ID: 1985-04.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Walsh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240

Dear Mr. Walsh:

Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985 inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Vo. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard Vo. 205. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 September 15, 1985 Dear Sir,

Recently I developed a product for use on four-door passenger cars; designed to act as a sun visor for rear seat occupants. This product, known as the Autoblind, is a fully functional mini-venetian blind. The attached photographs show an automobile with the Autoblind in place. The Autoblind is not a permanent fixture on the car, and the slats can be adjusted to allow sun blockage but continued vision.

I have contacted the Michigan Department of Commerce to determine the legality of this product in the state. From their standpoint, use of this product is legal provided the automobile is equipped with two outside side-view mirrors.

However, it has been suggested that I also obtain a federal ruling for this product. Would the use of the Autoblind, on the rear compartment side windows, violate any federal laws?

Also, if use of this product meets federal safety standards, could you suggest a method in which I could learn if its use would violate any state laws?

Many thanks for your attention. Sincerely Yours, David Walsh

ID: 1985-04.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Janet L. Nedoba

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Janet L. Nedoba Attorney at Law 111 Addison Elmhurst, Illinois 60126

Dear Ms. Nedoba:

Your letter of September 4, 1985, to the Consumer product Safety Commission was forwarded to our agency for reply, since we issue safety standards for motor vehicles under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). You asked if there are regulations that would apply to a safety belt used in a race car.

Our agency has issued Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of the standard is enclosed. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(B)) defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for the public streets, roads, and highways,...." Whether a race car would be considered a motor vehicle covered by our standard would be determined by whether it was used on the street or whether it was intended and sold solely for off-road use. If the race car was manufactured for off-road (or non-public road) use, the standard would not apply.

If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 4, 1985 The Consumer Product Safety Commission 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois Gentlemen:

I am presently working on a product liability lawsuit. The product involved is a safety belt designed for a race car, manufactured in 1979 by Rupert Industries, Inc. of Wheeling, Illinois, model number 85.

I would appreciate your forewarding to me any information you may have concerning standards applicable to this product or similar products.

Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Janet L. Nedoba JLN/jln

ID: 1985-04.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Incorporated Ste-Claire, Quebec, Canada GOR 2VO

Dear Mr. Turgeon:

This responds to your August 12, 1985 letter to Administrator Steed regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We apologize for the delay in our response.

Your questions concerned paragraph S5.3.2, Which applies to buses other than school buses. You asked whether the requirements of paragraph S5.5.2 may be met by: (1) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 1 of the standard that are operated by a rotary or straight type of motion; and by (2) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 2 operated by a straight type of motion.

Your understanding is correct. Rotary type motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application as shown in Figures 1 or 3 of the standard. Straight motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application shown in Figures 1 and 3, and in regions of high force application shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Your second question asked whether the force application for a release mechanism operated by a rotary motion is limited by S5.5.2 to 20 pounds. The answer is yes. Release mechanisms may be operated by a rotary type of motion in locations shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3 for low-force application. The magnitude of the force application must not be more than 20 pounds.

The second part of your question stated, "In case of straight motion, the force application is limited to 60 pounds." This statement is not entirely correct. If the release mechanism is located in the low-force application areas shown in Figures 1 or 3, S5.3.2 specifies that the force applications must not exceed 20 pounds.

Your third question concerned the type of motions that are required to operate the release mechanisms. The first part of this question asked whether a rotary motion "implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob." Standard No. 217 does not restrict you from using the particular type of rotary motion you described, provided that all other requirements of the standard can be met.

The second part of this question asked whether a straight motion means "a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface." Paragraph S5.3.2(b) describes the direction of a straight high-force application as "perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." Your understanding, therefore, appears to be in accordance with S5.3.2.

The final part of this question asked whether "a pull reasonably perpendicular, i.e., at 70 degrees instead of 90 degrees, would be acceptable " The answer to your question depends on whether one or two force applications are necessary to release the emergency exit. If only one force application is necessary, the direction of the application must meet the 90 to 180 degree directional requirement of S5.3.2. No variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible. However, paragraph S5.3.2 permits the use of two force applications for a single opening. Only one of the two force applications is required to differ by 90 to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit.

