ID: 1985-04.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Platkin and Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1985, concerning the applicability of the requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's) to passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. You also asked about the applicability of the CHMSL performance requirements to CHMSL's sold as aftermarket equipment for cars manufactured before that date. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You are correct in stating that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 for installing CHMSL's on new cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The installation requirement applies only to cars manufactured on or after that date. (48 FR 48235, October 13, 1984.) The only requirements regarding CHMSL's and pre-September 1, 1985 cars are that if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a CHMSL on a car manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and before September 1, 1985, the installation must be performed in accordance with criteria concerning the location of the CHMSL, and reflections from it. (49 FR 34488, August 31, 1984.)

As to aftermarket CHMSL's for cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, the applicability depends on whether or not the CHMSL is intended to be installed as a replacement for an original equipment CHMSL that was voluntarily installed on a car that was manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1985. If the aftermarket CHMSL is intended to be installed in the interior of such a car, then the manufacturer of the CHMSL must comply with the requirement in S3.1.8.4 concerning minimization of reflections. If the CHMSL is intended to be installed on other pre-September 1, 1985 cars, its manufacturer is not subject to any Standard No. 108 requirements for CHMSL's. However, the agency encourages manufacturers of any aftermarket CHMSL to conform as closely as possible to all criteria in the standard for original equipment CHMSL's. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision. Further, aftermarket CHMSL's for those other pre-September 1, 1985 cars would be regulated by the applicable law of the State in which they are operated.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel (202) 857-6087

September 16, 1985 Jeffrey R. Miller, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

As we discussed by telephone, I am requesting that you confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as it relates to the requirement for installation of a single center, high-mounted stoplamp on passenger cars, does not apply to passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985, and therefore does not apply to aftermarket center high-mounted stoplamps produced for applications on passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985.

An expedited response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely, Lawrence F. Henneberger

ID: 20264.drn

Russell Roden, P.E.
President
Atlantic Design Inc.
3740 Federal Lane
Abingdon, MD 21009-2742

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your products are "motor vehicles" within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) definition. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company designs and manufactures "modular process systems" for the construction, industrial maintenance, and the quarry and mining industry. Your products include grit recycling and dust collection systems, and sand "dedusting units." In order to facilitate movement, your company's equipment is permanently attached to flat trailers which are manufactured by another company. You emphasize that the equipment your company designs and manufactures is a "process system where the trailer is used as a base skid with wheels for mobility and erection." As an example of your company's products, you included a photograph of an "air classification system" used in the bridge and industrial painting industry and in the quarry and mining industry.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time your company's equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a maintenance or construction site or at a quarry for years at a time. You stated that the equipment rarely stays at a job site for less than six to eight weeks.

NHTSA's statute defines "motor vehicle" at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Whether the agency considers your products to be motor vehicles depends on their use. The statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your company's vehicles are not motor vehicles within the meaning of our statute. This is because the vehicles stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months or years) and only use the highway to move from site to site. We may reassess this interpretation if we were to receive additional information indicating that your vehicles use the roads more than on an incidental basis.

Please note that since States may require products such as those which your company manufactures to be registered, you may wish to contact State motor vehicle administrators to determine whether there are State requirements you must meet.

You also pose several questions about the application of excise taxes to your product. We are unable to answer questions relating to taxes. For further information about Federal taxes, please contact the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS's web site is at www.irs.gov. You should contact the State of Maryland for information about Maryland tax law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

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

ID: nht76-3.10

DATE: 08/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William K. Rosenberry Esq.; Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client "may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the non-compliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alternations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

ID: nht76-4.29

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmobile's August 13, 1976, question whether a trailer would be considered to be newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with applicable safety standards if it is assembled from all new materials except for axles (axle beams, spindles and brakes, and associated brake drums, wheels, seals, and bearings) from an existing trailer whose identity and ownership would be continued in the reassembled trailer.

The answer to this question is yes. The assembly of a trailer entirely from new materials except for the trailer axles does not qualify as a "repair" under NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @ 571.7(f). This regulation states that such trailers will be considered newly manufactured unless, "at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking, and suspension) is not new . . ." In the case you describe, the suspension would be new.

SINCERELY,

Pullman Trailmobile

August 13, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Used Components in Trailer Manufacturing NHTSA Regulation @ 571.7(f), Effective July 1, 1976

Opinion is requested concerning the extent to which substitution of new components in trailer running gear assemblies taken from existing trailers is permissible under the above regulation which permits the combination of new and used highway trailer components without the re-assembled trailer being considered "newly manufactured".

A customer has tendered to Pullman Trailmobile 200 trailer running gear assemblies selected by the customer from its inventory of wrecked and damaged van trailers. The customer proposes to ship the assemblies to a Pullman Trailmobile factory, identified by the serial numbers of the existing trailers from which the running gear assemblies were taken. The customer requests Trailmobile to combine such running gear assemblies with new components to complete re-assembled van trailers which will continue to be used by the customer in its transportation business. The trailer running gear assemblies to be shipped to Pullman Trailmobile will consist of the following components:

(a) axle beam including the spindle and brake assembly;

(b) complete axle assembly (including brake drums, wheels, oil seals, bearings, etc.).

All other components of the trailer running gear assemblies have been adjudged by the customer's maintenance employees to require replacement, consistent with safe maintenance and operation practices.

Reference is made to NHTSA's discussion and evaluation of comments upon the proposed regulation published in the July 1, 1976 Federal Register; in particular, to that paragraph reviewing the comments of Firestone Corporation concerning rims and wheels. In that connection, it was stated that "The agency in no way intends to modify safe maintenance and operation practices by its action. Substitution of new components or of use of old components is not advocated or discouraged by this action". NHTSA also reported that "frame attachment components" were excluded from the description of running gear assemblies for fear that persons might reuse damaged attachment hardware.

Based upon the foregoing, a favorable opinion is requested that reuse of the above described components of trailer running gear assemblies in combination with sufficient new running gear and other components required to produce re-assembled van trailers does not result in a "newly manufactured" trailer; assuming, of course, that the re-assembled trailer will be used by the owner of the existing trailer which will continue to be identified by its existing serial number.

If additional facts or information in connection with the agency's determination is necessary or desirable, please call upon this writer for assistance.

Edgar E. Lungren Jr.

ID: nht78-4.31

DATE: 08/19/78

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 14, 1976 TO GEORGE SHIFFLET, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY IS ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client (Illegible Word) reply on the warranty of a fabric manufacture that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems. No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Inferior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the

exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (2).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seg) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht79-2.17

DATE: 03/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mar 19 1979

Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Crewe Chesire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Knight:

This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, and January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, Controls and Displays. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must be rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.

2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirement for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.

(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.

3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibiiity requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a "few" inches, we mean up to approximately thee inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the acency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.

4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMCSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

NOA-30:KDeMeter:pfp:3/5/79 cc: NOA-30 Subj/Chvon NOA-30 Ms. DeMeter NRMS-11 Interps: Std. 101-80 Redbook: (3) CC

ID: nht79-2.50

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Esley Development Corporation

COPYEE: Don Morrison -- BMCS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978, asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is a "motor vehicle" and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered "motor vehicle equipment" since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment," you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 et seq. of the Act)

As to "what legal burden rests" with you as a "manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse" of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by "misuse." If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the "misuse" is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units "on inter and intra state highways."

Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as a copy of the Act.

SINCERELY,

ESLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

December 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of an all rubber heavy duty auxiliary lighthousing used in off road mining, construction and logging. We are looking into manufacturing a snow-plow headlight with a turn signal attachment out of the same heavy duty rubber. It will be similar to the Yankee snow plow light and the Dietz snow plow light. It will be designed to hold a standard PAR 56 sealbeam of the 6014 or 6015 series as manufactured by G.E., Wagner Tung-Sol, and Westinghouse which are the standard sealbeams being used as OEM in autos and trucks for their primary headlights. Since we are not manufacturers of the sealbeams but just the holder of the sealbeam we would like your determination and response to the following questions:

-- Is a snow plow or truck using a snowplow attachment considered a motorized vehicle?

-- What legal burden rests with us as a manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse of our units once they leave our plant?

-- What federal requirements or regulations must be met for use of our units on inter and intra state highways? $-- Please send us a copy of Federal Standard 108.

Gentlemen, it takes 6 to 8 months to develope a product such as this prior to going into production. We are aiming at the 79-80 winter season and would therefore appreciate receiving your reply and any other advise you care to pass along as soon as possible.

Stephen E. Hall President

ID: nht89-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON E. PANETTA -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/04/89 FROM LEON E., PANETTA TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Panetta:

This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed hi s objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the fiel d of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification of a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were u sed to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and naus ea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and lig ht trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements.

The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are:

1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also

ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror.

2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive.

3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortio n.

4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object.

Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the area he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and oth er potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht81-1.9

DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1981

FROM: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE-TOYOTA

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: Toyota is currently considering a new type of brake reservoir, as shown in Fig. 1, in accordance with your letter enclosed herewith as Attachment #1.

