ID: 86-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/86

FROM: ERIKA R. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROGER WILLIAMS -- PRESIDENT TECHNICAL HALLMARK ENTERPRISES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM ROGER WILLIAMS TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter asking about regulations applicable to the "new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles".

The specific legal name for this light is "center high-mounted stop lamp". It was optional for use as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured between August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985. It has been mandatory original equipment since then. The Federal regulation that requires it is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. This standard specifies color, minimum illuminated lens area, mode of operation, etc. for original equipment, and for equipment intended to replace that original equipment. The standard does not cover center high-mounted stop lamps intended for use on cars that never had them, and a manufacturer of such aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is subject only to State laws on their design, installation, and use. We encourage aftermarket manufacturers to follow the Federal standard so that the full potential of the lamp may be realized. This means that the lamp should be steady-burning rather than pulsating, and that the lens not have logos, trademarks, or other markings on it to interrupt the transmission of light from the lamp. The standard does not specify the shape of the lamp but virtually all to date have been rectangular (photos of the 1987 Cadil ac Allante show a circular one), and some have exceeded the minimum requirement of a lens area of at least 4 1/2 square inches.

Noting your interest as a prospective manufacturer of these devices, I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108. Sections 4.1.1.41 (page 218), Section 4.3.18 (page 227) and Table III (page 256) provide the relevant requirements for center high-mounted stoplamps. Should you proceed to

manufacture aftermarket lamps, you would be subject to the agency's notification and remedy procedures should a safety related defect occur in them. Otherwise, you would appear to be subject only to State laws.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 24416ogm

Mr. William McAlister
McAlister Electronics Service Center
926 E. Fremont Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94087




Dear Mr. McAlister:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You ask if vehicle manufacturers are required to provide a "lifetime" warranty for seat belts and seat belt assemblies and, if such a warranty is required, the procedures that would be employed to enforce that warranty.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. In addition, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), contains minimum performance requirements for seat belt assemblies installed in new vehicles and sold as "aftermarket" equipment, and Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), Seat belt assembly anchorages, sets minimum standards for anchorage location and performance. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirements in Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. Federal law does not, however, require vehicles to comply with these standards after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

None of the regulations or statutes administered by NHTSA require manufacturers to provide a lifetime warranty for seat belts. However, NHTSA has the authority to require manufacturers to replace seat belts under certain circumstances. If a vehicle or item of equipment is not more than ten years old and is determined to have a safety-related defect or fails to meet an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA can compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the vehicle owner.

Your letter indicates that the automatic belt assemblies on your 1990 Ferrari Testarossa have ceased to function. A search of our recall database indicates that NHTSA or Ferrari have not determined that the automatic belt system of the 1990 Testarossa contains a safety-related defect. In the absence of such a determination, Ferrari is not required to repair or replace the belts by the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/02

ID: 6991

AIR MAIL

Mr. Charles Danis Les Enterprises Track Test Inc. 4652 Avenue Victoria Montreal, Quebec H3W 2N1 Canada

Dear Mr. Danis:

This responds to your letter about testing related to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR 571.121). You explained that your company has recently conducted a compliance test on an articulated bus manufactured by MCI Greyhound Canada. According to your letter, the buses were tested using 28 psi for the brake actuation test and 40 psi for the brake release test. While these air pressures differ from the pressures specified in S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 for brake actuation and release times, you stated that MCI was relying on a July 23, 1976 interpretation issued by the agency to Mr. J.W. Lawrence of the White Motor Corporation that permitted such brake actuation and release pressures. We note that to be consistent with that interpretation, the maximum brake chamber pressure must have been 40 psi when the service reservoir pressure was at 100 psi. Your letter was not clear on that point. You asked whether this interpretation is still valid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

In its inquiry to NHTSA, White Motor Corporation asked whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 require minimum brake chamber actuation and release time pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing. In response, the agency's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter stated in relevant part that:

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure. The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your specific question, NHTSA's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter continues to be valid.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:4/3/92

ID: nht92-8.2

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Danis -- Les Enterprises Track Test Inc. (Quebec)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Charles Danis to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6991)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about testing related to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR S571.121). You explained that your company has recently conducted a compliance test on an articulated bus manufactured by MCI Greyhound Canada. According to your letter, the buses were tested using 28 psi for the brake actuation test and 40 psi for the brake release test. While these air pressures differ from the pressures specified in S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 for brake actuation and release times, you stated that MCI was relying on a July 23, 1976 interpretation issued by the agency to Mr. J.W. Lawrence of the White Motor Corporation that permitted such brake actuation and release pressures. We note that to be consistent with that interpretation, the maximum brake chamber pressure must have been 40 psi when the service reservoir pressure was at 100 psi. Your letter was not clear on that point. You asked whether this interpretation is still valid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

In its inquiry to NHTSA, White Motor Corporation asked whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 require minimum brake chamber actuation and release time pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing. In response, the agency's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter stated in relevant part that:

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure.

The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your specific question, NHTSA's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter continues to be valid.

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

ID: nht91-5.38

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: None

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This is to request confirmation of our interpretation that specific future vehicle models may be properly classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Attachment I contains a description of these future vehicle models.

As described in Attachment I, the new models will be constructed on a truck chassis. The chassis-frame is separate from the vehicle body (a design usually associated only with trucks) and the chassis was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation.

The vehicles also have special features for occasional off-road operation.

- Attachment I describes some of the special features for off-road operation.

- Attachment II shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for the new models (preliminary estimates) with characteristics listed in NHTSA's CAFE regulations which are used to identify vehicles capable of off-highway operation (minimum approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and front and rear axle clearances). The new models are expected to meet the criteria for three out of the five off-highway vehicle characteristics listed.

- Attachment III shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and axle clearances for a variety of current model passenger cars and MPVs with estimated specifications for the new models. In general, the new models have specifications outside the range of most passenger cars and within or close to the range of most MPVs.

Because the future vehicle models described above are constructed on a truck chassis and have special features for occasional off-road operation, we believe that they would be properly classified as MPVs for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please confirm that our interpretation is correct.

ATTACHMENT I

Description of Future Vehicle Models ATTACHMENT II

CAFE Regulation Minimum Preliminary Vehicle for Automobiles Capable Estimate for Characteristic of Off-Road Operation New Models

Approach angle 28 degrees Departure angle 20 degrees Breakover angle 14 degrees Running clearance 203 mm Axle clearance Front 178 mm Rear 178 mm

ATTACHMENT III

Charts and graphs showing vehicle specifications. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.48

DATE: 07/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA Z. VINSON FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: D. R. Bernard, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1975, providing further information for our determination whether certain "safety lights" would violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

There is no Federal prohibition against sale of this accessory in the aftermarket. It would, however, be subject to regulation by the states. For the following reasons, it could not be used as original equipment. Standard No. 108 requires a minimum spacing of 4 inches (edge to edge) between the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps and a minimum spacing of 9 inches (centerline to centerline) between the turn signals. The purpose of this spacing is to provide a distinctive indication of the turning direction. A flashing stop lamp located in close proximity to the steady-burning stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 would, in our opinion, impair the effectiveness of the rear turn signal within the meaning of S4.1.3, during a combined braking and turning operation. Such a lamp would also be prohibited by S4.6(b) which, in effect, requires all original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BERNARD & BERNARD -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 28, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Pursuant to your letter, we are providing the following supplemental information in order for you to reach a decision in regard to the proposed safety lights.

1. The flashing lights will be no brighter than the standard brake light, but will be mounted in close proximity to the said brake lights.

2. The flashing lights will be a different color from the turn signals and will not interfere with the operation nor be confused with the turn signals.

3. The flashing lights will be the same color normally as the brake lights and will have a frequency of flashes approximately twice the speed of the signal light for turns.

It is hoped that this information will be satisfactory to you, and your conclusion as soon as possible would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

D. R. Bernard

ID: nht95-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inche s. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On Septemb er 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

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

ID: nht95-6.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

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

ID: nht92-4.2

DATE: 09/17/92

FROM: MARK W. RUSSO

TO: WALTER MYERS -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK W. RUSSO (A40; STD. 222); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-14-92 FROM PAUL RICE TO MICHAEL F. HECKER (STD. 222)

TEXT: Thank you for discussing the R-Bar subject with me. As I mentioned in our conversation, I am very concerned over the "applicability" issue regarding the R-Bar and FMVSS 222. I fear that a device not covered by a "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" may be installed in a school bus that will be transporting my children!

In addition to our conversation, I want to stress one area where I believe this device creates a condition that could be considered in non compliance with the objectives of FMVSS 222, section S5.1.4 (c). With reference to a NHTSA letter from Mr. Rice to Mr. Hecker (Micho, Ind.) dated May 14, 1992, which indicates that Mr. Hecker claims the device incorporates a design that allows it to "move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended". Being familiar with the operating principle of this device, I tend to agree in theory. However, what Mr. Hecker fails to mention is that the device also incorporates a "drop down" feature (by nature of a positive mechanical action) which is activated by forward movement of the device! Thus, if a passenger is "recoiled" forward, or if a subsequent frontal collision occurs, impact with the bar should activate this approximate 2 inch drop down feature. So, if there is any concern regarding minimum clearance in accordance with section S5.1.4 (c), it appears the operating principle of this device complicates the problem. Further, I also believe this "drop down" mechanism, in the above scenario, could create the potential for the bar to become jammed against a passenger's legs as a result of this "roller and track" drop down mechanism.

I would also like to know if there has been any further developments at NHTSA regarding the R-Bar subject since Mr. Rice responded to Mr. Hecker of Micho (May 14 letter from NHTSA). The N.J. Department of Pupil Transportation is under the impression that Micho Industries had planned to write to NHTSA again to suggest that only a different "interpretation" of their test data would resolve this issue.

I have a list of questions I am sending to Micho Industries covering many of the things you and I had discussed. I will keep you advised as to their response to these questions and any other new developments. I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this R-Bar subject.

ID: aiam3436

Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of June 8, 1981, concerning Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, on the abrasion test procedure of the standard should have referred to section 5.1(d), instead of to section 5.2(d).; You also suggested that in the process of clarifying the standard' abrasion requirements, the agency should consider possible modifications to sections 4.2(e) and (f) of the standard. In the process of reviewing the abrasion test requirements, the agency will also examine those other sections to determine what changes should be made.; Finally, you raised the issue of whether the standard, as with othe national and international standards, should have a requirement that conditioned webbing must retain a certain percentage of its unconditioned strength and must also meet the minimum strength requirement for unconditioned webbing. The agency is not aware of any data indicating that our current conditioned strength requirements are insufficient.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel