ID: 19283.ogm

E. Pluribus Law Firm, P.C.
P.O. Box 326
Leland, MI 49654

Re: FMVSS 209

Dear Sir or Madam:

This responds to your letter concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your questions relate to provisions addressing the performance of seat belt buckles under this safety standard. Specifically, you ask several questions about what you describe as the "partial engagement" provisions of Standard No. 209. Your seven questions, and our response to each question are provided below.

l. How does NHTSA define "partial engagement" under FMVSS 209 3.21 & 5.27?

ANSWER: We note that Standard No. 209 does not contain either section you refer to in your question. However, S4.3(g) and S5.2(g) of Standard No. 209, respectively, each use the phrase "partial engagement" in describing the minimum performance criteria and the test procedures for assessing buckle performance. Under S4.3, a seat belt buckle with a metal-to-metal buckle must separate when subjected to a force of not more than 22 newtons 95 pounds) or less when in any position of "partial engagement." The meaning of the phrase "partial engagement" is not defined in Standard No. 209 and has not been previously interpreted by NHTSA insofar as it applies to this particular standard. We believe that "partial engagement" is that position where the male end and the female receptacle of a seat belt assembly is neither fully engaged and latched nor fully disengaged. Therefore, the two components are partially engaged when the male end is inserted into the receptacle but has not been inserted to the point where the latching mechanism has closed.

2. Is "partial engagement" one of the phenomena which NHTSA is concerned about in the language of FMVSS 209 3.5 - "Buckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release"?

ANSWER: No. As used in this Standard, "partial engagement" is not a phenomenon but is a state in which the buckle assembly is placed to test the resistance of the assembly to separation or disengagement when it is not in the fully latched position. The requirement in S4.1(e) that buckle release mechanisms be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release is intended to provide some assurance that buckles will not be inadvertently released once in the latched position.

3. Is it correct that FMVSS 209 3.21 preclude [sic] certification of any buckle which requires more that 5 lbs. to release from any position of partial engagement? Specific reference should be made to the language "a metal buckle shall separate when in any position of partial engagement by a force of not more than 5 pounds (2.3 Kg)" in interpreting this provision.

ANSWER: Again, we note that Standard No. 209 does not contain the section cited in your question. However, the language cited in your question is found in S4.3(g) of the Standard. If this is, in fact, that section that your question refers to, the answer is yes.

4. Assuming no testing of maximum engagement is required under FMVSS 209 5.27 if it is determined that partial engagement is not possible "by means of a technique representative of actual use", how important is it to conduct a fair and adequate test of "representative use?"

ANSWER: In answering this question, we assume that you are referring to S5.2(g) of Standard No. 209. In certifying compliance with a standard, manufacturers must make efforts to ensure that they have exercised due care. If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer must conduct a recall campaign to remedy the problem. In addition, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards.

5. What is a fair and adequate test to determine "whether partial engagement is possible by means of a technique representative of actual use" under FMVSS 209 5.27?

ANSWER: This agency has long stated that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

6. Would the NHTSA interpretations provided above be the same in 1988-91 as they have been provided in response to the request for interpretation herein.

ANSWER: Yes.

7. If the response to request No. 6 is negative, please identify all interpretations which would have been different and the underlying basis for the change in interpretation between 1988-91 and present.

ANSWER: See the answer to item 6 above.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209
d.7/8/2000

ID: nht73-1.22

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 26 and August 7, 1973, requesting an opinion on the applicability of the emergency exit provisions (S5.3 to S5.5) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), to buses that are of the same design as "school buses," but which are not manufactured (they are not painted yellow, nor do they have warning devices) nor used as school buses. You ask further that the standard exempt prison buses.

We interpret the exemption for school buses to include buses similarly designed, without regard to their intended use. School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . . ."

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for.

