ID: nht94-1.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 23, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Zander -- AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds (New Carlisle, IN)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/93 from Richard A. Zander to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the fade and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum dec eleration of at least 15 fpsps.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor ve hicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all appli cable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recover y test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for t he fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum dec eleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

As noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the REQUIRED DECELERATION within 1 second and, AS A MINIMUM, MAINTAIN IT for the remaind er of the stopping time. Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.)

The words "required deceleration" in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, "as a minimum," the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word "it" in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase "required deceleration.") Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily.

You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement:

1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps.

3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a MINIMUM, be maintain ed for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a "minimum" with one that it be maintained as an "average."

The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even

for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a "failure" but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not co mpensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the req uirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhi ll driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: "Average Sust Decel." You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure :

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are les s severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in t he OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my st aff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

ID: 0857

Mr. Takashi Adachi
Manager
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
North American Liaison Office
555 Briarwood Circle, Suite 190
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Adachi:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1995, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a reflex reflector design that you attached. This design shows a single reflector 2 inches in height mounted behind a clear outer lens which is bisected horizontally by an opaque strip 6mm (.25 in.) wide, giving the impression from the exterior of two reflectors, one .75 in. high above the divider, and one that is 1.00 in. in height, below the divider.

You have asked whether the "structure of the reflex reflector conforms to FMVSS 108," and whether photometric conformance is judged with respect to the single reflector crossed by the opaque strip, or whether both the upper and lower portions of the bisected reflector must meet the photometric specification.

Standard No. 108 is a performance standard, not a design standard. The standard does not specify any requirements concerning the structure of reflectors. The applicable requirements for reflex reflectors are those of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977, which Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Your reflector should be tested as a single reflector according to the procedures set forth in J594f. If the reflector does not meet the photometric performance requirements of that standard, you may add sufficient reflective elements to the reflector design until conformance is achieved. There is no need to test the upper and lower portions as separate reflectors.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/9/95

ID: 19795.rbm

Ms. Kristin M. Werth
Weinberger & Kanan
Mile High Center, Suite 1910
1700 Broadway
Denver, CO 80290

Dear Ms. Werth:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you asked for a description of how the date of manufacture is defined under the standard. You expressed particular concern about the parts of the standard that mandate the installation of air bags and warning labels.

For purposes of Standard No. 208, as well as the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" of a vehicle would typically be the production date at the vehicle manufacturer's factory.

The exception is a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages for which special provisions apply. "Incomplete vehicles" may be completed to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. ⁽¹⁾

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact

Ms. Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.4/17/2000

1. See 49 CFR sections 567 and 568. Note that section 568.6 specifies that this provision shall be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. FMVSS No. 208 has no such provision.

ID: 1982-2.19

DATE: 07/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association -- Bradley Sweet

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

Truck Body & Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220 Chevy Chase Maryland 20815

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Since you represent the School Bus Manufacturers Institute, I am writing for your assistance. We are reinterpreting the requirements of @5.3.3 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release, as they apply to audible warning devices and would like your assistance in disseminating this interpretation.

As you know, the standard requires that a continuous warning sound shall be audible at both the driver's seating location and in the vicinity of the enclosed door. In the preamble to the notice implementing this requirement, the agency stated that section @5.3.3 requires two warning devices one located at each position. The agency made this interpretation based upon the then available data indicating that a single warning device in a bus might not be audible in both locations.

In the years that this requirement of the standard has been in effect, the agency has reexamined the issue in light of experience and finds that it is possible to have only one warning device audible at both locations. We have determined that this device can be heard even when a bus is loaded with noisy children. In accordance with this finding, the agency is reinterpreting the language of section @5.3.3 to permit one warning device is that device is audible at both locations. We caution manufacturers to ensure that their warning devices will be audible at both locations even when the bus is loaded.

Thank you for your assistance in providing this information to your members and others in the school bus industry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ezon Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Louis Gaia V.P. Purchasing Ezon Products, Inc. P.O. Box 18134 Memphis, Tennessee 38118

Dear Mr. Gaia:

In your letter of June 2, 1983, to the Office of Chief Counsel, you asked if there were "any D.O.T. requirements on miniature bulbs?"

We understand your question to refer to bulbs used in lighting devices other than headlamps. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, imposes no performance requirements on individual bulbs used in lighting devices other than those used in replaceable bulb headlamps (an option permissible as of July 1, 1983). Other lighting devices must meet the photometric requirements of the standard with the bulb, chosen by the lighting device manufacturer, installed.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 2, 1983

National Hwy. Traffic Agency Office of Chief Councel 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

We were advised by Mr. Al Kazmierzak from the D.O.T. to write you concerning the following.

Are there any D.O.T. requirements on automotive miniature bulbs?

Please advise.

Awaiting your reply,

EZON PRODUCTS, INC.

Louis Gaia V.P. Purchasing

LG/dd

ID: 1983-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.V.R. Enterprises -- Robert A. Wirffel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Wirffel J.V.R. Enterprises 8511 No. Canterbury Avenue Sun Valley, California 91352

Dear Mr. Wirffel:

This in reply to your letter of February 6, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of my staff regarding the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of your "Safe-T-Signal" directional indicator. The signal, and 8-inch amber arrow, is located under the right side of a semi-trailer, approximately at mid point, and is intended to warn vehicles in the adjacent right traffic lane that the semi-trailer makes wide right turns. The system supplements the trailer's existing turn signal, as we understand it.

There is nothing in Standard No. 109 that prohibits use of your system as it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment, such as turn signals, required by Standard No. 108 as original equipment. However, you must insure that it is permitted in States in which the device is likely to be used.

We note the statement in your letter that the amber arrow is "D.O.T. approved" and in your descriptive sheet as well, plus the statement that is "conforms to applicable federal motor vehicle standards (C.H.P approved) ." This is legally incorrect, as the U.S. Department of Transportation does not "approve" lighting equipment , nor does Standard No. 108 specify requirements with which a supplementary turn signal system must conform. If you wish to assure prospective purchasers that Federal requirements as "Permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard NO., 108."

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gold Bug

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1983, letter asking about the compliance of a device that you manufacture with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The device is a head support for children which has several uses, one of which would be in a car seat. You specifically ask to obtain the Federal seal for use on your package.

Only those items of equipment to which specific Federal safety standards apply are marked with the DOT symbol which indicates that they are in compliance with applicable safety standards. From our analysis of your product, it is not a piece of equipment subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since your device does not need to comply with any of our requirements, you would not need, nor would you be permitted to use, the DOT symbol.

We would recommend, however, from a product liability point of view that you ensure that your product complies with flammability requirements. I am enclosing a copy of our flammability standard that you might use as a guideline, although as I stated earlier, you would not be required to comply with this standard.

ENC.

February 9, 1983

Diane Steed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed,

Your name was given to us by Diane Emrick of the Colorado Division of Highway Safety.

We manufacture a product called Head Up. We are enclosing a sample for your inspection.

We would like to put the National Seal on the package. As you can see the Colorado Division has approved this item.

Please let me know the procedures for acquiring the National Seal. Thank you.

Robert P. Eschino, Vice President

ID: 1983-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/24/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stephen E. Parmeter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 24 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Stephen E. Parmeter Route 4 Potsdam, New York 13676

Dear Mr. Parmeter:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the process of repairing breaks in automobile windshields. You ask whether such repairs would conflict with any present Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (copy enclosed). This standard would not apply to a repair process such as you describe, however. There is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use.

Please note, however, that using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair (as a result of damage sustained, for example, in shipment) could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, or could fail to bring a noncomplying windshield back into compliance. Either case of noncompliance would be the responsibility of the person selling the windshield (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). Therefore, we do not recommend use of windshield repair processes prior to the first purchase of a new windshield by a consumer.

You will have to contact a private attorney to determine your liability under civil law with regards to such a business.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1985-02.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert M. Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert M. Levy Manager, Design Engineering Abex Corporation Signal-Stat Division P.O. Box 438 Somerset, New Jersey 08873-3492

Dear Mr. Levy:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, asking for clarification of an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 108 that tnis agency furnished last year to Wesbar Corp.

On May 16, 1984, Wesbar asked whether the correct minimum effective luminous lens area on stop lamps and turn signal lamps was 8 square inches or 12 square inches, when intended for use on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. This office advised Wesbar on July 3, 1984, that, as specified in SAE J586c for stop.lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, the answer was 8 square inches. Your letter calls to our attention the fact that these SAE standards require each stop and turn signal lamp to have a minimum of 12 square inches in those vehicle configurations where two stop or turn signal lamps are mounted on the same side of the vehicle and are closer to each other than 22 inches.

Thank you for calling this oversight to our attention. Indeed, SAE J586c and J588e establish this exception to the general minimum requirement of 8 square inches. We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Wesbar and apologize for any confusion that the earlier letter has caused.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. C.I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

ID: nht88-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: MELANIE TURNER -- QUALITY CONTROL DIAMOND STAR MOTORS

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MELANIE TURNER; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 08/31/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 04/13/78 FROM JOSEPH J. L EVIN -- NHTSA TO MOE PARE; NOA 30; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

Diamond Star Motors is presently producing cars for Chrysler and Mitsubishi. In order to insure that DSM is meeting FMVSS STD 205 (Glass Markings) without fail we'd like to request a written interpretation of this Standard for clarification purposes. P lease address the following questions:

1. Must the manufacturer markings be in a specified position on the glass (particularly side door glass?) If so, what are the specifications?

2. Must the manufacturing markings be readily and completely visible without dissassembly of the vehicle and without manually moving any molding in order to make markings more visible to the eye?

3. Must the markings be readily readable in a certain position? For example . . . from left to right, right to left, right-side up, or up side down?

4. Must the markings be readable from the outside of the car of the inside of the car?

5. What is the specification for the height of the lettering, point size, and dimensioning of the markings?

6. What does the content of these labels consist of?

Thank you for your cooperation. I greatly appreciate your assistance in supplying any additional information with reguards to this topic. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Your reply is critical to the quality of our cars.

Thank you,