We request clarification of our interpretation of @5.4.2 & 5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 105-75, concerning this type of brake reservoir.

S5.4.2 reads as follows:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or for other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston.

As far as our new type of brake reservoir is concerned, we recognize that if the following three conditions were satisfied, these reservoirs would conform to S5.4.2. Is this interpretation correct?

i) W + X + Y > C + D + E *

ii) X > A

iii) Y > B

* (Note: A vehicle equipped with this type of reservoir can be expressed as W+X+Y>C+D, since E is equivalent to zero.)

W; common capacity for fluid of front brake, rear brake & clutch as hatching part in Fig. 1

X; a compartment capacity for front brake fluid Y; a compartment capacity for rear brake fluid

A; volume displaced by front master cylinder during a full stroke of position

B; volume displaced by rear master cylinder during a full stroke of position

C; front capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

D; rear capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

E; clutch capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

In accordance with the aforementioned interpretation, we recognize that if the warning level is not less than the level of 1/4 (W+X+Y), S5.3.1 would be satisfied. This "W" is the same volume as the "W" in expression i) of inequality. Is this interpretation correct? The main point in question is whether the "W" in expression i) of inequality can be considered the capacity in a case where the overall compartment system -- clutch included -- has not failed. We illustrate such a case in te hatching segment of Fig. 1.

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. If you should have any comments or questions, please contact Mr. M. Mori, a member of my staff, who can be reached at: (201) 865-2019. Thank you.

Enclosure.

Fig. 1. Warning level.

ID: nht88-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/88

FROM: TEVES, ALFRED -- TEVES TECHNICAL SERVICE

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: BRAKE FLUID RESERVOIR DESIGN ACCORDING TO FMVSS 105 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, AND MAY 24, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREG ORY

TEXT: during his visit at NHTSA on May 17th, 1988 Mr. Ebner presented our new brake system to your experts.

We request an interpretation of S 5.4.2 (reservoir capacity) and S 5.3.1/b (Fluid level indicator) of FMVSS 105, with respect to the proposed brake fluid reservoir shown in the attachment.

Essential is the existence of an ancillary brake unit in this new brake system. This ancillary brake unit serves the brake circuits 1 and 2 directly.

Compared with a conventional reservoir the proposed brake fluid reservoir's distinctive feature is the exit for the ancillary unit.

This ancillary unit serves the brake circuits 1 and 2. When the brake pedal is released, the used brake fluid will flow back to the reservoir. This unit does not cause any additional fluid volume.

Teves interprets standard 105 S 5.4.2 and S 5.3.1/b) as follows:

1. The total minimum capacity of a reservoir shall be equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinder or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoir move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position.

2. 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 servi cing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston.

3. The total amount of the fluid shall be solely available for the brakes.

4. The ancillary unit shall not use brake fluid for other purposes than for the brake circuits.

5. A drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less then the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer ot to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, which ever is greater.

The ancillary unit does not diminish the built in safety features of the reservoir. In case of a circuit failure, volume 1 resp. volume 2 remains still available for the brakes and the fluid level indicator lamp gives a warning to the driver.

In case of a fluid leakage in the ancillary unit, the unit is switched off. The fluid level indicator lamp and additional a separate warning lamp gives a warning to the driver. The fluid volumes 1 and 2 remain in the reservoir and are fully usable fo r applying the brakes with the master cylinder.

Accordingly, we believe that the proposed brake fluid reservoir described in this letter and presented to your experts fulfils the requirements S 5.4.2 and S 5.3.1 (b) of FMVSS 105.

We ask that you confirm our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

FMVSS 105, S 5.4.2: V = V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4] V: GREATER OR EQUIVALENT TO FLUID DISPLACEMENT RESULTING WHEN ALL W/C MOVE FROM A NEW LINING POSITION TO A FULLY WORN LINING POSITION. MAX V[4] FLI V[3] V[1] V[2] BRAKE BRAKE ANCILLARY UNIT CIRCUIT 1 CIRCUIT 2 SERVICING BRAKE CIRCUIT 1+2

FMVSS 105, S 5.3.lb V[1] + V[3] >/- 0.25 (V[1] + V[3] + V[4]) V[2] + V[3] >/- 0.25 (V[2] + V[3] + V[4])

V[1] VOL. DISPLACEMENT EQUIVALENT TO A V[2] >/- FULL STROKE OF THE RELATED M/C-PISTON. TEVES MASTER CYLINDER RESERVOIR DESIGN ACCORDING TO FMVSS 105 3-34513-07