ID: nht94-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: William G. Franz -- Vice President Fabrication, Wells Aluminum Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/4/94 from William G. Franz to Walter Myers (OCC 9857)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Franz:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Walter Myers of this office requesting an interpretation of window opening size as provided in paragraph S5.1.2, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explained that Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures pushout windows for the school bus industry. You asked whether the 8-inch window opening size referred to in paragraph S5.1.2 applies to the "total outside frame dimension" or to each pane of gl ass. "In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test [of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 217]?" To illustrate your question, you enclosed with your letter a picture of an upper/lower-pane pushou t window which was positioned for a retention test.

To be excluded from Standard No. 217's window retention requirement, the entire window, and not just a pane of the window, must be less than the 8-inch window opening size described in S5.1.2 of the standard. Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 217 specifies reten tion requirements for windows other than windshields in buses. Paragraph S5.1.2 provides that those requirements do not apply to "a window whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 8 inches." This exemption of 8 -inch windows was included in the standard in the final notice establishing the standard, published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1972 (37 FR 9394). In the preamble to that notice the agency stated at 37 FR 9395:

Since there is little likelihood of passenger ejection or protrusion from window openings whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of the area is less than 8 inches, an exemption for windows of this size has been granted (emphasis adde d).

2

It is clear that the intent of the agency in providing this exemption was to exempt window openings, as measured by the perimeter of the window, not just individual panes of glazing material. A window can be composed of more than one pane of glazing mat erial, such as the window in the picture you provided, where 1 or more individual panes may have a minimum dimension smaller than 8 inches, but the whole window is larger than 8 inches. Regardless of the size of the individual panes which make up a wind ow, passenger ejection or protrusion could occur through such a window opening. Since ejection through such a window is precisely what the standard was intended to prevent, S5.1 would apply.

We note that you did not explain what you meant by "total outside frame dimension" and the meaning of the quoted phrase is not entirely clear. We assume you meant the entire window opening which, for the window in your picture, would include the combina tion of both panes and the window frame. Thus, for purposes of S5.1.2, we would measure both the pane and the window frame.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ncc-20WMyers; mar:7/25/94:62992:OCC 9857 Ref:217 U: NCC20 INTERP 217 9857.WKM Greenbook: (2); Interps: Std. 217 Coord: NRM, NEF

ID: nht94-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: John E. Gillick, Esq. -- Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/16/94 from Gianfranco Venturelli to Christopher Hart

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gillick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection. In the alternative, you also petition NHTSA to grant your client, Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini), a temporary exemp tion from Standard No. 214 until September 1, 1996, pursuant to 49 CFR part 555, Temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background, on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722), NHTSA published a final rule establishing new dynamic performance requirements for Standard No. 214, and two alternative phase-in schedules for manufacturers to comply with the new requirements. Y ou write that Lamborghini was owned by Chrysler Corporation at the final rule's publication, and Lamborghini planned to comply with Standard No. 214's phase-in schedule by being counted as part of Chrysler's fleet.

You write that on January 31, 1994, Chrysler sold Lamborghini. You state that Lamborghini, on its own, is not able to meet either of the two phase-in schedules established in Standard No. 214. Thus, despite Lamborghini's sale, you are asking NHTSA to p ermit Chrysler to include Lamborghini's vehicles as part of Chrysler's fleet for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 214's phase-in schedule.

We are unable to interpret the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 as you suggest. This is because these requirements apply to vehicles "produced by more than one manufacturer," and the vehicles in question will not be. Alternatively, we have furt her determined that your request would be most appropriately resolved by treating it as a

2

petition pursuant to part 555. We are presently reviewing your submission pursuant to part 555, and anticipate issuing a proposed decision shortly. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: Bruce Monnie -- Senior Designer, ADVANCED DESIGN ASSOCIATES

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/27/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BRUCE MONNIE (A42; REDBOOK 6; STD. 208; STD. 209; STD. 213)

TEXT: We are going to be manufacturing a product that is used by consumers, to improve the security of childseats. I would like an interpretation from you, of Standards 209 and 213 or any other standards, that may apply. Below is a description of the how the product is to be used.

The product itself is one-piece steel construction, similar to the flat metal brackets included with some childseats already on the market. The bracket is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder port ions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt. It is a temporary installation that does not require any alterations to the vehicle, the seatbelt or the childseat. It does not render the seatbelt inoperative. It does n ot attach to the childseat nor does it interfere with the operation of the childseat. The consumer would be the user.

Our expectation is that this product does not fit the definitions as stated in 213, nor does it fall under 209. In the event that some other Standard may apply, I will give you additional information regarding the performance of the bracket. However , we cannot provide you with a drawing or picture of the product at this time.

Again, the bracket is one-piece with no moving parts. The design makes incorrect installation difficult; whether installed correctly or incorrectly, it cannot become a projectile. The strength required to remove the bracket is greater than the typic al 6 year old child would possess. There is no way for the bracket to be installed incorrectly that would impair or defeat the seatbelt. Incorrect installation would not increase slack in the seatbelt. The strength of the bracket itself, is engineered to withstand forces far beyond those occurring in vehicle accidents.

Furthermore, we will be submitting the product to actual crash-testing, to gather performance data. The results of the testing will be made available at a later date.

Please send me a letter stating your interpretation of Standards 209 and 213, as relating to the bracket. If you have any questions or if more information is needed for your interpretation, please contact me at (503) 235-9447. I am usually at my des k between 8am and 1pm, eastern time.

Thank you for your time in considering this request. Any effort on your part to expedite this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 27, 1994

FROM: Keith E. Smith -- Piper & Marbury

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Keith E. Smith (VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As I discussed yesterday with Ken Weinstein of your office, by this letter I seek a declaratory statement, in the form of a letter from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), that automotive and/or motorcycle braking systems are considered by NHTSA to be "safety devices". I do not desire, nor do I expect NHTSA to make any declaration regarding the safety of a particular braking system.

It is my understanding that the primary purpose of the National Highway Transportation Safety Act (the "Act") is to promote public safety by establishing motor vehicle safety standards. Such standards, as provided in the regulations promulgated under the Act at 49 CFR @@ 571.105 and 571.122, provide minimum safety guidelines by which braking systems are evaluated. Therefore, by implication, it would seem that automotive and/or mortorcycle braking systems must be considered by NHTSA to be "safety de vices".

If the above representations are correct, I would appreciate a letter confirming so. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht94-3.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1994

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject Request For Interpretation - FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jane L. Dawson (A43; Std. 210; VSA 108(b) (2))

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. is in the process of releasing a school bus passenger seat that may eventually be used on school buses produced by all body manufacturers. Since this is a new product line for us, we have several concerns about certifying compli ance of our seat on other manufacturers' vehicles.

We know that NHTSA recognizes that in many instances due to cost considerations, manufacturers simulate test conditions when performing compliance testing by using test fixtures rather than testing in actual school buses. NHTSA addresses that fact in S5 of FMVSS 210 by requiring that anchorages be "connected to material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment at that seating position" and that "t he geometry of the attachment duplicates the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly."

Traditionally, when we test seat belt anchorages on our own school bus passenger seat, the seat is attached to an actual 14 gauge school bus floor, and force is applied according to the testing requirements of FMVSS 210. As a result of the force applica tion, the floor undergoes a certain amount of buckling. As the floor begins to buckle, the angle of the belt relative to the seat frame changes from the belt angle that's present at the initiation of the test.

When the same test is conducted using a school bus passenger seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than an actual floor section, there is no buckling of the floor, therefore, there is no change to the belt angle when the anchorages are subjected to the force requirements of FMVSS 210. Since there's no change to the belt angle, the use of a school bus bench seat mounted on a 1/2" steel plate test fixture doesn't necessarily duplicate the - conditions present when the bench seat is moun ted on an actual school bus floor.

Thomas Built Buses requests an interpretation on the following:

When a seat manufacturer certifies compliance with FMVSS 210 for installation in a school bus, do the requirements of FMVSS 210 allow the seat manufacturer's certification to be based on the seat's more rigid attachment to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture or must the seat manufacturer's certification be based on the seat's attachment to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor?

If the seat manufacturer uses a 1/2" steel plate test fixture, must the final stage school bus manufacturer who installs the seat retest using their own 14 gauge floor before compliance with applicable standards is certified?

Please contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information.

Sincerely

ID: nht94-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Denise Davis

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 1/1/94 (EST) to "Whom It May Concern" from Denise Davis (OCC-9758)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Davis:

This responds to your letter asking for help in a matter involving window tinting on your car. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letter that you asked a window tinting store for a sticker showing that the tint on your windows met Georgia law. The store informed you that it cannot issue you a sticker because your windows only allow 20 percent sunlight through, and the new law requires 35 percent. To get a sticker, you would have to remove the tint, which you explain will be costly. You also state that your windows were tinted seven years ago when you purchased your car, and at the time you had your windows t inted, you were "not breaking any law."

I regret that we cannot help you pay to have the tint removed. The primary purpose of this agency is to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. We have no authority to provide funds to citizens to help t hem correct problems with their vehicles or equipment. Please bear in mind that the "35 percent" law was adopted by Georgia to regulate the operation of vehicles. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Georgia Department of Motor Vehicles for information about this matter.

We appreciate your efforts to reduce the tint on your vehicle and are sorry that we are unable to assist you. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence Farhat -- President/CEO, Neon Riders of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/5/94 from Lawrence Farhat to John Womack (OCC 10172)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Farhat:

We have received your letter of July 5, 1994, with respect to the legality of neon lighting that your company manufactures for installation on the undercarriage of motor vehicles. You report that some users have been cited by local law enforcement autho rities, and state that there has been some confusion as to the legality of this lighting. You ask for our views.

