ID: 11561MLV

Mr. Juergen Babirad
ORSC Consultant
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106h

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter of February 5, 1996, requesting "a waiver of FMVSS 208 in regards to the air bag deployment system." You explained that you have

been asked to advise a consumer with regards to installing an aftermarket six way power seat base into his 1995 Dodge Ram Van. This power seat base installation mounts in an area which requires the relocation of one of the air bag deployment sending units found under the driver's seat. The instructions provided by the OEM specifically prohibit relocation of this unit.

You further explained that the van owner "is permanently disabled and requires a wheelchair for all of his mobility." Because of the special design of this seat base, he is able to transfer into the seat.

In summary, our answer is that the vehicle may be modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on a vehicle to accommodate a condition such as you describe. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when

making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since the situation you describe is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter provides information that the modification to the vehicle cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine the effect of moving the air bag deployment sending unit. The modification may cause the air bag to deploy, and the manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we encourage the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:3/21/96

ID: 11563ZTV

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

We have received your letter of February 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically you ask for confirmation that motorcycle headlamps using HB2 and/or HB4 light sources must comply with out-of-focus requirements.

As you note, Table III of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964 as the basic Federal requirement for motorcycle headlamps. Neither SAE J584 nor any provision of Standard No. 108 limit the types of light sources that may be used in a motorcycle headlamp. This means that Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) may be met with a Type HB2 or Type HB4 replaceable light source.

Part of the requirements of Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) are the "Out-of-Focus Tests on Unsealed Units" specifications of Section K of SAE J575. Thus, we confirm your understanding that motorcycle headlamps using Type HB2 or Type HB4 light sources must comply with the out-of-focus requirements of SAE J575. However, the question arises as to which version of SAE J575 applies, the one in effect in 1964 when SAE J584 was adopted, or a later version.

Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 states that the SAE Standards included in Table III are those published in the 1970 SAE Handbook, except that, for headlamps, unless otherwise specified, the version of J575 is that of December 1988. Correctly, S6.1 should note that SAE J575 DEC88 is for

headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. SAE J575 DEC88 is paragraphed by numbers rather than by letters and, in any event, no longer includes an out- of-focus test for unsealed units. The version of SAE J575 that is subreferenced by J584 in Standard No. 108 is correctly SAE J575d, August 1967, the version published in the 1970 SAE Handbook. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this clarification.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: 11582.PJA

Mr. Christophe Malaterre
Project Manager, International
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo, Norway

Dear Mr. Malaterre:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1996, asking how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, would apply to the CityBee, an electric vehicle you produce. Specifically, you wanted to know whether your electric transmission, with one forward speed, would be regarded as a manual or an automatic transmission. As discussed below, we would consider your transmission an automatic transmission.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You stated that the transmission of your vehicle only has 1 gear and a differential. In other words, there is no usual gear box. There are 3 possible modes: "drive," "neutral," "reverse." These modes are activated by an electric switch which puts on the electricity in 1 way (for drive) when activated clockwise from neutral, or the other (for reverse, counter-clockwise), or shut it off (for neutral, in middle position). The electric gear switch is located on the middle of the dashboard. The status of the gear switch is always displayed in view of the driver at all times, both on the dashboard and the instrument panel.

As you noted in your letter, Standard No. 102 specifies different requirements depending on whether a transmission is an automatic transmission or a manual transmission. You stated that your analysis leads you to the conclusion that your transmission is closer to being a simplified "manual transmission" than an "automatic transmission." However, you did not explain why you reached that conclusion.

Standard No. 102 does not include definitions for "automatic transmission" or "manual transmission." However, based on the nature of your transmission and the language and overall purposes of Standard No. 102, we conclude that your transmission would be considered an automatic transmission. We have considered the following factors in reaching that conclusion.

First, we believe that a driver would perceive your transmission as "automatic," since he or she would not manually shift gears as part of the driving task.

Second, each of Standard No. 102's requirements for automatic transmissions is relevant to your transmission, to the extent that it is applicable.

Third, we are not aware of any arguments why your transmission should not be considered "automatic." Your transmission does differ from most automatic transmissions in having only one forward speed. However, the language of Standard No. 102 indicates that a transmission with only one forward speed may be classified as Aautomatic.@ In specifying requirements for automatic transmissions, S3.1.2 states that, "in vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio . . ." The agency included the language at the beginning of that quotation in light of one-speed automatic transmissions. (This is explained in a Report on the Development of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, published by NHTSA (then called the National Traffic Safety Agency) on March 17, 1967.)

I note that, on February 2, 1995, in an interpretation letter to Solectria Corporation, the agency stated, "NHTSA has previously concluded that electric vehicles with single speed transmissions are excluded from Standard No. 102 (58 FR at 4646)." Unfortunately, that statement does not appear to be an accurate description of the referenced authority. On further review, we believe there is reason to conclude that Standard No. 102 does

apply to electric vehicles with single speed transmissions. As indicated above, however, the transmission braking effect requirement only applies to vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:102 d:5/3/96

ID: 11594.MLS

Mr. Thomas D. Petru
Assistant Director -LP-Gas Section
Railroad Commission of Texas
Gas Services Division
1701 North Congress Avenue
P.O Box 12967
Austin, TX 78711-2967

Dear Mr. Petru:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the use of acoustic emissions for retesting certain types of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers installed on transit buses. Your letter was referred to us by the Federal Transit Administration. You stated that a study comparing acoustic emissions testing with hydrostatic testing would be beneficial. You asked for views concerning the possibility of the Texas Railroad Commission suspending the retesting of CNG containers that have expired until after such a study could be completed.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards

NHTSA has no authority to require the retesting of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment after the vehicles or equipment are sold to consumers.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, (49 CFR 571.304), which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. The standard applies to all CNG containers manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect), and requires that new CNG containers comply with a hydrostatic burst test. The manufacturers must certify that their containers meet the requirements at the point of sale. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to periodic retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

NHTSA has no position on the relative merits of acoustic emissions or hydrostatic testing. Nor is this agency planning to conduct a study to evaluate the relative merits of these two retesting methods.

The U.S. Department of Transportation=s Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers used to transport hazardous materials, including CNG containers. Such CNG containers may carry RSPA=s DOT specification or exemption markings, including retest markings. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the periodic retesting of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref: 304 d:4/29/96

ID: 11594MLS

Mr. Thomas D. Petru
Assistant Director -LP-Gas Section
Railroad Commission of Texas
Gas Services Division
1701 North Congress Avenue
P.O Box 12967
Austin, TX 78711-2967

Dear Mr. Petru:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the use of acoustic emissions for retesting certain types of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers installed on transit buses. Your letter was referred to us by the Federal Transit Administration. You stated that a study comparing acoustic emissions testing with hydrostatic testing would be beneficial. You asked for views concerning the possibility of the Texas Railroad Commission suspending the retesting of CNG containers that have expired until after such a study could be completed.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards

NHTSA has no authority to require the retesting of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment after the vehicles or equipment are sold to consumers.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, (49 CFR 571.304), which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. The standard applies to all CNG containers manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect), and requires that new CNG containers comply with a hydrostatic burst test. The manufacturers must certify that their containers meet the requirements at the point of sale. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to periodic retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

NHTSA has no position on the relative merits of acoustic emissions or hydrostatic testing. Nor is this agency planning to conduct a study to evaluate the relative merits of these two retesting methods.

The U.S. Department of Transportation=s Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers used to transport hazardous materials, including CNG containers. Such CNG containers may carry RSPA=s DOT specification or exemption markings, including retest markings. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the periodic retesting of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:304 d:4/29/96

ID: 11598ELRtxt

Mr. Strawn Cathcart
President
Early Development Co.
6135 Park South Dr., Suite 420
Charlotte, NC 28210

Dear Mr. Cathcart:

This responds to your February 5, 1996 letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letter that your company manufactures child restraints with emergency locking retractors (ELRs) which automatically adjust the shoulder straps to fit the child occupant. You are concerned about a provision in Standard 213 which you call the Asnug fit test procedure,@ that you believe calls for (quoting from your letter):

1. The dummy to be placed in the child safety seat and the child safety seat=s restraint fastened according to the manufacturer=s instructions. The position and fit of the belts on the dummy=s shoulders is then visually inspected to see that the shoulder straps are correctly positioned without gaps.

2. A probe is placed between the shoulder strap and the dummy=s shoulder. The shoulder strap is then pulled upward with two pounds of pressure, and again the straps are visually inspected to see that they lay properly in place and that no gaps greater than 1/4 inch exist.

You state that A[t]he application of two pounds of pressure is not enough to engage the ELR.@

You indicate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Office of Safety Assurance (NSA) has informed you that Athe second phase of the test is not applicable with ELR units. . . .@ That is, in your words, AIf the belts fit snugly on the child dummy=s shoulders, ELR seats have been deemed to pass the >snug fit= requirement. The seats are then move [sic] on to be dynamically tested.@ You agree that this is the correct position and request our concurrence on the matter.

We generally concur that the procedure of the second phase, applying two pounds of force using a probe, would not Aapply@ to an ELR system. However, several matters should be clarified.

There is a requirement in Standard 213 that each child restraint belt that is designed to restrain a child shall be adjustable to Asnugly fit@ any child whose height and weight are within the ranges recommended by the manufacturer for the restraint (S5.4.3.1). A visual inspection by NSA checks that this requirement is met. However, the Asnug fit test procedure@ you ask about relates to a test condition set forth in S6.1.2(e) for the sled test. This section specifies that, prior to sled testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted, while applying a two pound force using a probe, so that there is 7 millimeters (1/4 inch) of slack.

We concur that this specification of test conditions does not apply to ELR systems. At the time the test condition was adopted, all belts on child restraint systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. In general, the more slack there is, the more severe the test, which may result in greater dummy excursions and a greater likelihood that a restraint may fail the performance requirements of Standard 213. To ensure that child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, S6.1.2.4 was added to Standard 213 specifying the precise amount of slack that should be present.

In a system with ELRs, the retractors remove the slack from the belts on their own. Thus, there is no need for the Asecond phase@ of the procedure to adjust the amount of slack in the belts. Moreover, since the ELRs will not be activated on application of the two pound force used in the second phase, applying the force would not serve to measure slack in the belts, but would simply spool out the webbing. Accordingly, NHTSA will not use the procedure with systems such as yours.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:4/25/96

The language of S6.1.2(e) was formerly set forth in paragraph S6.1.2.4. The text of Standard 213's test procedure was reorganized in a final rule published July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126), effective January 3, 1996. While S6.1.2(e) uses metric units, we use English units in this letter because your letter did so.

ID: 1160

Mr. Lawrence A. Beyer
Attorney at Law
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592.

The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556.

The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:556 d:10/20/95

ID: 11601MLV

Mr. Donald B. Karner
President
Electric Transportation Applications
P.O. Box 10303
Glendale, AZ 85318

Dear Mr. Karner:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1996, requesting additional information in response to a letter from this agency dated January 24, 1996. Your question relates to what steps a manufacturer must take to Apermanently obstruct seating positions@ if the number of designated seating positions was to be reduced. You asked for Aany findings, case law, or policy or position statements which may have been previously generated in this area.@

NHTSA does not have a general rule as to what is an acceptable Apermanent obstruction@ of a seating position. We can, however, provide you with a discussion of previous statements concerning this topic, which may provide some guidance. We will also discuss the examples you include in your letter.

Previous Statements An April 19, 1979, final rule amending the definition of Adesignated seating position@ offers some discussion of this issue (44 FR 23229, copy enclosed). In the preamble to the rule, NHTSA interpreted the portion of the Adesignated seating position@ definition concerning the presumption that a bench seat with more than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. The agency stated: Athe space occupied by a rigid console or a fixed, stationary armrest, for example, would not be considered hip room and would not be included in the measurement of the 50-inch limitation.@ (44 FR 23229, 23232)

In an April 9, 1980, letter to Renault USA (copy enclosed), the agency discussed the use of seat belt assemblies to limit the number of seating positions on a bench seat. NHTSA stated:

The agency would give more credence to this factor if the inboard portions of the belt assemblies were on stiff, immovable cables (or similar design). With the current design, a person wishing to sit in the center position can easily move the belts out of the way, so that the belts are not real impediments to the use of the center position.

Your Examples Alteration of the floor plan: You ask if altering the floor plan such that a normal seated position cannot be achieved could constitute an Aacceptable obstruction@ of a seating position. It is unclear what actions this would entail. However, in the April 1979 notice the agency stated: AThe NHTSA agrees that shoulder room, leg room, and head clearance are factors which may influence the number of persons who will use a bench or split-bench seat.@ (44 FR 23229 at 23231). Thus, in theory, alteration of the floor plan could reduce the number of designated seating positions.

Filling the seat with an empty container bolted to the frame or seat skeleton: If the design of the container was such that a person could not sit in the container on the seat, this would constitute a permanent obstruction.

Removal of the seat: This is an obvious example of a means of reducing the number of designated seating positions in a vehicle.

I hope that this information has been 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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571.3 d:4/2/96

ID: 11606ZTV

Mr. J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Department
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

We have received your letter of February 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and 49 CFR Part 564.

As you noted, the dimensional and specification information on HB Types of replaceable headlamp bulbs and their associated Figures were recently transferred from Standard No. 108 to Docket No. 93-11, established by Part 564. Note 2 to Figure 23-1 states that "It must be possible to insert the light source into a cylinder of diameter "s" concentric with the reference axis and limited at one end by a plane parallel to and 20 mm distant from the reference plane and at the other end by a hemisphere of radius s/2"

You asked whether the light shield is allowed to be located in the hatched area shown in Figure 23-1 and its note (2). You believe that the light shield may be located in the hatched area because the area is specified in order to allow room for the H4 yellow light source permitted by ECE REg. No. 37. However, there is no reason to allow room because yellow headlamps are not permitted under Standard No. 108.

Under Figure 23-1 and Note 2, no light shield may be located in the hatched area; therefore, we cannot agree with your interpretation. If Koito wishes to file a modified drawing to Docket 93-11 permitting installation of a light shield in the hatched area it may do so. However, in accordance with Sec. 564.5(d)(3) and (4), the changed drawing must be accompanied by

statements that the use of the light source as modified will not create a noncompliance with any requirement of Standard No. 108 when used to replace an unmodified light source in a headlamp certified by its manufacturer as conforming to Standard No. 108, and information demonstrating that the modification will not adversely affect interchangeability with the original light source.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/2/96

ID: 11608DRN

D. W. Goonewardene, Acting Chief Engineer
Audit & Safety Investigations Section
Federal Office of Road Safety, GPO Box 594
Department of Transport
Canberra ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr. Goonewardene:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Hackney of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 122 Motorcycle brakes. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your questions are answered below.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You first asked whether test procedures at S7.6.1, S7.6.3, S7.10.1, and S7.10.2 that specify stops "from 30 mph at 10 to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps) for each stop" mean "an average deceleration for the stop or maintaining the deceleration throughout the test." You also asked, if the procedure is to maintain the deceleration, "what is the allowable time period from the beginning and towards the end of the test that may be excluded from the requirement that the deceleration must be within the specified range or is the approach in S7.6.2 (which requires attaining the required deceleration as quickly as possible and maintaining this deceleration for at least 3/4 of the stopping distance) used?"

We interpret the specification that stops be made "from 30 mph at 10 to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps) for each stop" as referring to maintaining the deceleration within that range throughout the stop, i.e., not as an average. The approach in S7.6.2, which is for higher speed/higher deceleration stops, does not apply to these other sections. As a practical matter, of course, there is a momentary period of time needed at the beginning of the stops to attain the specified deceleration, and possibly a momentary period at the very end of the stops that will be outside the specified range.

You also asked, "if some variation from the specified deceleration occurs, are there any conditions placed on when the maximum pedal/lever forces should be measured (e.g., only when the deceleration is within the specified limits)?" As indicated above, the specified deceleration should be maintained throughout each stop. We would look at the entire stop to determine maximum pedal/lever forces.

I am enclosing for your information a copy our Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 122, prepared by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The purpose and application of the procedure is explained at the beginning of the document.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further legal questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366- 3820. If you have technical questions, including ones about the enclosed Laboratory Test Procedure, please contact Luke Loy of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5308 (FAX (202) 366-1024).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:122 d:4/24/96