Your final question asked whether a particular type of push out window in your buses would comply with FMVSS No. 217. As you know, this agency does not pass approval on the compliance of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, each manufacturer is required to determine whether its products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

You asked whether a push out window with a mechanism that can be released by a pull not exceeding 60 pounds in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5.3.2. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism. If it is located in the regions shown in Figures 1 or 3 for mechanisms released by low-force applications, the magnitude of the force application must not exceed 20 pounds. Release mechanisms located in regions of high force application must be capable of operation by force applications not more than 60 pounds. Of course, the other requirements in FMVSS No. 217 pertaining to emergency exits and release mechanisms must also be met.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 12, 1985

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. 2100 Second Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Attention: Mrs. Diane K. Steed Acting Administrator

Dear Mrs. Steed:

We are looking for your comments on our interpretation of F.V.M.S.S. 217 on bus window retention and release in connection with a new design to be released in 1986 or 1987.

Our interpretation of S5.3.2 is as follows:

1. Choice of occupant's action for release:

The manufacturer has a choice of two (2) types of force application: a) Either rotary motion (or straight) for location fig. 1. b) or straight motion for location fig. 2.

2. Force of application:

- For a rotary motion, the force application is to be limited to 20 lb. - In case of straight motion, the force application is limited to 60 lb.

3. Type of motions:

A rotary motion implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob.

- A straight motion means a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface.

A pull reasonably perpendicular, i.e. at 70o instead of 90o would be acceptable.

In brief, one could say that a bus push out window with a lock that can be released by a pull not exceeding 60 lb. in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5. 3.2 of standard F.M.V.S.S. 217.

We do realize that you do not as a rule give approval but we trust that you can comment on our interpretation. Yours very truly, JEAN PAUL TURGEON Security and Legality Manager

ID: 1985-04.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R.A. Bynum

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Associate Director, Pupil Transportation Service Virginia Department of Education P.O. Box 6Q Richmond, Virginia 25216-2060 Dear Mr. Bynum:

Thank you for your July 31, 1985 letter to Administrator Steed concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength to your school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

In a telephone call with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that Virginia wants to purchase new school buses for deaf and blind school children and plans to equip those buses with bathrooms. The bathrooms will be installed by a commercial shop after the State receives the vehicles from a dealer. You explained that the joints of the body panels enclosing the passenger compartment would comply with FMVSS No. 221. However, you asked us whether the panels covering the inside of the bathroom, comprising a "Formica-type" material, must comply with the standard. As explained below, the answer is no.

Our safety standards and regulations are not applicable to modifications of motor vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles for purposes other than resale, with one exception. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any 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...

In your situation, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires the commercial business adding the bathroom to ensure that any device or element of design which was installed in compliance with Federal safety standards continues to comply with those standards after the work has been completed. For example, the installation of the bathroom compartment must not render inoperative the compliance of the school bus seats with FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection or the emergency exits with FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. However, the joints of the panels would not have to comply with Standard No. 221 since the panels are being placed in a used vehicle. The agency does, however, urge persons making modifications to follow voluntarily our safety standards.

We would note that this agency has a set of different requirements that would apply if the bathroom were added to a new school bus before its sale to you. In that situation, the person who installs the bathroom would be an alterer under our regulations, and required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards, including FMVSS No. 221. (49 CFR Part 567.7.)

Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. BOX 6Q RICHMOND 23216-2060 July 31, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S,W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Steed:

The Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind for children operating under the auspices or the State Board of Education, need to purchase school buses which contain a bathroom similar to those round in Charter buses. We are not aware or any school buses so equipped which meet April 1, 1977 federal school vehicle regulations.

It would appear that the joint strength standard and possibly others, will be involved. We have contacted several or the major school bus body manufacturers for assistance with development or this project in order that it can be bid as required by Virginia law. Some of these body plants probably will be contacting your agency for guidance in the near future.

We hope members or your agency will be able to help us finalize the planning for this important and much needed feature in an approved school bus for special children. Should a staff member wish to contact me by telephone about this request, they may call 804-225-2037. Sincerely, R. A. Bynum, Associate Director Pupil Transportation Service RAB/ns

ID: 1985-04.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert C. Blunt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Blunt Papy, Poole, Weissenborn & Papy 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 502 Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Dear Mr. Blunt:

This responds to your two letters to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller in which you sought information concerning our Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

In your first letter, you enclosed a copy of a newspaper article that appeared in the Miami Herald. That article stated that a "Federal study" rated projected mileage for 134 different radial tires, and ranked the "best" and "worst" tires. You asked for a copy of this study, along with the standards used by the agency to grade treadwear, traction, and temperature-resistance for tires. Your second letter indicates you subsequently received a copy of our UTQGS (49 CFR S575.104), which sets forth the procedures the tire manufacturers use to grade their tires. As discussed below, the "Federal study" referenced in the newspaper article is merely information taken from tire manufacturers' UTQGS submissions to the agency.

As set forth in the UTQGS, this agency requires the tire manufacturers to assign grades to each of their tire designs. NHTSA then makes available to the public the grade assignments reported to it by the tire manufacturers. Hence, the tests to which the article referred were conducted entirely by the individual tire manufacturers, not by the Federal government.

Neither the tire manufacturers nor the agency made, or could make, any total tire mileage projections from the reported treadwear grades. If one were to project total mileage from the treadwear grade, one could say only that a certain tire might get x miles if driven over the same roads at the same speeds on the same vehicles with the same careful maintenance performed daily on those vehicles. A projection of a tire's treadlife which did not include all of these caveats would be misleading.

Finally, the agency does not categorize particular tires as the best or the worst based solely on the treadwear grades assigned by the manufacturers. Such an approach ignores the importance of the traction and temperature resistance grades, both of which have far greater significance from a safety standpoint than does the treadwear grade. Because of the many variables involved in selecting the most appropriate tire, this agency cannot state that any particular tire is the best for most drivers.

In your second letter, you stated that you had received a 1982 publication entitled "Tire Grading System Information," and requested a copy of the 1983 and 1984 updates of that publication. The agency did not update that publication during those years. Instead, all interested consumers have been provided with a complete listing of all grades which have been reported to the agency, together with an explanatory sheet telling how to use those grades. I have enclosed a copy of those grades for your information.

For your information, NHTSA suspended treadwear grading requirements under the UTQGS, effective February 8, 1983. This action was announced after the agency found high levels of variability in treadwear test results and in the grade assignment practices of the various tire manufacturers. This variability resulted in a substantial likelihood that treadwear information being provided to the public under this program would be misleading; i.e., that the assigned treadwear grades could, in many instances, incorrectly rank the actual treadwear performance of different tires.

On April 24, 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the agency's suspension of the treadwear grading requirements in Public Citizen v. Steed, 733 F.2d 93. Accordingly, the agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading require-agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading requirements on December 19, 1984 (49 FR 49293; copy enclosed). Hence, if you were seeking treadwear grades for 1983 and 1984, none were assigned during those years.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

August 8, 1985

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Commission 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20 90

Attention: Jeffrey R. Miller, Esq.

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you for the "Uniform Tire Quality Grade Consumer Information" documents and the Uniform Tire Grade Standards regulations.

Some time ago we received from you the 1982 bulletin entitled Tire Grading System Information. We would appreciate your advising us if there has been an update on that information for the years 1983 and 1984, which are the years when those studies and results would be most helpful to us. Should there be such new information on tire grading, would you please be so kind as to mail it to us. If there is a charge, please let us know and we would be more than happy to mail you a check by return mail.

Your cooperation is very much appreciated.

Very truly yours, Robert C. Blunt RCB:en

July 31, 1985

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Commission 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Jeffrey R. Miller, Esq.

Re: NHTSA Treadwear Testing - 1985

Dear Mr. Miller:

Reference is made to my letter to you of April 30, 1985 reference D.O.T.-HS-806 091.

Enclosed please find a copy of an article which appeared in the Tuesday, July 30, 1985 edition of the Miami Herald as a United Press International release.

Could you please be so kind as to forward to this office a copy of the complete study referred to in the UPI article along with any available standards used by your agency to grade treadwear, traction and temperature-resistance.

We will, of course, be happy to reimburse your agency for your cost in locating and copying the above-requested documents.

Your continued cooperation is appreciated. Very truly yours, Robert C. Blunt RCB:en cc: Mr. Art Casanova Mr. Joe Annis Enclosure

ID: 1985-04.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William E. Sandham -- Sales Manager, OEM Division, Velvac, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William E. Sandham Sales Manager, OEM Division Velvac, Inc. 2900 South 160th Street New Berlin, WI 53151

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning the vertical adjustment of rearview mirrors for trucks. You asked us to clarify whether the standard requires a mirror both to tilt, as shown in your sketch "A," and to move up and down its mounting bracket, as shown in your sketch "B." As discussed below, a truck mirror can meet the adjustment requirement by either tilting or by moving up and down its mounting bracket.

The agency has not specified the means used to provide a vertical adjustment. We would consider a mirror which tilts, as shown in your sketch "A," or which moves up and down on its mounting bracket, as shown in your sketch "B," as meeting the adjustment requirement. You should know that the agency has interpreted this vertical adjustment requirement for trucks to mean that adjustment with tools is allowed. The use of tools is justified because trucks and buses are generally driven for longer periods of time by the same driver and thus the mirror does not have to be continually adjusted.

Please note that S6.1(a) of Standard No. 111 also permits trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be equipped with rearview mirrors which meet the performance requirements for passenger cars in section S5, instead of the requirements for trucks in S6.1(b), S7, or S8. If the passenger car specifications ar; chosen, the driver must be able to adjust the inside and outside rearview mirrors in both vertical and horizontal directions by tilting them. The agency has not permitted the use of tools for adjusting passenger car mirrors, since passenger cars are often driven by different drivers who will need to quickly and easily adjust their mirrors. A mirror mounted on a universal ball socket joint, for example, meets this requirement. In this situation, the vertical tilting adjustment shown in your sketch "A" would appear to comply as long as that mirror could also be adjusted horizontally by tilting. The vertical sliding adjustment shown in sketch "B" apparently would not meet this requirement because it appears to require the use of tools to make the adjustment.

A copy of the current version of Standard No. 111 is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 21, 1985 Legal Council FMVSS III - Room 5219 National Highway Traf. Safety Adm. U.S. Dept of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are seeking clarification on the wording in MVSS III pertaining to mirror adjustment, particularly the terminology regarding "VERTICAL ADJUSTMENT" of truck mirrors.

Our impression is that this standard refers to the adjustment of the vertical plane of vision on the mirror head as shown on the attached sketch "A".

One of our customers has a question regarding this interpretation and is wondering if the standard is also requiring a vertical adjustment of the mirror head, physically up and down, on the loop or mounting bracketry, as shown in sketch "B".

We would appreciate your comments on this matter and also the latest revision of MVSS III for our records.

Thank you. Yours truly, William E. Sandham Sales Manager OEM Division cc: Mr. R. Brester WES/ds Attachments

ID: 1985-04.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Kurth Ioth -- President, Bigway America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kurth Ioth President Bigway America, Inc. 601 E. Yorba Linda Blvd. Suite 6 Placentia, CA 92670

Thank you for your letter of August 5, 1985, concerning a product you wish to import into the United States. You asked several questions about the application of our regulations to your product. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

According to the literature you enclosed in your letter, the product is a device which prevents the normal operation of a vehicle until the driver's safety belt is fastened. The product is installed directly beneath the vehicle's accelerator. Until the driver's safety belt is fastened, a lock system prevent, the accelerator from being depressed. According to the drawing accompanying your letter, your product requires the installation of a new buckle and latchplate in a vehicle's safety belt system. To install the latchplate, the vehicle's safety belt must be cut.

Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. In the case of an imported product, the importer is considered the manufacturer of the product for the purposes of our requirements. In addition to ensuring that your product complies with all applicable safety standards, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If your product is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then the person performing the alteration would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Part 567.7 requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. In particular, the installer of your device would have to ensure that the safety belt system still complied with all of the requirements, including the safety belt webbing strength requirement, of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; a copy of the standard is enclosed.

- Installation of your device in a used vehicle could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device 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, a commercial business installing your product in a used vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our safety standards by the installation of your device.

You also asked about our regulations concerning the importation of products. Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his or her agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions and requirements may be made. In order for that designation to be valid, the following information must be submitted to the Office of the Chief Counsel:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made:

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer:

3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name:

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Gruenzner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Mr. David Gruenzner President, Future Tech Inc. P.O. Box 26B Mankato, MN 56002 Dear Mr. Gruenzner: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to an aftermarket high-mounted stop lamp/turn signal lamp system. You intend to market three models, as more completely described in the next paragraph. All models are mounted in the interior of the car. Our primary concern is the possibility that the interior-mounted unit will cause undesirable reflections in the rear window, reducing the ability of the operator to judge conditions to the rear of his vehicle as seen through the rear view mirror. For this reason, Standard No. 108 requires the new center-mounted stop lamps mounted on the interior to be provided with means to minimize such reflections. These lamps now in production incorporate shrouds that abut the rear window glazing. Though your after market device would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, we encourage you to incorporate design features which will prevent undesirable reflections. Also care should be taken to ensure that, when the device is installed, it does not impair the field of view required for rear view mirrors by Safety Standard No. 111. Your device consists of eight miniature lamps, four mounted on each side of the vertical centerline. We also have some additional concerns about the operation of one of your three models. In the first model, in the turn signal mode, the lamps operate sequentially from the center outward in the direction of the intended turn. In the stop lamp mode, the entire unit will illuminate, "sending a sequential (sic) flashing beam from the middle to both sides." We view the sequential flashing of the lights from the center outwards in the stop lamp mode as prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of the standard which requires all lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning in use, except for turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps, and headlamps and side marker lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning light, thus complying with our requirements. In the third model, there will be an additional amber colored lens mounted on top of the red lens. The brake signal will be indicated by a steady red light, while the turn signals will be indicated by flashing amber ones. This method of operation is also acceptable under Standard No. 108 which permits rear turn signals to be either amber or red.

We are unable to assist you with State laws that may affect your devices. We suggest you contact the vehicle administrators in the States where you intend to market your system. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kenneth E. Deane -- Application Engineer, Mallory Timers Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth E. Deane Application Engineer Mallory Timers Company P.O. Box 986 Indianapolis, IN 46206

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp and the acceptability of a switch you have designed, you have asked whether the new lamp and the vehicle's primary stop lamps "must be energized simultaneously, or that the low mount light must come on first, followed by the high mount light within 35 milliseconds." You have designed a switch which would energize these lamps within 80 milliseconds of each other.

Paragraph S4.5.4 requires that the stop lamps on a vehicle be activated upon application of the service brakes, and, further, that the center high-mounted stop lamp shall only be activated upon application of the service brakes. We interpret this as meaning that all stop lamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously. Lawrence J. Fogel's "Human Information Processing" (Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1967), p. 101) indicates that the eye cannot discern delays of 50 milliseconds or less. Therefore, we believe that an observer would not be able to detect a 35 millisecond delay but would be able to detect an 80 millisecond delay. Accordingly, a 35 millisecond delay would be considered to be "simultaneous," but an 80 millisecond delay would not.

You have also asked whether "slow 'teasing' of the brake pedal must not cause intermittent 'blip' flashing of the high mount light when the hazard warning signal is employed." A center high-mounted stop lamp is allowed to flash with the hazard warning system on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1986, but it must be steady burning at all times on passenger cars manufactured on or after that date.

I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 25, 1985 Mr. Taylor Vinson SMVSS108 NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024

Dear Mr. Vinson:

I have been referred to you by Mr. Kevin Cavey of the NHTSA for a clarification of one of the requirements for the High Mounted Brake Light on passenger cars.

We have designed and tooled a brake switch for this application in which the low mount brake lights and the high mount brake lights are energized within 80 milliseconds of each other. (This is at a brake lever actuation speed of 5mm/second.) To further clarify, either light could come on first, followed by the other light within 80 milliseconds.

Recent inputs from our customer, B-O-C Detroit, indicate that both lights must be energized simultaneously or that the low mount light must come on first, followed by the high mount light within 35 milliseconds. Also that slow "teasing" of the brake pedal must not cause any intermittent "blip" flashing of the high mount light when the hazard warning system is employed. In conversation with B-O-C engineering they indicated that they "think" this is the NHTSA requirement.

A complete redesign of our already tooled product would be necessary to meet these new requirements at considerable cost and subsequent program delay. For this reason, we request your input and interpretation of the NHTSA's intentions in this area.

Thank you for your early consideration. Respectfully, Kenneth E. Deane Application Engineer KED/s cc: Messrs. E. Eaton P. Johnson J. Smith R. Stafford J. Wiser

ID: 1985-04.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Finbarr J. O'Neill General Counsel Hyundai Motor America P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove, California 92642-2669 Dear Mr. O'Neill: September 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to application of the "DOT" symbol to lighting equipment. You first ask for confirmation of your interpretation that Standard No. 108 does not require the DOT symbol on original equipment lenses of lamps other than headlamps. That is correct; the general certification of the vehicle manufacturer that its product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is inclusive of all original equipment and of all requirements of the specific standards such as the color requirements for lenses imposed by Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation that under Standard No. 108 the marking of replacement lenses with the DOT symbol is optional. That is correct; the other permissible certification options for replacement lenses are those imposed by 15 U.S.C. 1403, certification in the form of a label or tag on the lens itself or the container in which it is shipped. Finally, you have asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can comment on whether it intends to propose mandatory marking of lenses in the near future. We have received a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to require items of replacement lighting equipment to be marked with the DOT symbol. However, the agency has not announced a decision on the petition at this time. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel