand, safety considerations dictate that drivers must be able to see and analyze the traffic situation in which the vehicle is being operated and react to that situation properly and promptly. To the extent that some of the available light is not transmitted through the vehicle glazing, the driver's ability to react to the traffic situation is potentially delayed. This is especially true under low light conditions, such as occur at night and on very overcast days.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for allowing some tinting of vehicle windows. These include avoiding excessive heat for all vehicle occupants, reducing glare for the driver, preserving the vehicle interior, and helping persons with medical conditions that are sensitive to the sun's rays.

NHTSA balanced these competing interests by establishing the current 70 percent minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205. However, the agency was asked in a petition for rulemaking to reexamine this balance and to permit darker tinting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmissibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interests.

Accordingly, on July 20, 1989, this agency published a request for comments on a comprehensive review of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirement for side and rear window glazing in passenger automobiles. One of the issues raised was the light transmissibility standard's effect on those who need more protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays. The comment period for this notice closed on September 18, 1989. The agency received nearly one hundred comments on this issue and is currently reviewing those comments. We will notify you and Ms. Morella when we announce our decision.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this rulemaking action. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Constance A. Morella

ref:205 d:ll/20/89

ID: aiam5197

"Dear Mr. McBay: We have received your letter of June 13, 1993, askin that this Office review the two drawings you enclosed 'for compliance with the upcoming conspicuity requirement', and 'ask that our installation have your approval.' Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the manufacturer has the responsibility of determining whether its product conforms and then certifies its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does not provide authority for the agency to 'approve' or 'disapprove' any specific solution to methods of conformance. For this reason, we are unable to advise you in the manner you seek. However, the agency does provide interpretations when specific questions are asked with respect to the requirements of the standard, and we are pleased to respond accordingly to your inquiries. You have raised four issues for our comment. 1. You have called to our attention that the 'outside post' design of the trailers is configured so that the spacing of the posts along the length of the trailers is not the same. The retroreflective material will be evenly spaced in most areas, but breaks between material vary. You have asked whether this will 'suffice for evenly distributed.' Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, retroreflective sheeting applied to each side of a trailer need not be continuous 'as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.' As we have advised many times, under Standard No. 108 the determination of practicability is to be made by the manufacturer in fulfillment of its obligation to certify that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA believes that, as a general rule, a manufacturer is in the best position to determine what is practicable for its particular design. However, if that determination appears erroneous on its face, NHTSA will question it. Were you to manufacture trailers with the side conspicuity treatment spacings depicted on your drawings, NHTSA would not question your determination of practicability. 2. You have asked 'if an area exists where a minimum 12' strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?' As noted above, under S5.7.1.4.2, a strip of retroreflective material need not be continuous 'as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered.' Therefore, if exclusion of the area in question would not result in less than half of the length of the trailer being covered, the area may be left blank. If additional sheeting is required for a trailer to meet the length requirement, or if a manufacturer simply wishes to add it, it need not be 'a minimum 12' strip.' S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 specifies that each segment of retroreflective sheeting shall have a length of 300 mm (i.e., 12 inches) +/- 150 mm. Therefore, a segment of sheeting as short in length as 150 mm (6 inches) could be applied to the area in question in compliance with the standard. An even shorter segment is permitted if necessary 'to clear obstructions' if that should be the reason in your instance where a strip of 300 mm will not fit. If the length of the area in question is smaller than 150 mm and its coverage is required for the conspicuity treatment on the trailer to meet the length requirement, then any length of material is acceptable. 3. You have asked us to note that the white strips in the upper rear corners do not meet. You have asked 'Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips?' Figure 30 'Typical Trailer Conspicuity Treatments' depicts two configurations in which the white strips of retroreflective material intersect at right angles in the upper rear corners. The requirement that Figure 30 illustrates is set forth in S5.7.1.4.1(b), which specifies, in pertinent part, 'two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair . . . applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable.' There is no explicit requirement in this paragraph that the horizontal and vertical strips intersect or touch. There is an implicit requirement in the specification that the strips be 'as close to the top and as far apart as practicable', but the requirement is subject to the manufacturer's determination of practicability. In other words, if the manufacturer's determination of practicability results in a gap between the strips, NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. 4. You represent that your design makes it impossible 'to make a nice continuous square corner', and that ' i nstallation of the white corners is also closer than 3' from red top rail lights.' You ask whether there is 'any tolerance on the 3' dimensions? There is no tolerance on this requirement. S5.7.1.4(b) states that 'The edge of white sheeting shall not be located closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of any lamp that is required by this standard.' The diagrams you enclose depict the horizontal white strip directly below the clearance lamps, which are required by Standard No. 108, so that each design does not accord with Standard No. 108. We have some comments on each design. On 'Model 80MP6-DD' it appears to us that, under a determination of practicability, the white strips could be lowered until the required minimum spacing between it and the clearance lamp was achieved. There is no prohibition against placing the material on the roll-up door. The trailer identified as 'GNXS-207' raises a more difficult problem because there appears to be no place where the strips could be relocated. Consideration must be given, therefore, to relocation of the clearance lamps. Under Table II of Standard No. 108, clearance lamps are intended to 'indicate the overall width of the trailer'. Although clearance lamps should be 'as near the top . . . as practicable', they need not be ' w hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle' (S5.3.1.4). The rear identification lamps on GNXS-207 are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. The clearance lamps could be relocated to the fender where the stop, turn, and taillamps are presently installed. In that location, the clearance lamps would also be better able to fulfill the intent that they indicate the overall width of the trailer, which appears to occur at the fender rather than at the upper part of the body. We hope that these interpretations are helpful. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4522

Dear Mr. Robinson: This is in reply to your letters of December 3 l987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, l988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter. You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not necessarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers. Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn signal lamps. Each of the five lamps would have a lens area approximately 6' wide and 1 1/2 inches high. The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an item of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. 108 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fact that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 would encompass a certification that there is no impairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror. The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a safety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp. The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicles if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September l, l985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modification is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September l, 1985. However, supplementary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion. You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. 108. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation. Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant portions of Standard No. 108 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, you should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a 'third tail light assembly.' A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. 108, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly. I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam4205

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of several o our standards. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in this response to your letter. I have set forth the responses in the order you asked the questions in your letter.; 1. Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. Paragraph S5.2.1 of this standard provides that the parking brak system on a passenger car and some school buses shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (*to the limit of traction on the braked wheels*) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade. You stated that your understanding of this provision was as follows. During the tests to determine compliance with this provision, the axles of the subject vehicle must be locked by the parking brake. Your understanding is that the vehicle is permitted to slide down the 30 percent grade, and would be considered as complying with this provision of Standard No. 105 no matter how it slides as long as the vehicle's axles do not turn. This understanding is correct.; The parenthetical note in section S5.2.1 was included in the standar to address the situation where a particular 30 percent grade might have a low traction coefficient. In this situation, a vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system had held the vehicle axles locked for the required amount of time. NHTSA did not intend vehicle sliding because of a loss of traction by the tires to be considered a failure of the parking brake system. To make this intent clear, section S5.2.1 specifies that the parking brake system must hold the vehicle stationary only 'to the limit of traction on the braked wheels.' This language allows the standard not to specify the traction coefficient for the 30 percent grade. Since no particular traction coefficient is specified, compliance testing may be conducted on *any* 30 percent grade that satisfies the requirement of S6.9. That section requires that the parking brake test surface be clean, dry, smooth Portland cement concrete.; 2. Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*. Paragraph S4.3 of this standard specifies that a placard containin certain safety performance indication shall be permanently affixed to 'the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' You asked if the door latch post, the inner surface of the glove compartment box, and the inward-facing surface of the driver's side door would be considered 'equally accessible locations.' Each of these locations could be equally accessible locations.; In several past interpretations, we have explained that locations fo the placard would be considered equally accessible if two conditions were met. These were:; >>>1. The alternative location must result in the placard bein positioned so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it, and; 2. The alternative location must keep the placard relatively free fro exposure to substances that could destroy the placard or render it illegible.<<<; If you position the placard on any of your three alternative location so that the vehicle operator can easily refer to it and where the placard would be protected from substances that could destroy it, we would consider each of those alternative locations as 'equally accessible locations' for the purposes of Standard No. 110.; 3. Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of th components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. You listed nine components not specifically listed in paragraph S4.1 and asked whether those components were required to be certified as meeting the flammability resistance requirements. The answer to your question depends on whether the components are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; Paragraph S4.1 represents a complete listing of all components in ne vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to the flammability resistance requirements. The only item on that listing that might be applicable to the nine components about which you asked is 'any other interior materials, including padding and crash- deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Thus, you must determine which of the nine components you asked about are so designed. We would assume that knee bolsters are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. These and any other of the nine components so designed must be certified as complying with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. Any of the nine components not designed to absorb energy are not required to comply with the flammability requirements.; 4. Part 575.101. *Consumer Information Regulations, Vehicle Stoppin Distance*.; You noted that S575.101 requires vehicle manufacturers to disseminat information about the minimum stopping distance for groups of passenger cars. Section 575.101(c) requires that each passenger car in the group to which the stopping distance information applies shall be capable of performing at least as well as the information indicates, *under the test conditions and procedures specified in S6 and S7 of Standard No. 105. This specification was added in an amendment published on January 6, 1976 (41 FR 1066). Before that amendment, S575.101 had specified separate test conditions and procedures for the stopping distance information. Those conditions specified that the vehicle's brakes were to be burnished and then the stopping distance was to be measured. In place of those conditions, S575.101(c) now specifies that the stopping distance information should express the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by each vehicle in the group to which the information applies, using the test conditions and procedures of Standard No. 105. Since stopping distances decrease after burnish, the post-burnish results represent the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by the vehicles. Therefore, the pre-burnish stopping distances need not be reflected in the stopping distance information manufacturers make available to consumers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel