ID: 8668

Mr. Richard Muraski
President/CEO
Equa-Brake, Inc.
1105 Terminal Way, Suite 202
Reno, NV 89502

Dear Mr. Muraski:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the Equa-Brake mechanical auxiliary air brake system. You stated that this product "increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes." You were concerned about whether the use of your product would be affected by an agency decision to deny a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Washington Company. That petition had requested the agency to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle (57 FR 29459, July 2, 1992).

As explained below, neither the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems nor those of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), under which the standard was issued, prohibit the installation of your product in most situations. The one exception is that if your product is installed on a vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, neither the act of installation nor the operation of the device may render inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about auxiliary brake systems. However, since this device is tied to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If the Equa-Brake is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).

Your letter expressed concern about the effect of the agency's decision to deny the rulemaking petition submitted by the Washington Corporation. Please note that the Washington petition requested that the agency amend Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates a brake system's air pressure differential between two wheels on each axle. In denying the petitioner's request to require such a device, the agency emphasized that its decision not to require a product in no way prohibited the optional installation of the device provided the vehicle continued to comply with the applicable standards.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:121 d:8/5/93

ID: 8679

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manager, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206.

Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door.

Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged.

S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the

operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3.

S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is "inoperative" even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertant door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:10/7/93

ID: 8680

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

Your two questions and the answer to each follows.

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 2 proposed the use of "one inch wide" retro- reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro- reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide.

Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available.

You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801; July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to "metric equivalents" in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term "metric equivalents" was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter....." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:7/7/93

ID: 8692

Ms. Laura J. Platter
6662 Mohawk Court
Columbia, MD 21046

Dear Ms. Platter:

This responds to your letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski about the Federal government's classification of minivans for safety purposes. You were concerned that classifying minivans as trucks rather than passenger vehicles would permit these vehicles to be equipped with fewer safety features.

Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In the last few years, NHTSA has extended nearly all the passenger car safety standards to cover light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). (Minivans are typically considered to be MPVs under our safety standards.)

The only significant safety requirement for passenger cars that the agency has not extended to light trucks and MPVs is dynamic side impact protection. This is a new requirement that is being phased in for passenger cars beginning this September. NHTSA is currently in rulemaking to consider whether the dynamic side impact protection requirements should be extended to light trucks and MPV's, and published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in June 1992.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

cc: The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski

ref:571 d:6/11/93

ID: 8693

Ms. Lillie Rene Erwin 365089
TDC Mt View Unit H-1
Rt. 4 Box 800
Gatesville, TX 76528-9399

Dear Ms. Erwin:

This responds to your May 15, 1993, letter to former Secretary Card. Because your letter concerns motor vehicle safety, it has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response. You are concerned with vehicles used by the State of Texas to transport prisoners because these vehicles have metal seats and no occupant restraints for the prisoners and asked who you should contact to voice your complaint.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish a standard which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. In addition, your concerns about the State of Texas' use of the vehicle are not addressed by Federal law, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their subsequent use.

Because your questions concern the safety of the State of Texas' vehicles used to transport prisoners, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:7/21/93

ID: 8694

Mr. Joseph G. Wilson
President
The Monmouth Corporation
Box 143
Highlands, NJ 07732

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thank you for your letter informing us of the Blu-Lite system, which your company developed. You stated that the system "protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision." You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us.

We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as "emergency stop") flanked by two "red stop lights". Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly.

The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/21/93

ID: 8694r

Ron D. Belk, President
Kustom Fit
8990 Atlantic
Box 3004
South Gate, CA 90280

Dear Mr. Belk:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, which is a follow-up to our May 6, 1993, letter in which we explained the self-certification process, "render inoperative," and "due care." You include information from tests you have done to determine whether seats you manufacture can be installed in vehicles that must comply with requirements for dynamically tested manual belts in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes.

You have experienced difficulties because of variability in belt pay-out ranging from 2.25 inches to 4.9 inches and asked whether Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) allows this much variability. It is unclear from the information you provided what is causing the belt pay-out you are experiencing. I note that S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209 limits the amount of webbing which can extend from an automatic-locking retractor prior to the retractor locking. A similar requirement for webbing-sensitive emergency-locking retractors is included in S4.3(j). Section 4.6 of Standard No. 209 excepts dynamically tested manual belts from the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209, however, these belts must still comply with S4.3. The test for compliance with sections S4.3(i) and S4.3(j) are different from the tests you have been performing. Therefore, your tests would not indicate whether the seat belt assembly complies with these requirements of Standard No. 209.

You also asked for further advice on how to reassure your customers that vehicles will comply with Standard No. 208 with your seat installed. It is possible that you may not be able to do this. As explained in our previous letter, Standard No. 208 is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify compliance with Standard No. 208. This is because compliance with Standard No. 208 is dependent on a variety of factors, including the seat, the seat belts, and the vehicle interior. Because you manufacture only the seat, you cannot control the other factors, and, therefore, probably cannot provide your clients with all the information they need in order to certify their vehicles compliance with Standard No. 208. However, you should be able to provide them with information on your seats that they can use to help determine if their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208.

Finally, you asked whether NHTSA would impose liability on you or the seat belt manufacturer if we discovered an apparent non-compliance with Standard No. 208. Because Standard No. 208 applies to the vehicle, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) imposes liability for non-compliance on the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat or seat belt manufacturer. However, state law may allow the vehicle manufacturer to recover damages from the manufacturer of either the seat or the seat belt.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#209 d:8/16/93

ID: 8701

Mr. Richard A. Zander
AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds
32104 State Road 2
New Carlisle, IN 46552

Dear Mr. Zander:

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

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all 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. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

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

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

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

Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the stopping time. Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a "failure" but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not compensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

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

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

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

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are 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.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:105 d:3/23/94

ID: 8731

Mr. Richard J. Dessert
Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company
1550 Armacost Avenue #201
West Los Angeles, CA 90025

Dear Mr. Dessert:

This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, to the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that

"As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action.

There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not forbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that the Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low-emission vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards.

As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standard for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general statement you have made that the first prototypes will "substantially comply with all the safety standards." Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we have received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain photographs or descriptive literature illustrating it.

Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not "obtain" certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicles after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Jeffrey S. Silverstone

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Attn: Electric Vehicle RFP P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100

ref:555 d:1/11/94

ID: 8744

Mr. Richard Glover
Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co.
1801 Commerce Dr.
Piqua, OH 45356

Dear Mr. Glover:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard.

You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on "date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents." You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible "mis-keying" of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded "quiet zone" to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded.

It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following:

No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a.

The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be

reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not.

Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form.

We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words "please print" after the instructions to the consumer "just fill in your name and address." "Please print" is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, "please print" is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:10/20/93