ID: nht79-3.38

DATE: 03/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent petition to amend Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, to exempt active lap belts installed in conjunction with passive upper torso restraints from the anchorage location requirements of the standard.

The agency has determined that amendment of the standard as you request is unnecessary since active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt. The passive restraint requirement of Safety Standard No. 208 will require passive protection in frontal crashes and, either passive protection in lateral and rollover crash modes or the provision of Type I or Type II active belts for protection in lateral and rollover crash modes. The agency has previously stated, most recently in a letter to Volkswagen dated August 1, 1977, that the provision in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 allowing the substitution of any passive belt system (whether or not including a lap belt) for any other belt system otherwise required, is intended to apply to the provisions of S4.1.3(c) that specify either passive protection or the provision or Type I or Type II belts.

Since active lap belts installed in conjunction with single, diagonal passive belts are not required, they are voluntary additions by the manufacturer. The agency has stated in past interpretations that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety standards. This means that your proposed restraint system would have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the active lap belt fastened.

Since the change you requested is unnecessary in light of this interpretation, the agency will consider your petition withdrawn.

SINCERELY,

Ford Motor Company

December 14, 1978

Joan B. Claybrook Administrator Nationalk Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook: Re: Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Ford Motor Company (Ford), pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, and 49 CFR, Section 552.3, submits this Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210) hereinafter "the Standard". Ford requests the Standard be amended to exempt active lap belts used in conjunction with passive upper torso restraints from the location requirements specified in S4.3.1.1.

Ford plans to offer in two of its 1980 passenger cars an optional passive belt restraint system for front seat occupants. This optional passive belt system will include a passive upper torso restraint, knee bolsters and an active lap belt. The active lap belt when used will provide additional protection to occupants in side and rollover type accidents. The passive belt system will comply with the passive restraint criteria required by Section 4.5.3 of FMVSS 208 with the without the active lap belt being employed. One of the design configurations of the active lap belt being developed, however, does not meet the anchorage location requirements of the Standard.

In this design, the lap belt retractor will be located on the inboard side of the bucket seat and its anchorage is located forward of the zone specified in Section 4.3.1.1 of the Standard. This configuration will permit forward motion (translation) of the occupant in a crash, which in turn will allow the occupant's knees to contact the knee bolster -- a desirable circumstance. We believe permitting increased forward translation of the occupant will result in more efficient distribution of impact forces during a frontal collision.

As the Administration indicated in its preamble to Docket 72-23; Notice 5, published November 16, 1978, ". . . the agency has determined manufacturers should be given wide latitude in passive belt design in order to facilitate the early introduction of passive systems. . . ." In a similar sense, this request for amendment will contribute to earlier introduction of passive systems. Further, if this petition is not granted on a timely basis, it could hinder our efforts to introduce a passive belt option prior to the required incorporation date.

As Ford intends to certify that vehicles equipped with the passive belt meet the injury requirements of Standard 208 with and without the active lap belt, and because the additional active lap belt will provide added protection in side and rollover accidents, we believe this petition, if granted, should contribute to the safety of front seat occupants.

Ford, therefore, respectfully requests that the last sentence of S4.3 of Standard 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210) be amended as follows (added text indicated by underlining):

"S4.3 . . . Anchorages for passive belt systems that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, and active lap belt systems, installed in conjunction with such passive belt systems, are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.19

DATE: 07/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 10, 1980, letter requesting an interpretation of the appropriate tire size markings required to appear on a vehicle's certification label by 49 CFP. Part 567. More specifically, you stated that Michelin intends to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer labeled with the tire size designations set forth by the International Standardization Organization (ISO).

Michelin listed the following as an example of an ISO size designation: 275/80R22.5 143/140K. The labeling in that example would not comply with the requirements of Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), so the tire manufacturer, Michelin in this case, would be permitted to sell tires with only that labeling. Further, any truck manufacturer citing tire information in this manner on its certification label would be violating Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) and Part 567.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard 119 specifies that all tires for vehicles other than passenger cars must have certain markings on the sidewalls. Among other things, these tires must show the actual number of plies in the tire, the composition of the ply cord material (S6.5(f)), and a letter designating the load range (S6.5(j)). As you stated in your letter, the ISO designation does not show the number and composition of the plies and, therefore, does not satisfy this requirement of Standard 119. You further stated in your letter that the 143/140 designation in the ISO marking shows the load carrying capacity of the tire. In the ISO system, the letter K denotes the speed rating for the tire, and not the load carrying capacity. Standard 119 explicitly requires a letter marking to denote the load range of the tire and your proposed use of the ISO marking fails to satisfy that requirement also.

The vehicle manufacturer is required by paragraph S5.3 of Standard 120 to affix a label to the vehicle providing information on appropriate tires and rims for the vehicle. Similarly, 49 CFR @ 567.4 requires a vehicle manufacturer to list a suitable tire size after the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) on the vehicle certification label. Subparagraph S5.3.1 of Standard 120 requires the label to include the size designation of tires appropriate for the GAWR.

To list the tire size designation appropriate for the GAWR, the vehicle manufacturer must list more than the dimensions of the tire (e.g., 7.50-20 in the truck example following S5.3 in Standard 120). This is because many truck tires have identical dimensions, but widely varying load carrying capacities. For instance, the 7.50-20 size tire comes in load range D, F, and G, with its load carrying capabilities ranging from 2,750 pounds for load range D up to 4,150 pounds for load range G. Thus, for the vehicle manufacturer to comply with the requirement that it show an appropriate tire size, the manufacturer must show both the dimensions and the load range of the appropriate tires.

The reason for requiring the vehicle manufacturer to list appropriate tires for the vehicle is to give the vehicle user a permanent and useful record of the tires that can safely be used on the vehicle. If a vehicle manufacturer were to use an ISO designation to indicate the load range of those tires, the user of the vehicle would be given information different from the letter designations which are required by Standard 119 to appear on the tires. Since needless confusion could arise from this situation, and this confusion would impair the purpose of the tire information labels, Standard 120 and Part 567 necessarily require that the load carrying capabilities of the tires be expressed in terms of a letter, as specified in Standard 119.

SINCERELY,

REF: PART 567

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group

10 June 1980

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Part 567 Certification

Dear Sir:

We intend to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer with size designations according to the standards of the International Standardization Organization (I.S.O.). An example of such a size marking is:

275/80R22.5 143/140K

You can see that there is no ply rating in this designation; the load carrying capacity being designated instead by the load index 143/140. These load indices have been established by the I.S.O.

As you know, Part 567 requires that truck manufacturers list a suitable tire size after the GAWR on the certification plate. We do not see anything in the regulations that would prohibit listing a tire with the I.S.O. size designation. However, the truck manufacturer has requested that we confirm that listing such a tire will be in accordance with D.O.T. regulations.

We are therefore requesting your written confirmation in this regard.

Your prompt attention to this request would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht80-3.25

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

COPYEE: R. McCUTCHEON -- ASST. POSTMASTER GEN., U.S. POSTAL SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your June 5, 1980, letter to this office, you indicated that Michelin would like to equip mail vans with passenger car tires. Since the mail vans will be restricted to speeds of 50 miles per hour and less, you believe that it would be permissible to load the tires above the maximum load indicated on the tires, pursuant to the provisions of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). This assumption is accurate.

Section S5 of Standard No. 120 sets forth two basic safety requirements which new motor vehicles other than passenger cars must meet, including a mail van. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires these vehicles to be equipped with tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109 or Standard 119. From your characterization of the tires as passenger car tires, I assume that you will be providing tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109.

The second general requirement, contained in paragraph S5.1.2, is that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system, as specified on the vehicle's certification required by 49 CFR Part 567. As you implied in your letter, this requirement of S5.1.2 does not apply to vehicles which have a speed attainable in 2 miles of 50 miles per hour or less. This exception was intended to apply only to vehicles such as mobile cranes, which do not have the capability to reach speeds greater than 50 miles per hour. However, the language inadvertently is so broad that it encompasses vehicles which have their speed capabilities restrained by devices like governors and, thus, would apply to the mail vans you describe.

There are two comments I would like to make on this unintended loophole. One is that we will strictly enforce the 50 mile per hour limitation. If any of the mail vans can attain speeds over 50 miles per hour, that van will be in violation of Standard 120 if the tires you describe are used. Additionally, we are going to examine whether it is necessary to amend Standard 120 to close this loophole.

The second comment is a recommendation that you fit the mail vans with tires whose labeled maximum loads are at least equal to the GAWR of the axle on which they are mounted. The Tire & Rim Association allows a 9 percent increase in the load over the maximum load labeled on the tires when the speed range is restricted to 50 miles per hour (1979 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association, at 2-03). This 9 percent increase in load carrying capacity is calculated for truck tires. When using passenger car tires on the mail vans you have described, safety concerns mandate that the load carrying capacity of the tires be reduced by 10 percent, to ensure that the lighter duty passenger car tires can safely perform the heavier duty work that is routine for vehicles like mail vans. Indeed, if the vehicles were not speed restricted, S5.1.2 of Standard 120 would require this 10 percent reduction to be made for the passenger car tires.

If Michelin follows the course of prudence, it should calculate the maximum load carrying capacity of the tires with a 9 percent increase allowed for the speed restriction. Then this maximum load must be reduced by 10 percent to allow for the use of passenger car tires. The net result of this increase and decrease would be that the maximum load which the passenger car tires you describe could safely carry is approximately the maximum load labeled on the tires, because the increase and decrease will cancel each other out.

I trust that Michelin Tire Corporation, which has a very good record of concern for tire safety, will not equip a motor vehicle with potentially unsafe tires, even if a loophole in Federal regulations might inadvertently permit it to do so.

SINCERELY,

REF: D.O.T. MISC.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION - Technical Group

JUNE 5, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are proposing the use of a passenger tire on an electric mail van being produced for the U.S. postal service.

The van is speed restricted to 50 mph, therefore, we can allow an increase in load carrying capacity over and above that indicated on the tire sidewall.

If the van is considered "a vehicle other than a passenger car" it would fall under the requirements of FMVSS 119 and 120 rather than FMVSS 109 and 110 and the increase in load carrying capacity would be in accordance with FMVSS 119 and 120.

Please advise if our proposed solution is in conformance with NHTSA requirements.

The scheduling of this program is extremely tight and your prompt reply would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht87-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert C. Geschwender -- Lin-Mart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Geschwender Lin-Mart P.0. Box 82431 Lincoln, NE 68501-2431

This responds to your November 3, 1987 letter to me asking whether any of our regulations apply to the "Head Hugger," an aftermarket product you have designed for use in motor vehicles. The Head Hugger is a head pillow that attaches to a head restraint a nd is designed to support a passenger's head and neck when he or she is seated in a reclined position. I hope the following information is helpful.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of mo tor vehicle equipment, we have no standard directly applicable to the Head Hugger. Thus, the manufacture and sale of your aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Feder al motor vehicle safety standard.

However, if the Head Hugger will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product in certain circumstances. That section of the Act requires m anufactures, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. These commercial entities could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with our standards for occupant protection in interior impacts (Standard No. 201), head restraints (Standard No. 202) of flammability resistance (St andard No. 302). In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

Again, however, the prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the Head Hugger, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

There is an additional aspect of the Act of which you should be aware. The act requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that th e Head Hugger contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser.

We have enclosed a copy of the act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies or our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

3-11-87

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.- Room 5219

Dear Ms. Jones:

I wish to establish if there is any legal requirement on a new "after market" automotive product which I have designed.

The item is an auto head pillow for use in the reclined seat position.

The item named Head Hugger is upholstered with polyester and polyester and cotton blend fabrics. The filling is fire retardant polyurethane foam block.

If this product manufactured as an after market item falls under any federal regulations, please supply copies of acceptable regulations. Thank you.

Yours Truly,

Robert C. Geschwender

cc: Senator J.J. Exon

HEAD HUGGER TM

(Recliner AUTO PILLOW)

The head hugger is designed to be used in conjunction with reclined auto seats. Although reclined auto seats are offered on many cars the head rests are primarily as a head restraint in the event of rear impact. Most head rests are designed to have a 2 inch clearance between the rest and the occupants head so as not to interfere with head movement. This, however, provides inadequate support in a reclined position.

Head Hugger supports not only the head but also the neck from road jarring. The unique saddle shape of the Head Hugger prevents the resting head from sliding to far too either side. Head Hugger's tapered shape assures a smooth transition betwe en upper seat and the head support.

The unit can be easily installed in any car with a head rest by use of the two velcro straps which are attached to the hood on the back of the Head Hugger. The two strap attachment allows the Head Hugger to be used on either seat including those with s eat belts attached to the head rests.

A trial of the Head Hugger will convince any person of its comfort.

ID: nht88-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, TO CARL KAPLAN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LETTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or ve hicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a m odification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake applica tion, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the agency has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so t hat the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirements, an d, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates the "intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that this device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I attach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking. . . ." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly r equire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Attachments

ID: nht88-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, TO CARL KALPAN, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81 TO KENNETH G MOYER FROM FRANK BERNDT; LETTER DATED 05/02/84 TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or v ehicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a modification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated upon release of the accelerator, or conversely, the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of the service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake app lication, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the age ncy has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so that the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirement s, and, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that his device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I a ttach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking...." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly requ ire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

ATTACHMENTS

ID: 7922

Ms. Janet Taylor
Marketing and Sales Manager
A-PEX International Co., Ltd.
2900 Lakeside Drive
Suite 101
Santa Clara, CA 95054-2812

Dear Ms. Taylor:

This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the "Tap Root Equipment Stand." The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones.

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

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

In order to determine how installation of the Tap Root Equipment Stand could affect the compliance of vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing occupant crash protection and occupant protection in interior impact. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

By way of example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires, among other things, that passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less meet specified performance requirements in a crash test. In particular, test dummies occupying the front outboard seating positions must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. Nothing in the testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of an equipment stand in the interior of vehicles. However, the Tap Root Equipment Stand appears to have hard surfaces and sharp edges, especially as compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the test dummy may contact in a crash. It may not be possible for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if the equipment stand was installed in an area contacted by the test dummy, or if the stand interfered with the deployment of air bags.

Individual vehicle owners may modify their own vehicles without being subject to the federal safety standards. If the equipment stand is to be installed by such individual owners, however, I urge them to take potential safety hazards, such as those previously listed, into account before attempting to install the equipment stand. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are also subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If data indicated that a device such as an equipment stand exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as from sharp edges resulting in injuries during crashes, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

I also note that, apart from the issue of whether the equipment stand itself posed any safety risk to vehicle occupants, it is possible that the means of installation could create problems. The manufacturer should ensure that the recommended means of installation would not result in such things as the seepage of vehicle exhaust gases into the passenger compartment or weakening of the metal floor pan.

I hope this information is helpful to you and your client. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d.12/28/92

ID: nht95-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frances J. Chamberlain

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/1/94 (EST) letter from Frances J. Chamberlain to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Ms. Chamberlain:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. You explained in a telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office that your product is an em ergency kit the size of an "oversize notebook." The kit contains a radio. In completing your design, you are considering whether to attach it to the back side of the front seats or under those seats. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations as to the distance that must be kept clear between the back side of the driver's seat and the back seat. You are considering marketing the kit for passenger cars and light trucks through retail outlets, and p ossibly also through automobile dealerships as an optional accessory.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations concerning clearance between the front and back seats, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. These are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations . As you recognize in your letter, your safety kit is an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment.

While your emergency kit is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. Nevertheless, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Installation of your product o n the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. S3.2 of that standard basically requires that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. If your emergency kit were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the radio) contained within it were to be struck by the head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We note that the re are no safety standards regulating the underside of the seats, which you have said is another interior space where you are considering mounting the emergency kit.

Which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the emergency kit installed comp lies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201.

A commercial business that installs your emergency kit would also be subject to provisions of the U.S. Code that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degra ded if the emergency kit were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your emergency kit in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the autho rity to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-2.34

DATE: March 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George Smyth -- Municipal/Refuse Fleet Sales, Palm Peterbilt-GMC Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-75 from Richard B. Dyson (signed by Z. Taylor Vinson) to Byron A. Crampton; Also attached to letter dated 8-27-68 from Eugene B. Laskin to Barry G. Seitz (Std. 203; Std. 204); Also attached to letter dated 3-4-68 from George C. Nield to Earl Allgaier; Also attached to letter from Joseph R. O'Gorman to Nathan Darby

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion on the legality of modifying left-hand drive trucks by adding right-hand drive. I apologize for the delay in our response.

We assume that your question is directed towards municipal refuse trucks. Because of budget constraints, we understand that refuse trucks with dual controls are increasing in popularity because they allow one-man trash collection, rather than the two or three man crews on older trucks, and that 3,000 to 4,000 such trucks are manufactured annually. We also understand that about 80% of these trucks are equipped with a fold-down seat at the auxiliary driving position, and that the right hand driving position is used in start-stop slow speed operation in residential neighborhoods, while the left hand position is used in driving to and from work sites.

According to your letter, the trucks are manufactured with left-hand drive only, and are then modified by body companies for the end user. The modification, as we understand it, is to add a steering wheel to the right-hand side, along with an accelerator, brake pedal, horn, hazard warning, and turn signals. This indicates that the vehicle may be operated from both sides. You commented that "the unsafe part of the conversion, as we see it, is that the windshield wiper controls, parking brake, start and stop switch, along with all gauges are on the lefthand side out of reach when the driver is in the drivers position." The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies requirements in relation to the driver. It requires that if certain controls are furnished, they must be operable by the driver, and that if certain displays are furnished, they must be visible to the driver. See section S5.1. (Since your letter concerns trucks, it should be noted that Standard No. 101's display requirements do not apply to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or higher.) However, Standard No. 101 does not require that the driver's position be on a particular side of a vehicle. Thus, it permits a vehicle to be either left-hand or right-hand drive. The issue raised by your letter is how our standards apply when a vehicle is both left-hand drive and right-hand drive, i.e., the vehicle has two driver positions.

The term "driver" is defined as "the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system." See section 571.3. It is our opinion that the providing of a steering control system is ordinarily sufficient to create a driver's position, but that for vehicles with two driver's positions, the requirements specified in relation to the driver need be met only from the position intended by the original manufacturer as the primary driving position. However, if that manufacturer, or a subsequent converter, intends the driving positions to be used interchangeably under similar driving conditions so that neither driving position could be considered as primary over the other, then all Federal requirements would have to be met, e.g., the requirement in Standard No. 207 Seating Systems that a seat be provided for the driver.

We addressed this issue previously in a letter sent July 30, 1975 to Byron A. Crampton of the Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., in which the agency informed Mr. Crampton that a dual-control garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls, need not have a seat at the auxiliary position, and that access to such controls as the heater, wipers, and lights from this position was not required. Earlier, in an interpretation issued in 1968, with respect to driver education cars with dual controls, the agency considered the "driver, of such a vehicle to be the person seated behind the primary controls.

We appreciate your concern with safety that occasioned your letter. You may be reassured to know that the National Truck Equipment Association has had no reports of accidents or injuries due to the dual control feature of refuse trucks. However, it is possible that the agency could institute rulemaking in the future that would require a full set of controls and seats in dual control vehicles.

Your second question relates to noise standards. The in-cab noise standard is administered by the Department's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We have forwarded a copy of your letter to that agency's Office of Motor Carrier Safety so that they can respond to your question.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

ID: nht92-7.4

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Al Twyford

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Al Twyford to Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration (OCC 7244)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Enclosure

April 16, 1992

The Honorable William S. Cohen United State Senate Washington, DC 20510-1901

Dear Senator Cohen:

Thank you for your letter requesting information on the quality of automobile headlamps. Our information should help you respond to a letter from Mr.

Lowell Spicer, of Brunswick, Maine, who wrote you about headlamp glare and other issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects. One of these standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," addresses the safety requirements for vehicle headlighting.

Two of FMVSS No. 108's requirements standardize the beam pattern and light intensity of headlamps. All new headlamps must meet these requirements, which have remained essentially unchanged since 1978. Halogen headlamps may appear much brighter, but they meet the same minimum and maximum output requirements as normal incandescent headlamps. They appear much brighter because of the color spectrum of their light, i.e., they emit light which appears whiter than the light emitted by incandescent headlamp. Another of FMVSS No. 108's requirements allows headlamps to be installed or "mounted" in a proper ground clearance and ramp angles for heavy duty and other vehicles. Because of their size and other characteristics, trucks often have headlamps that are mounted higher than other vehicles.

Our headlamp compliance tests for beam pattern and light intensity show, that when properly aimed, recent model-year headlamps generally fall well within the limits established for glare brightness. However, our tests do not account for the effect of different mounting heights or misaiming. Headlamp replacement and vehicle loading can alter headlamp aim and are often the cause of glare complaints.

Another aspect of recent model-year vehicles that could be contributing to glare is the improper use, misaiming or improper installation of auxiliary fog or driving lamps. These are regulated solely by state law.

The agency has found that factors such as reduced night vision capabilities as people age can adversely influence driving performance. Headlamp glare resistance reduces with driver age. According to research, the headlamp glare resistance of the human eye at age 20 is twice as good as it is for the age of 72. Contrast sensitivity is also an important factor in night vision, and it reduces dramatically, requiring more illumination to see objects as drivers age.

Concerning vehicle headlamps and their brightness due to misaim, States regulate headlamp aim in motor vehicle use and inspection laws. Maine has an annual motor vehicle inspection law. Should Mr. Spicer want to contact his State on the matter of headlamp aim inspection he should contact the following:

Administration of Laws Mr. G. William Diamond, Secretary of State Department of Secretary of State Nash School Station, #148 Augusta, ME 04333

Enforcement of Laws Mr. John Atwood, Commissioner

Department of Public Safety 336 Hospital Street Augusta, ME 04333.

I hope that we have provided enough information to help you answer Mr. Spicer's concerns.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe