ID: nht90-4.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1990

FROM: William A. Batten -- Eaton Corp., Truck Components Operations- North America

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William A. Batten (A37; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); Std. 124)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain an interpretation from your office relative to FMVSS No. 124. The question is:

What is the applicable mileage requirement or time domain that a Class 8 Truck (over 10,000 pounds GVWR) must comply with FMVSS No. 124?

I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner.

ID: nht90-4.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1990

FROM: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to John K. Roberts from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for speaking with me yesterday about FMVSS requirements for automobile and truck mirrors. As I said, Muth Advanced Technologies is developing and marketing a unique vehicle mirror device which may be governed by two or more FMVSS rules (108 an d 111). Correct interpretation of those standards as they apply to this device is very important to us. For this reason, we appreciate being able to speak directly to people who understand the letter and intent of those rules.

For your edification, I have enclosed a brief description of the technology we're working on (presently known as "STM", or "Stop Turn Mirror"). We anticipate STM's being used as safety enhancements on certain vehicles, in combination with (or possibly i n place of) CHMSL's. Hopefully, the enclosed description will give you a clear conception of the device.

Following our conversation, a number of specific questions came to mind regarding the STM and applicable FMVSS Standards:

(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and FMVSS 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should pursue before fielding the device?

(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 108 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard?

(3) Before a pick-up truck CHMSL standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?

(4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and marketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

If you have any further thoughts on these subjects I would be very interested in hearing them. I'll call next week to follow-up on this.

Enclosure

Muth Advanced Technologies Stop/Turn Mirror The Stop/Turn Mirror (STM) is a system which integrates the functions previously performed separately by rear view mirrors and the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL). The system may be particularly well suited for vans, pick-up and medium duty trucks , sports cars, motorcycles and other vehicles where design of a suitable CHMSL is difficult. The STM offers superior performance as a highly visible stop and turn indication system and simultaneous function as a mirror. Additional benefits are the elim ination of parts and improved aesthetics at a reasonable cost. Field prototypes of the STM will be available by early spring, 1991.

The basis for this product is the observation that vehicle rear view mirrors are placed such that they are quite visible to operators of following vehicles. This same placement is ideal for high visibility stop and turn signals. The STM takes advantage of this geometry by functioning as mirror and a stop/turn lamp.

The STM contains a carefully designed filter and a directional film; these allow the STM to appear as a mirror to a vehicle's driver while appearing as a lamp to the operator of a following vehicle. The filter is a multi-layer dielectric coating applied to the interior surface of the glass to form a dichroic beam splitter or cold mirror. This allows the mirror to reflect a majority of the visible spectrum while transmitting a majority of a discrete band (in this case, red). The directional film conta ins tiny "microlouvers" which allow light rays to radiate directly aft and outboard towards following vehicles. The lamp is actuated by the same circuitry that actuates the standard brake and turn lamps.

Since the STM has an average reflectivity in excess of 65%, it appears to conform with FMVSS 111 requirements for minimum mirror reflectivity.

In some applications, it is anticipated that the STM will directly satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 108, thereby qualifying as a replacement for the standard CHMSL. In other applications, the STM may fulfill the intent of FMVSS 108 without meeting it's explicit requirements. In these cases, the STM may be used in conjunction with an approved CHMSL as an enhancement.

The K.W Muth Company Inc. has applied for US and foreign patents on the STM.

ID: nht90-4.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 30, 1990

FROM: Kotaro Yakushiji -- Vice President, Emissions & Safety Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS No.216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars"; Request for Interpretation.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to Kotaro Yakushiji from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 216)

TEXT:

Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan requests that the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance -Passenger Cars"; considering the conditions herein described.

Specifically, Mazda requests an interpretation of the proper application and orientation of the test block and forces required by paragraphs S6.2 and S6.3 of this standard when testing vehicles equipped, for example, with roof mounted accessories such as luggage racks, sunroof wind deflectors, navigational antennas, etc. Such accessories would neither contribute to or detract from roof strength and would collapse easily and rapidly upon application of the forces required to be sustained. These accesso ries would be easily removed or at least removable for compliance testing purposes. Because these accessories are mounted on the vehicle's roof, each could influence the positioning of the test block as well as distort or render impossible compliance wi th the 5 inch maximum deflection requirement of paragraph S4. Also at issue is how NHTSA would treat such accessories during its compliance testing activities.

Please consider, for instance, the example of the sunroof wind deflector as depicted in Figure 01 of the enclosed attachment. This deflector is constructed of plastic material and is mounted at the wind screen header. For practical purposes this wind de flector is not removable during use but can be removed for testing. Mazda believes that there are three different test conditions which must be considered. These are illustrated in Figure 02 of this same attachment. The specifics of each of these test conditions are as follows.

Condition 1: Test conducted with wind deflector in place. Initial contact point A is at the uppermost point of the deflector. From a practical standpoint, however, contact point B at the vehicle's body is the true contact point.

Condition 2: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B established in Condition 1 above is maintained. However, in this instance position B is located at a distance which is greater than (a) 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the longitudinal centerline and, therefore, possibly not in compliance with the positioning requirements of section S6.2(d).

Condition 3: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B is identical to conditions 1 and 2. However, the test block is positioned in compliance with section S6.2(d).

Mazda requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2, or 3, is correct and, thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216. In the instance that test condition 1 is correct, can the movement of the test block resulting from crushing the wind deflector be deducted from the total test block movement when determining compliance with section S4? Moreover, can the Agency broaden its interpretation in this matter to include other instances involving roof mounted accessories suc h as those listed above?

Mazda thanks the Agency in advance for its kind and prompt consideration of this matter.

Attachment

Figure 1 Sunroof Wind Deflector Figure 2 Possible Test Conditions (Graphics Omitted).

ID: nht90-4.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 30, 1990

FROM: Leonard M. Anderson -- Vice President, Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Leonard M. Anderson (A37; Part 565; Part 566); Also attached to letter dated 12-24-84 from Erika Z. Jones to Richard E. Bond (A29; Part 565); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-86 to A dministrator, Attention VIN- Coordinator NHTSA, from Richard E. Bond (OCC 769)

TEXT:

Miller Trailers, Inc. requests interpretation of the World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI) requirement in Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements.

Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Oshkosh Wisconsin is currently in the process of purchasing the assets of Miller Trailers, Inc. Upon the finalization of this purchase, Miller Trailers, Inc. will become Oshkosh Trailer Division and the existing Miller Traile rs, Inc. will cease to exist as a manufacturing entity.

Miller Trailers, Inc. has a WMI which was assigned prior to the effective date of S-115. Our unique identifier is "1ML". Our specific question is whether our existing WMI can be continued when we become Oshkosh Trailer Division of Oshkosh Truck Corpora tion?

The personnel and the responsibility for certification of Miller's highway semi-trailers will continue to be the responsibility of these same personnel located at the same facilities whose identity will become Oshkosh Trailer Division.

Also, the responsibility for maintaining records showing first ownership will remain the responsibility of Oshkosh Trailer Division.

Oshkosh Truck Corporation has its own WMI, however, the vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh are primarily powered vehicles. Oshkosh has manufactured specialized trailers as a part of a military system, however, these products are not at all similar to the commercial highway trailers manufactured by Miller Trailers, Inc.

It is believed that the purchase of Miller Trailer's assets by Oshkosh Truck Corporation will be completed in December, 1990 at which time ongoing trailer production will be the responsibility of Oshkosh Trailer Division rather than Miller Trailers, Inc.

We would appreciate your prompt response to this matter.

ID: nht90-4.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Durant -- Commercial Rulings Division, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated June 26, 1989 from S.P. Wood to M. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 6-28-90 from J. Durant to P.J. Rice (OCC 4965); Also attached to letter dated 5-1-90 from J. Laderberg to J.H. Heinrich

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter requesting our views on whether a Customs Service requirement that "all imported automotive glass for the replacement market be permanently marked with the name of the country of origin" would in any way impact on the marking re quirements of our agency. As discussed below, we do not believe that such a requirement raises any concerns with respect to our marking requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), sets forth certain marking requirements. The primary purpose of these requirements is to help this agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for th e purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. I am enclosing for your information a copy of a letter dated June 26, 1989, sent to Diamond-Star Motors, which discusses Standard No. 205's marking requirements.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Customs Service marking requirement would be to make an automobile owner aware of the country of origin of the imported glass. Thus, such a requirement would serve a different purpose than our requirements. It is our opinion that marking glass with the country of origin would not cause any confusion with respect to the markings required by Standard No. 205, nor raise any other concerns with respect to our marking requirements.

If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from D.W. Vierimaa to P.J. Rice (OCC 5210)

TEXT:

This is in response to your association's request that this office review the most recent revision of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number." After that review, we hav e the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practice.

The TTMA Recommended Practice appears to provide correct information about NHTSA's vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identif ication Number-Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115). However, in several instances, the Recommended Practice goes beyond what is required by NHTSA's VIN regulations to recommend one particular means be used to assign a section of the VIN, when NHTSA's r egulations leave the assignment of that section to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the explanations provided in Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Seco nd) Section Code, Part 14.0 Check Digit (Third) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between VIN informatio n that is required by NHTSA, and therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the assigner of the VIN, and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement (s) may be fulfilled.

We offer the following comments on particular sections of this recommended practice:

Part 6.0 Definitions

The definitions of "body type," "line," "make," and "series" are not identical to the definitions in Title 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, since this section of your recommended practice states that the definitions in Part 6 "are used in NHTSA regulations ," you may wish to note that NHTSA does not define the terms "production sequence," and "type of trailer" in its regulations.

Part 9.1 Location This part should note that 49 CFR Part 567.4(d) requires certification labels (which must include VINs) to be affixed "to a location on the

forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle."

Part 11.0 VIN Content

You may wish to note that the content requirements in this part of the recommended practice are a paraphrase and explanation of NHTSA's VIN content requirements, set forth at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle identification Number-Content Requirements.

16.0 References

Please note that the National Highway Traffic safety Administration has issued a VIN system information bulletin dated July 1985. I am enclosing a copy of it. Please feel free to reproduce this information and provide it to your members. They may also receive it directly from NHTSA by writing to us.

If there are any further questions or concerns please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert B. Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-90 from R.B. Roden to P.J. Rice (OCC 5036); Also attached to letter dated 6-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.J. Strobel (VSA 114)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that asked whether section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403) requires some form of certification on "every replacement item of motor vehicle equipment." The answer to this question i s that manufacturers of replacement items of motor vehicle equipment that are regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must certify these items. The background for this response is provided below.

Section 114 requires manufacturers or distributors of motor vehicle equipment to furnish dealers and distributors of such equipment with a certification that the items of motor vehicle equipment conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety stan dards. The first issue to be discussed, therefore, is whether replacement parts are encompassed within the definition of "motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle equipment" is defined at Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). This defi nition includes systems, parts and components of motor vehicles that are "manufactured or sold for replacement."

The second issue to be discussed is what items of replacement motor vehicle equipment must be certified. In an interpretation letter of June 3, 1977 to Mr. Larry Stroble, this agency stated if there are no safety standards in effect regulating particula r items of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of the equipment would not be required to certify in accordance with Section 114 and in the regulation promulgated thereunder (49 CFR Part 567). I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of this lette r. Examples of items of motor vehicle equipment that have corresponding Federal motor vehicle safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106); lighting (Standard No. 108); brake fluid (Standard No. 116); tires (Standard No . 109 and 117); glazing (Standard No. 205); seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209); and wheel covers (Standard No. 211).

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.72

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Malcolm B. Mathieson -- Vice President, Engineering, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel; Also attached to letter dated 9-29-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inqui ry.

Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by t he FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency.

As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seek ing resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have further questions.

ID: nht90-4.73

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Walters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-8-90 from W.G. Walters to E. Jones (OCC 5327); Also attached to article entitled Dankert's Device, Local inventor wants to produce Info-Lite (text omitted); Also attached to United States Patent Information for Paten t Number 4,922,225, dated May 1, 1990, (text and graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1990, to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide "the reason why this system is not being used."

The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, 1990, for an "Automobile Warning Light Improvement." The purpose of the "Improvement" is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have th e potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mo de when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed.

The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamp s, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that "The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." In addition, the effect of paragraph S5. 5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other tha n steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. 108.

The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion . Use of a flashing stop lamp,

mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the messa ge sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn.

we appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention.

ID: nht90-4.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 4, 1990

FROM: Stanley S. Zinner -- Greene & Zinner P.C.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS Standard No. 123

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 to Stanley S. Zinner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 2-16-82 to Brian Gill from Frank Berndt (Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 10-26-73 to Brian Gill from Richard B . Dyson

TEXT:

At the suggestion of Taylor Vincent, we are respectfully requesting information concerning 49 CFR Section 571.123, S5.2.4 which provides:

Stands. A stand shall fold rearward and up-ward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward. We are requesting that your office issue an opinion as to the meaning, purpose and intent underlying the above cited Safety Standard. The reason for this request is that our office presently represents the estate of Jack Stein in a products liability ac tion against U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor Company Ltd. Dr. Stein was killed on June 2, 1988 and we contend that the motorcycle was defective and defectively designed because the sidestand failed to retract from the deployed (down) posi tion when it came into contact with the surface of the roadway as Dr. Stein's motorcycle moved forward at a moderate rate of speed around a left hand curve in the road. In consequence of the failure to retract, the sidestand prevented Dr. Stein from neg otiating the left curve of the roadway and forced him off the road into a fatal crash.

In light of the foregoing, we are requesting issuance of an opinion concerning the meaning, purpose and intent behind Safety Standard 123. In this fashion we can submit your response to Federal District Court Judge Kevin T. Duffy within the time frame f ixed by the court in its pre-trial order. The court has indicated a trial will be held shortly. Accordingly, given the press of time it would be greatly appreciated if your response could be issued within two weeks. To expedite matters I am transmitti ng this request via facsimile transmission.

If there is anything further that you require, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone. In the meantime, awaiting your reply, I remain respectfully yours.