ID: nht79-3.27

DATE: 04/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Valley Presbyterian Hospital

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 16, 1979 NOA-30

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President Valley Presbyterian Hospital 15107 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, California 91405

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerized anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, Theft Protection. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.

The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards is to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. Your device appears to fall in this latter category.

The NHTSA does not provide evaluations or approvals of inventions, and we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1979

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

I believe that, at times, the best way is the most direct. Cognizant of your long and dedicated search for improvement in traffic safety, I am encouraged to address one important aspect of that search - automobile theft and its concommitant social and economic impact.

Congress Henry Waxman was king enough to establish the initial contact. I would like now to follow up in some detail to evoke your evaluation.

BBJ, a California partnership in which I am involved, has developed an anti-theft device known as the CAT* (Computerized Anti-Theft) system. Briefly, it is our representation that the device will totally protect against theft of any automobile, except by towing even though the key be left in the ignition. This is accomplished by employing the most advanced micro-processor technology to control the automobile's electric system. Use of the vehicle is restricted to the owner and those to whom he may have made the special coding feature known. The owner may elect to activate the device or not; if he chooses "no activation", the car will perform in an entirely normal manner. When activated, however, the vehicle cannot be "wired around" tampered with or moved by any of the conventional methods used by professional or amateur thieves. It does, in effect, guarantee against all known methodologies of theft. This complete security system comes packaged in a unit the size of a hand-held digital calculator.

* Patent applied for

During the course of a telephone conversation last month with Mr. Carl Nash, he was kind enough to agree to send a copy of the 1981 anti-theft requirements with which the automobile industry must comply. While I have not yet received them, my understanding is that they deal largely with peripherical modification such as recessed door latches, steering wheel locks, hood latches and the like. While these undoubedly act as deterrents, they are not fool-proof. We believe that our device, which will permit the hood, trunk and doors to remain open with the key in the ignition, meets and surpasses the intent of the regulations -which is to prevent car theft.

Increasingly sophisticated systems are appearing, all ranging from $250 to $1,000 - well beyond the practical reach of most car owners. Our device, in production quantities, will have a manufacturing cost of $30.00 - $40.00 and a retail cost of about $100. Furthermore, all other systems of which we are aware can be "wired around" or otherwise thwarted; we stipulate that ours cannot.

It would be most helpful in introducing the "CAT" system as the ultimate solution to car theft to have your administration's evaluation as to whether the device does indeed meet the 1981 regulations as we believe.

Any guidance you might give will be warmly appreciated not only by BBJ, but by the tens of thousands who each year are subjected to the trauma and inconvenience - both physical and economic - of automobile theft.

Sincerely,

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President

HXJ:dds

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: nht71-2.14

DATE: 03/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Bobby-Mac Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.

1. "In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceeds Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems."

We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act or Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the "position " of the child seat nor can they be "exceeded." You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: "This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below."

2. "Bobby-Mac can only be used in ears with standard auto seat belt which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reasons auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener."

You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply with paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make cortain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.

With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengtheners if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available, your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumer will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac child seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirement of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.

3. "When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must be used auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6" above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket."

In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must be placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely "older" or "taller." In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.

4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter, the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, "For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats," as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: nht94-1.95

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles (Marysville, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/8/94 from Bob Carver to John Womack (OCC 9544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow .

1. There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstructi on and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Op ening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicat ed definition 4.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or obje ct that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A 2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the doo r opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; (3) your region A 5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A 8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, th ey would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all t ypes of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

2. Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a):

"Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bu s."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-4.3

DATE: 08/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis Replansky

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The use of new components in combination with used components to assemble a complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used "chassis" that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers have had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used "chassis" which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used "chassis". However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the "main frame".

In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls which constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes the main load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run the length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacturer of a new vehicle.

In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run the length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacturer of a new vehicle.

In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose of and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.

Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetric capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.

In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulations may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.

SINCERELY,

BLANK, ROME, KLAUS & COMISKY

July 24, 1975

James C. Schultz, Esquire Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation - NHTSA

A number of our clients in the motor vehicle industry have raised questions concerning the applicability to rebuilt trailers of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, especially Standard #121, Air Brake Systems. Unfortunately, Standard #121 does not define "manufacture" for purposes of determining applicability.

The following factual situation has arisen most often:

A manufacturer's customer presently has trailers, commonly called "chassis", which are used solely for hauling containers. The equipment represents a considerable investment. At present, the customer's trailers are obsolete because they cannot carry the new I.S.O. containers. The customer has asked the manufacturer to modify the old trailers to permit them to use the new I.S.O. containers. The manufacturer will do this by taking the customer's old axle assembly (composed of the axles, brakes, wheels, drums, rims, tires and certain connecting parts) and adding to that a new structural frame, namely a box frame and fittings, to permit each trailer to carry the new I.S.O. containers.

Does Standard #121, Air Brake Systems, apply to such rebuilt trailers?

We would appreciate your guidance.

DENNIS REPLANSKY

CC: TAD HERLIHY

ID: nht89-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SHUICHI WATANABE -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. JAPAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3/27/89 FROM SHUICHI WATANABE OF STANLEY ELECTRIC CO OF JAPAN TO ERIKA JONES OF NHTSA RE: MEASUREMENT OF INCIDENT LIGHT ANGLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to measurement of the incident light angle prescribed by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You have submitted six Figures for our consideration and reply. I regret the delay in r esponding.

Paragraph 6.5 (not 5.3.3) of SAE Standard J587 OCT81 License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps) states:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plane of the plate, this angle be ing measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate (see Fig. 3)."

With respect to your Figure A, you comment that, in order to determine the farthest point on the light emitting surface, "only the distance '1' between license plate and a plane runs parallel to it should be considered and not by distance 'm' nor 'n'".

In examining Figure 3 of SAE J587, you will note that the incident angle is measured by a line that extends from the edge of the light emitting surface of the lamp that is the farthest from the most distant point on the plate that the light can be expect ed to reach, to that point. With respect to your Figure A, the line "n" that extends from the edge of the lamp "p" to the bottom of the plate replicates the line shown in Figure 3, and thus is the correct one, not the perpendicular line "1".

Similarly, with respect to Figure B, a round license plate lamp, a line must be drawn from the bottom of the plate (such as line "n" in Figure A) to the farthest light emitting surface surface of the lamp (as shown in Figure 3, not your Figure B) in orde r to illustrate the farthest point.

With respect to Figures C and D, you have asked: "But if the farthest point can exist so may on a line or a plane . . . how could it be determined? Should it be for instance, left end, right end or center of them?" Figure C appears to depict an elongate d lamp in which "p"s are depicted at the left end, right end, and center. In this instance, "P2" is the edge of the light farthest from the surface of the plate, as represented by corner "Q". Though "Po" represents an edge of the lamp, at no place on t he plate is it the point "farthest from the surface of the plate". Thus, the measurement from "Q" to the tangent of the light emitting surface near "P2" is the line to be used to measure the 8 degree minimum angle.

Figure D appears also to represent an elongated lamp but one in which the lens area is directed more towards the plate. In this Figure, "P" is the edge of the lamp that is farthest from the plate. But because of the configuration of the lamp, light fro m this point is interrupted by a part other than a lens and cannot shine directly upon the plate. Your points "P1", "P0", and "P2" appear to indicate the points on the lamp surface where such interruption ceases and light shines directly upon the plate. Therefore, it is our opinion that in this instance "P2" is the edge of the lamp farthest from the plate, as represented by corner "Q".

You have also asked the same question with respect to Figures E and F. These Figures represent lamp designs with two light sources. However, in Figure E, the two light sources appear incorporated in a single lamp, and the requirements of paragraph 6.5 still apply. Thus, a line from Q, tangent to the light emitting surface of the lens near the point "P3" (and not your line "Q-"P3"), is the correct reference for angle measurement. Figure F, however, depicts the light sources as compartmentalized, and thus may be regarded as a two-lamp device. Paragraph 6.6 of SAE J587 establishes the requirement for two or more license plate lamps. It states:

"When two or more lamps are used to illuminate the plate, the minimum 8 deg incident light angle shall apply only to that portion of the plate which the particular lamp is designed to illuminate. The incident light angle shall be measured in the same wa y as provided in paragraph 6.5."

Under these circumstances the light emitting edge of the lamp farthest from the surface of the plate is the furthest edge of the lamp illuminating that portion of the plate, here represented by "P2". Thus, the angle to be measured would be determined wi th reference to a tangent line to the light emitting surface near "P2", from corner "Q".

I hope that this has answered your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-2.18

DATE: 11/19/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER - FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM PAUL GOULD TO PAUL RICE DATED 9-1-92 (EST.) (OCC 7792)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and 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 Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable 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. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force -- relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer 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.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle 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. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's 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 standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +/-0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement 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 less 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 the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cal Karl -- Minnesota State Patrol, District 4700-Commercial Vehicle Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to letter from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S571.217). Specifically, you asked how S5.2.3.2, which applies to school buses, would affect the instal lation of certain designs of "vandal locks" on school buses. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this safety standard for you.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. Throughout this letter, I will use the term "vandal lock" to describe locking systems installed for the doors and emergency exits of school buses intended to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the school bus through those exits when the bus is unoccupied and unattended. S5.2.3.2, the relevant provision of Standard No. 217, reads as follows:

The engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door w ithout a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination.

Your first question was whether S5.2.3.2 prohibits the use of a vandal lock system that, although it must be unlocked for the bus to start, can be relocked once the bus is started. The answer is that such locks are not prohibited by Standard No. 217. I have enclosed a copy of a December 7, 1982 letter to Mr. M. B. Mathieson in which NHTSA addressed this issue. As stated in that letter, "Nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors (on a school bus) as long as the vehicle can not be started with the (emergency) door in the locked position." In other words, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusively on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be started when an emerg ency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started.

Your second question was whether S5.2.3.2 allows a vandal lock to be relocked after the vehicle is running without the use of a key or special information. The answer to this question is yes. As stated above, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusi vely on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be

started when an emergency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started. Nothing in S5.2.3.2 requires that any locks on emergency exits be relocked only by means of a key or some special information after the vehicle is started.

I appreciate your concern about potential problems that might arise if emergency doors are locked after a school bus is started. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made some provision to prevent em ergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started, it is not possible to interpret the language of S5.2.3.2 as including such a provision. Since an interpretation cannot add or delete requirements in the language of a safety stan dard, the only way whereby the standard could include a provision to prevent emergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started would be for this agency to undertake a rulemaking action to amend the current language of S5.2.3.2.

We are unaware of any safety need to commence such a rulemaking. We do not have any indication that there have been deaths or injuries to school bus occupants as a result of an emergency exit being relocked once the bus was started. Moreover, the poten tial hazards to school bus occupants absent any Standard No. 217 requirements on this subject seem minimal. School bus doors, including emergency doors, should not be locked when the bus is in operation, and we believe that, in practice, they remain unlo cked when the buses are in use. It is also our understanding that the vast majority of school buses with emergency doors that can be locked in this fashion are voluntarily equipped with warning buzzers that alert the driver to the fact that the doors ha ve been relocked.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information.

ID: nht91-5.18

DATE: August 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Seat Belt Technical Committee, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-91 from H. George Johannessen, P.E. to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5858)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that "...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision.

You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words "be designed to" and treat the requirement as though it read "...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase "be designed to" out of the regulation.

You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued by the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members "were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal," and "were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field."

We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria.

It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No.

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974; April 30, 1990.

Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b).

Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would NOT of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) COULD indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time.

ID: nht91-7.5

DATE: November 11, 1991

FROM: Richard Gray -- Secretary, Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice (by Stephen P. Wood) to Richard Gray (A39; VSA S108(a)(1)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing to in the hope that your Department may be able to assist our Organization in overcoming a couple of vehicle standards problems. The New Zealand Ministry of Transport is introducing new Vehicle Safety Standards similar to those in operation in the USA, United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. Their main thrust is to align the NZ Vehicle Standards with those of USA, Europe and UK. In doing so the cars built by the major manufacturers will require the local importers to ensure that the vehicles they import or assemble locally meet the Vehicle Standards of any of the above named countries.

However, certification of Low volume vehicles (those built in numbers less than 20O per year) is being entrusted to four organizations of which the Sports Car Club of New Zealand is playing a key role in helping to set up the certification system for all low volume vehicles including modified cars.

With the introduction of the Standards we are faced with two major problem areas; glazing and seat-belts. New Zealand has a number of privately imported American built sports cars such as the Montage, GT40, replicas, Cobra replicas, and Cheetahs to name just a few, which are facing the prospect of being legislated off our roads.

GLAZING:

The problem is that many of these cars are fitted with acrylic or polycarbonate side and/or rear glazing. The N.Z. Ministry of Transport is saying that unless we can provide proof from the relevant authorities that such glazing is permissible for use in Low Volume vehicles respective countries of origin, then they will have to have moulds made and new safety glass screens manufactured for fitment. This ruling will apply retrospectively back to 1976.

The cost of such an exercise would be prohibitive and would result in most of these cars being put off the road for good. The introduction of such a regulation would also rule out the possibility of any further low volume cars from being imported into NZ should they also be fitted with such glazing.

The fact that such cars were sold in their countries of origin with acrylic or polycarbonate screens does not help our case. The MOT say that we have no proof that the manufacturers of these cars actually complied with the regulations of their country, or that their countries of origin have any special exemptions in place for low volume vehicles.

To overcome this problem the NZ MOT require us to provide proof from the appropriate authorities in USA and UK to this effect.

A prompt reply from your Department is a matter of urgency as the introduction of the N.Z. Standards governing alternative glazing materials is set for January 1992.

Could you please reply stating if such materials are permissible, and if so, what types are allowed for use (e.g. acrylic, polycarbonate, abrasion resistant films etc), and under what circumstances, placement or conditions they are permitted.

FULL HARNESS SEATBELTS:

The fitment of 3-point dual sensitive seatbelts to the outboard front seating positions on new cars has been mandatory for some time in NZ, but there has been nothing stopping people from fitting full harness seatbelts if they so desired. However, the NZ MOT are about to stop this practice and in fact retrospectively apply the new ruling.

We believe that any person should be allowed to take extra safety precautions to protect themselves over and above those standards set down by the authorities, provided they do not endanger other people. in this regard we have noticed that quite a number of Low Volume American built sports cars come fitted with full harness seatbelts.

Again it would greatly help our case if we could have the official ruling on the provisions for fitment and use of full harness seatbelts in America.

FRONT NUMBER PLATES:

This problem is not quite so urgent, but the NZ MOT have recently decided not to allow the fitment of flexible registration plates to the front of vehicles. This is creating quite a problem with cars such as E type Jaguars, Cobra Replicas and even modern production sports cars like the MX5 to name just a few. The shape of their nose section does not allow for the fitment of rigid metal plates without them either interfering with radiator cooling or becoming a dangerous protrusion.

It would appear that the American regulations allow for the fitment of either alternative flexible registration plates, or none at all. If this is so, a copy of your registrations governing their fitment would be most helpful.

In anticipation of an early reply, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and assistance.