With respect to your request regarding prison buses, we are presently considering similar requests previously received, and plan to respond by notice published in the Federal Register in the near future.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Vehicles U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Thomas Built Buses, Inc., High Point, North Carolina, a manufacturer of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in wording of said Standard, particularly section S5.2.3 School Buses. We petition that the wording in this section be changed to read as follows: "The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design adapted for use for other than transporting children to and from school, but if such buses contain any pushout windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5."

We base our petition on the fact that we as a body manufacturer do offer our base product design for other uses such as churches, activity buses for schools used for field trips and other school events, Boy Scouts, YMCA's, Salvation Army Clubs, etc. These units are constructed of the same basic design as what is termed a school bus but may vary as to color and omission of specific school bus safety warning systems. Our conclusion is that as the Standard is presently worded, it is a double Standard in that it states the Standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for other than hauling children to and from school. We feel strongly that the Standard should apply to neither school buses or those of like design used by other groups or the Standard should apply to all buses including school buses. Due to the basic design of the product for school use, we are in agreement with the Standard as proposed but suggest the above additions.

In addition to the above, we respectfully submit to the Department of Transportation that prison buses which are vehicles manufactured to haul prisoners from one point to another, should not be included under this Standard. Prison buses should be exempt along with school buses and the others listed. The basis for this petition on prison buses is due to the fact that the Standard contradicts the specific purpose of a prison bus. In other words, prison buses are security vehicles with a minimum of escape possibility whereby the Standard increases escape possibility.

We would respectfully request your expediting a ruling on this petition since all body manufacturers have buses as described in this petition on order to build after September 1, 1973, and the effective date of said Standard is September 1, 1973. If further information is required by you, please advise us immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

c.c. Berkley Sweet Executive Secretary School Bus Manufacturers Institute 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D. C. 20015

July 26, 1973

Berkley C. Sweet Truck Body & Equipment Association

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Kindly forward this letter to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation on FMVSS #217 - Bus Window Retention and Release.

We request an interpretation on the definition of "School Bus" as applied to units which we sell to school bus route contractors. Many contractors use their buses for purposes other than just carrying school children. For example, they may carry a Sunday School class to the beach for a weekend. Will the requirement for a minimum number of emergency exits be applicable to a bus used in such a case?

We request that the "designated seating capacity" for a handicapped persons vehicle be taken as the number of wheelchair spaces plus the seated passenger capacity.

Are "School Activity Buses" required to have a minimum number of emergency exits? Such buses are used to carry sports teams to games and classes on field trips. These buses are owned by the schools and used because most states have laws that preclude the use of state owned route buses for such activities.

We request an exemption for buses which are sold to prisons on the basis that we sold less than 100 of them during 1972. We expect to sell approximately 30 such vehicles this year. Also, there is the reason of possible prison escape.

Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain

Very truly yours,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

ID: nht73-2.22

DATE: 02/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your petition for reconsideration of 49 CFR 575.103 dated January 12, 1973, you enclosed a copy of "International Camper's Manual for Truck-Camper Leading(Illegible Word) and asked whether its data content and format complied with the requirements, and especially @ 575.6.

Section 576.6 allows a document provided with a vehicle to "contain more than one table", but it "must clearly and unconditionally indicate which of the tables applies to the vehicle with which it is provided". Although pages 8 and 9 of the Guide explain how to use the tables, and page 6 refers the owner to the "capacity plate" for the proper weight rating, there appears to be nothing within the booklet itself that indicates which of the 16 tables applies to "the vehicle with which it is provided".

Other issues raised in your petition will be considered in the agency's response which will be published shortly.

Sincerely,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

MOTOR TRUCK DIVISION

January 12, 1973

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration -- 49CFR 575.103, Truck Camper Loading, Docket No. 71-7; Notice 5

Dear Mr. Toms:

International Harvester Company (IH) respectfully files this petition requesting the Administrator to amend the new Consumer Information Regulation as published in the Federal Register p. 26607 on December 14, 1972.

On August 15, 1972 the NHTSA issued a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Truck Camper Loading, with a mandatory effective date of January 1, 1973. On December 14, 1972 the NHTSA by issuance of 575.103 rescinded Standard No. 126 and enacted the new Consumer Information Requirements as a replacement for Standard No. 126.

IH is deeply concerned since it has put forth considerable time, effort and expense in developing and publishing information required to comply with the January 1, 1973 effective date of Standard No. 126. As a means of complying with Standard No. 126, production quantities of a 28-page IH Truck Camper Loading Guide (10 copies enclosed) were recently printed. We believe that this Camper Guide would be quite beneficial and effective in providing information to the consumer to assure proper selection of a compatible slide-in camper unit. In view of above, IH must support and favor the NHTSA's previous position of regulating requirements for truck camper loading information as a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in preference to a Consumer Information Regulation.

It is apparent that revisions would have to be made to the above mentioned IH Camper Guide in order to comply with 575.103. We will not be able to implement these necessary revisions in time to meet the February 1, 1973 availability deadline as required by Docket No. 71-7, Notice 5. The amount of additional lead time needed by IH is, of course, dependent on the nature of the changes that would have to be made to the attached MVSS 126 Camper Guide to make it compliant with 575.103. Some of the obvious changes include certain references, definitions and effective dates that have been modified by NHTSA in the transition from MVSS 126 to 575.103.

There is one additional area in which some question exists. Heretofore IH has not been required to furnish consumer information under Part 575. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from the NHTSA that the data content and format as presented in the attached IH Camper Guide - Part No. 1086777-R1 does in fact comply with 49 CFR Part 575. We are particularly concerned about Section 575.6.

As noted earlier IH will not be able to comply with the 3/1/73 effective date of 575.103 due to the time that would be required to revise and republish our Truck Camper Loading Guide. If the changes are of a minimal nature (i.e correction of references, definitions and dates) we will need approximately 60 days beyond the date that NHTSA responds to this Petition. If more extensive revisions are required, we anticipate that a minimum of six months lead time would be needed.

The following points will summarize the basic content of this Petition:

1. IH favors promulgation of subject requirements as Safety Standard No. 126 instead of a Consumer Information Regulation.

2. However, if NHTSA sees fit to implement as a Consumer Information Regulation IH is requesting a favorable interpretation that the basic content and format of the IH Camper Guide that has been developed to meet MVSS 126 would likewise satisfy the statutory requirements of 575.103. Consequently, if only minimal changes are required to the existing IH Camper Guide, the revised information can be made available within 60 days after the NHTSA response to this Petition is received by IH. If more substantive changes are required, it is estimated that approximately six months lead time will be required by IH.

IH would further point out that NHTSA's promulgation of 575.103 has, in fact, violated procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act in that interested parties were not provided opportunity to comment upon providing the subject information under Part 575 Consumer Information prior to final enactment of 575.103. Therefore, should NHTSA decide not to grant any of the alternative modifications requested herein, we request that the subject regulation be reissued as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act.

D. E. Schmidt -- Assistant Manager of Engineering

ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-7.40

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Salton -- Performance Friction Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/5/92 from Robert Salton to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 6953)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery 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 standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows:

The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between lo pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.1.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits:

(1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

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

ID: 10755

Mr. David T. Holland
President
Europa International, Inc.
1570A Pacheco Street
Santa Fe, NM 87505

Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter of February 24, 1995, regarding the passive restraint phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether an importer which "imports Canadian specification MPV's (multipurpose passenger vehicles), such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets (sic) the MPV passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 ... can count these vehicles toward the required percentage."

Section S4.2.5.6.1(a) states, "(a) vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer." Thus, to determine compliance with the passive restraint phase-in requirements, Europa International should (1) count all trucks, buses, and mpv's with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, (2) count all such vehicles which meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, and (3) determine if that class of vehicles is a sufficient percentage of the first class of vehicles to satisfy the phase-in requirements. However, as Mary Versailles of my staff cautioned you on the phone, some manufacturers are installing European (face) air bags but are not certifying that vehicles with such air bags meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, you should verify that any vehicle with an air bag is in fact certified to FMVSS 208's passive restraint requirements.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:4/3/95

ID: 11986.ZTV

Herr Sandig
Reiter & Schefenacker
Eckenerstrasse 2
73730 Esslingen
Germany

Dear Herr Sandig:

This replies to your FAX of May 28, 1996, asking whether a proposed design for a center highmounted stop lamp is a single lamp, within the meaning of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In this design, a rectangular lens is separated by an opaque oval that covers the center portion of the lens. However, the sum of the effective projected luminous lens areas left uncovered exceeds the minimum 4.5 square inches required by paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)(1) of Standard No. 108.

This design does not comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.1.1.27 (a) requires vehicles to be equipped with "a high-mounted stop lamp." Table IV requires the lamp to be located "on the vertical centerline." The opaque area in your design functionally divides the center lamp into two lamps, neither of which is located on the vertical centerline.

In the past, the agency has advised that the lens of the center stop lamp may be obscured to a certain extent by decals or other trim, provided the minimum luminous lens area requirement was met, and the obscuration did not affect photometric compliance. These interpretations always assumed that the appearance of a single lamp would be maintained, even though the lens area itself did not present an uninterrupted light-emitting surface.

Paragraph S5.1.1.27(b) does allow two separate lamps on vehicles other than passenger cars when there is insufficient space above doors opening from the center, but your lamp is not designed to address this problem.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/14/96

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: nht94-8.9

DATE: February 17, 1994

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (Part 543)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

This letter is to inform the agency that beginning with the 1995 model year, BMW will be utilizing the 7-carline parts marking exemption granted by the NHTSA on October 9, 1986 (51 CFR 3633). As was explained to you by Mr. James C. Patterson of my staff on February 7, 1994, there have been three updates to the anti-theft device previously approved on the 7-carline. Accordingly, BMW requests that the NHTSA determine these updates constitute de minimus changes to the 7-carline's anti-theft device.

The following paragraphs describes the updates:

1. The remote device has become an integral component within the vehicle key and is the actuator for the alarm system. This change is identical to the change that BMW made on the 8-carline anti-theft device, which NHTSA has already determined to be de minimus (NHTSA letter from Mr. Barry Felrice to K.-H. Ziwica dated 10/04/93).

2. The monitoring circuits for radio theft and glove box entry, now, monitor glass breakage to further ensure the security of the entire occupant compartment, rather than, the individual components. All other monitoring (e.g. doors, hood, trunk, etc.) has remained as when the device was previously approved.

3. The anti-theft device's siren has been changed to a 112db siren.

If further information is needed or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Patterson on (201) 573-2041.

ID: nht94-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TO: Chief Console -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/19/94 Letter from John Womack to Jerry Miller (Std. 222)

TEXT:

Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans is a builder of conversion vehicles for the transportation of handicapable individuals, both private and commercial. We are embarking on the manufacture of associated equipment to go into these vehicles. One such pie ce of equipment is a wheelchair tie down.

After conversations with Mark Levine, NHTSA, trying to obtain rules and regulations on this type of equipment and at the suggestion of Charles Hott, NHTSA Rulemaking Office. I am writing your office requesting information on or an official letter statin g there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other then school buses

I am looking for regulation and legal requirements for transporting persons in vehicles with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraints, both private and commercial, other then school buses. It is my understanding NHTSA standard No. 57 CFR Pa rt 571.222 "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" only applies to school buses and does not apply to any other vehicles.

I need to know specifically what the legal specified performance requirements are for the wheelchair securement devices. 1. What are the minimum strength requirements for the securement devices and systems themselves? 2. What are the minimum strength r equirements for the anchorage of those devices and systems to the vehicle?

I appreciate your cooperation and quick response in advising us on NHTSA's rules and regulations on wheelchair tie downs used for transporting the handicapable person in a vehicle other then a school bus.