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Standard No. 108 specifies the lighting equipment that is required when vehicles are manufactured. Lighting equipment that is not required is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The initial determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. NHTSA will not question this determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "knowingly make inoperative any part" of a lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law. State laws may vary a nd this is the reason for the confusion.

2

With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations of neon lights on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn sign als in use, we would consider that an impairment and a partially making inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on the underside of vehicles, and suggest that you write fo r an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

NHTSA would like manufacturers of this equipment to be aware that devices such as neon light systems which use high voltage may provide an ignition source for vehicle fires in the event of a crash. The agency would be concerned if undercarriage lighting in use causes or contributes to the severity of post-crash vehicle fires.

ID: nht94-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/94 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Barbara A. Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the BMW 7 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The propo sed modification is to be effective beginning with the 1995 Model Year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

In a Federal Register notice dated October 9, 1986 (51 FR 3633), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on the MY 1988 BMW 7 car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

In assessing whether changes are de minimis, the agency has focused its inquiry on whether the changed device would continue to provide the same aspects of performance as did the device on which the exemption was based. An example of a de minimis change is the substitution of new components for old components, without changing the aspects of performance provided by the device. NHTSA has also determined that adding a new aspect of performance, making an exempted antitheft device even more effective, wh ile leaving the original aspects undisturbed, is a de minimis change.

The change from the original BMW MY 1988 antitheft device to the one proposed for the MY 1995 BMW 7 car line does not present a simple case of either substituting new components for old, without changing the aspects of performance provided, or enhancing the effectiveness of an existing device, by adding a new aspect. Instead, the change is more complex, involving not only the addition of a new aspect (monitoring glass breakage), but also the deletion of some original aspects (monitoring the radio and g love box).

2

The agency is uncertain about the net effect of these changes and is therefore also uncertain whether the new modified device would be at least as effective as the original device. Monitoring glass breakage might decrease the likelihood that a would-be thief would ever enter a vehicle. On the other hand, adding this aspect of performance would not necessarily enhance effectiveness of the antitheft device. If a thief were to gain access to the passenger compartment with a slim-jim or other tool, witho ut breaking the glass, no alarm would sound, making the inside compartment vulnerable to theft. Further, no alarm would sound if the thief then tampered with the radio or glove box, individually.

NHTSA believes that the necessity for making judgments about the relative effectiveness of new and removed aspects of performance, and the complexity of the issues underlying those judgments, indicate that the changes are not de minimis. Indeed, these ju dgments are similar to the ones that the agency must make in considering a new petition for exemption.

Accordingly, if BMW wishes the planned MY 1995 device to be the basis for a theft exemption, it must submit a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information or the m odified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor on (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht94-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from Gerald Plante to Barbara Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Saab 900 car line is a de minimis change to the device. The proposed mo dification is to be placed on the Saab 900 line beginning with the 1995 model year. As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device are not de minimis.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of July 26, 1993 (58 FR 39853), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1994 Saab 900 line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

For the following reason, NHTSA concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device for the 1995 model year are not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the antitheft device on which the exemption was originally based. For the MY 1994 device, locking the driver's door with the ignition key automatically locks all doors, arms the alarm system and activates the starter interrupt-relay. For the MY 1995 device, Saab plans to add a remote control device. The remote contr ol is separate from the ignition key that locks/unlocks the driver's door. Locking the driver's door with the remote locks all other doors, arms the alarm, and activates the starter interrupt-relay. While locking the driver's door with the ignition key will lock all other doors as before, it will no longer arm the alarm system or activate the starter interrupt-relay.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Further, the change does not simply involve adding a feature making the original device even more effective. With the existin g device, a single means (the ignition key) for locking the driver's door locked all other doors, armed

2

the alarm and activated the interrupt-relay. With the planned new device, the remote does not supplant the ignition key as the means for locking the driver's door; it supplements the key. Thus, there will be less certainty with the new device that lock ing the driver's door will arm the alarm and activate the interrupt-relay.

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that Saab's proposed modification to the antitheft device in the MY 1995 Saab 900 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Saab wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 900 car line for MY 1995, it must file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor at (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht94-3.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 10, 1994

FROM: David L. Clark -- Aquillino and Welsh, P.C., Arlington, VA

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David L. Clark (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are currently planning to market in the United States an add-on device for a seat belt. Clarke Harper identified your office as the primary contact for obtaining information regarding safety requirements and approval for such devices.

Would your office kindly provide us with the information necessary for obtaining Federal approval and/or meeting Federal safety standards for an add-on seat belt device. We would also like to know which Federal agencies need to be contacted regarding importation of such a device.

If you have any questions, please contact me at the above telephone number. Materials can be sent to me at the above address.