ID: nht88-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY -- ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108; LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

TEXT: Mazda is currently developing a lamp mechanism that features movable reflectors which can expand the area of illumination according to the driving steering angle on curved roads. The purpose of such a mechanism, when incorporated into the vehicle forwar d lighting system, is to better illuminate the forward curved path of the driver, and to therefore improve night-driving safety on winding roads.

To insure that such a system will be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, Mazda would like to confirm its interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In Mazda's proposed system, an electronic control unit adjusts an additional reflector's position to as much as thirty degrees to each side of the zero degree position in accordance with changes in steering angle. Automatic return of the reflectors t o the zero position occurs when the steering angle returns to zero degrees.

According to our interpretation of FMVSS 108, headlamps cannot be equipped with adjustable reflectors (S4.1.1.36). The only relevant provision applicable to fog lamps and cornering lamps is the requirement that they not impair the effectiveness of re quired vehicle lighting equipment (S4.1.3). Are we correct in concluding that although it will not be possible to introduce our adjustable reflector lamp as a headlamp, it may be possible to introduce it as a fog or cornering lamp, assuming the above pr ovision is met?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these issues at your earliest convenience. Please do not limit your discussion to the above regulations, but also address any other regulations and automotive safety considerations that might be pertinent.

ID: nht88-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION - 49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION-FMVSS 108 - LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

TEXT: Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. and its parent company, Mazda Motor Corporation ("Mazda"), request that the attached document, in its entirety, be afforded confidential treatment as specified in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information. In accordance with the guidelines provided in 49 CFR Part 512.4(b), included below is information supporting Mazda's claim that release of the attached document to the public meets the substantive standards of 49 CFR Part 512.5(a).

The attached document requests a NHTSA interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment in regards to Mazda plans to develop new lighting technology. The following supports Mazda's claim of confiden tiality, as required by 49 CFR Part 512.4(d).

1. The information relates to future unannounced product plans, projecting not more than three years into the future. Mazda has determined that the release of such information to the public would likely result in significant competitive harm. The i nformation specifically relates to the standard equipment features which will be made available on a yet unannounced product introduction. Obviously, release of this information will place Mazda at a competitive disadvantage due to the absence of such c lear and first party information regarding the product plans and policies of our competition.

2. The information contained within is known only to Mazda and has not been disclosed or otherwise made available to any person, company or organization outside of Mazda, its agents, and the supplier with which Mazda is working to develop the new tec hnology.

3. Mazda requests that the information contained within be considered confidential until such time as Mazda formally agrees to its public release, makes a formal public announcement or initiates mass production, whichever comes first.

Mazda has made a diligent inquiry to determine that the information contained in the attached document has not been disclosed, or otherwise made publicly available. Should this request for confidential treatment be denied, please contact us prior to the release of this information.

For any further information or clarification of this request, please contact Mr. Sadato (Ted) Kadoya at the letterhead address or telephone number above.

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht88-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: S. ROBSON -- SR. PROJECT ENGINEER - VEHICLE REGULATIONS MACK TRUCKS, INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM BARRY NUDD

TEXT: Dear Mr. Robson:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 207. You ask whether a seat in a heavy duty truck must remain in its adjusted position when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat, if the seat has been tested and remains in its adjusted position when subjected to a load of 20 times the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat.

This question arises because of the configuration of some heavy-duty truck seats which include suspension fixtures (pedestal structures) on which the upper seat section rests. Safety Standard No. 207 requires seats to withstand a load equal to 20 times their weight and requires the seats to remain in their adjusted position during the required loading (paragraph S4.2). The upper seat sections and adjusters or your truck seats are tested on rigid test beds by the seat manufacturer and reportedly comply with the adjuster provision of S4.2. However, when you test these seats in the actual vehicle (applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including pedestal), the center of gravity falls on the seat adjuster and the seat does not always stay in it s adjusted position during loading.

In answer to your specific question, the seat must remain in its adjusted position when tested to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, as required by paragraph S4.2 or the standard. We would agree with you, however, that with a seat configuration suc h as you describe, the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash. Your problem appears to arise because the center of gravity of this seat happens to fall on the seat a djusters and the standard requires the

loading to be applied through the center of gravity. The purpose of this loading requirement, however, is to ensure the integrity of the entire seat as it is attached to the vehicle structure.

Therefore, it is our opinion that for a pedestal seat such as you describe, a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those componen ts to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and which would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: DERRAL T. CRANCE -- AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEER, SALT RIVER PROJECT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DERRAL T. CRANCE, REDBOOK A33 (2), STANDARD 121

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Recently Salt River Project ordered sixteen material/reel trailers and two transformer oil trailers. The trailers were built in 1987 by an out of state manufacturer and delivered to Salt River Project via a local vendor representing the manufacturer. A description of the two types of trailers is as follows:

A. Material/Reel Trailer

GVWR - 20,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 211 inches overall

Width - 92 inches

Height - 90 inches

Deck - 30 inches from ground

Axles - Tandem 10,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-Cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

B. Transformer Oil Trailers

GVWR - 22,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 244 inches

Width - 90 1/2 inches

Height - 102 inches

Bottom of Tank - 24 inches from ground Axles - Tandem 12,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

I have attached a copy of a vehicle data record for a tank trailer and a photo of a material/reel trailer for clarification of the two types of trailers. Salt River Project's interpretation is that the trailers need to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 121 Air Brake System (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980). Our concerns specifically are in the reservoirs and the required protection system as set forth in FMVSS 121.

Please issue an interpretation to clarify the following items:

1) Are the trailers as outlined above required to conform to MVSS 121 (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980)?

2) If conformance to 121 is required, then is a protected reservoir for parking brake release required?

3) If conformance to 121 is required, then is it a requirement that the service reservoirs be protected by check valves or equivalent?

Sincerely,

Attachment

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

(PHOTOGRAPH OF TRAILER OMITTED)

ID: nht88-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-5-88, FROM FRANK V. TANZELLA, TO NHTSA, OCC-1857

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or el ement of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the p ublic as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR @ 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "mot or vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by addi ng the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles aft er installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions wit h the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned

installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-26-88, TO NHTSA, FROM GARY EVANS-WESTEX

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, War ning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125.

Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approachi ng traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. Y ou are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125.

According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, " No person shall . . . import into the United States any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Standar d 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LISA CAPPALLI -- GAGER, HENRY & NARKIS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of last year to Ms. Tilghman of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether your client may procee d with the manufacture and distribution of a warning device, which you described further as an equilateral triangle with legs of 10 3/8 inches each. You also enclosed a diagram of the proposed device.

Let me begin by explaining that your client does not need approval from this agency to manufacture or distribute this product. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A); Safety Act) provides that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Fe deral motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipmet, must certify that this product complies with all applicable standards. This agency has no authority under the Safety A ct to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product.

The warning device your client plans to produce is motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, the question is whether this warning device complies with applicable safety standards.

Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 reads as follows: "This standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the

presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." Since your client's product falls within this description, your client must certify that the product complies with all requirements of Standard 125. Se ction 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires your client to exercise "due care" in making any such certification.

Based on the description in your letter, it does not appear that your client can certify that this device complies with one of the requirements in Standard 125. Paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125 states that, "Each of the three sides of the triangular port ion of the warning device shall be not less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 and not more than 3 inches wide." According to your description, the sides of your client's proposed device would be only 10 3/8 inches long. Your client will have to increase the length of the sides in order to certify that this proposed warning device complies with Standard 125. We do not have enough information to offer any opinions as to whether this product appears to comply with the other re quirements of Standard 125.

You asked for information on how your client could obtain an exemption from Standard 125 if necessary. There is no provision in the Safety Act for exempting items of motor vehicle equipment from any applicable safety standard. However, section 157 of th e Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) gives this agency the authority to exempt equipment manufacturers from the requirement to give notice to owners and to remedy noncompliances with applicable standards, if the agency determines that the noncompliance is incon sequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The procedures for implementing this statutory authority are set forth in 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.

Since your client plans to become a manufacturer subject to the requirements of the Safety Act, I am enclosing a copy of a general information sheet that briefly outlines the new manufacturer's responsibilities and explains how to get copies of relevant regulations. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/88

FROM: C. S. ALLEN -- COMMANDER-DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA RULEMAKING DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO ALLEN

TEXT: This letter is to request an interpretation of the meaning of one sentence contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 (FMVSS 102).

This sentence, found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) Part 571, Section 571.102 S3.1.3, states, "Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive positio n".

The California Highway Patrol has become aware that a major manufacturer of school buses, Crown Coach Incorporated, of 13799 Monte Vista Avenue, Chino, California 91710-5513, has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, althoug h equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3, are also equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch.

Mr. Greg Alvarez of my staff discussed the legality of this device with Mr. James Cowan, Director of Engineering at Crown Coach, Inc., by telephone on June 24, 1988. At that time Mr. Cowan stated his opinion that the bypass switch complied with FMVSS 10 2 because it was only an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. He stated that the only way the bus could be started with the transmission shift level in a forward or reverse drive position would be if the driver used both hands, one to operate the bypass switch to the right of the steering column, and the other to operate the regular starter key-type switch to the left of the steering column.

Mr. Cowan stated to this Department that this starter interlock bypass switch is regarded by Crown Coach as a safety feature, intended for emergency use in

the event that the bus engine dies at an inopportune moment, as when crossing a set of railroad tracks, or in case the neutral safety switch contacts fail to close upon selection of neutral range.

Pending your reply it is our position that the bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS 102 (and of an identical California state regulation). Crown Coach appears to be interpreting FMVSS 102 as meaning tha t the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position with the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that.

As for the argument that the bypass switch allows for quick restarts on rail crossings or other dangerous locations, we feel that if the amount of time required to select neutral range, restart the engine and return to drive range is anticipated to be ex cessive, why not eliminate the neutral safety switch altogether? The driver would then be able to keep one hand on the steering wheel while restarting the engine with the transmission in gear. With Crown's present arrangement, a bus can be restarted in gear only by removing both hands from the steering wheel.

It is our belief that 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3 is intended to prevent motor vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions from being started in gear at any time. We would appreciate your earliest possible response to our request for an interpretation on t his matter, so that our inspectors and the engineering staff at Crown Coach, Inc. will have authoritative information on which to act.

ID: nht88-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/88

FROM: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VP METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TO: LARRY COOK -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL N.H.T.S.A

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GARRY GALLAGHER; REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119

TEXT: Dear Larry,

Per our phone conversation back on June 15, 1988. I am requesting a written determination in regards to specific requirements within the size designations on the side walls of motorcycle tires.

My inquiry involves code #571.119 - section S6.5-c. As you may recall, my specific question was whether the letter B was required within the size designation if the tire is of bias-belted construction.

As Metzeler Motorcycle tires are manufactured in Germany, we meet the sizing requirements and listings of the E.T.R.T.O.

A Metzeler bias-belted tire is marked with both the number of plies and material of the plies of both the tread and sidewalls of the carcas. The letter B is sometimes added to the size as an internal code.

Your verbal determination over the phone was that the letter B was not an actual requirement. This letter serves to request a written determination.

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me if you have any further information or questions.

ID: nht88-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/88

FROM: STEPHEN BORKOWSKI

TO: ERICA JONES -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/10/88 TO STEPHEN BORKOWSKI FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: This letter is request for the legality of my Bimmer Dimmer Safety Stop Light Concept. It utilizes various devices to govern the intensity of brake light brightness to indicate the degree of braking being applied to a vehicle. The goal of my concept is to lessen the chance of rear end collisions.

My concept was borne by a personal experience of mine in which I was able to avoid crashing into a car in front of me but four cars behind me were not able to escape damage as a result of multiple rear end collisions.

As a driver with 40 years of experience with a good driving record, I pondered over why or what I did wrong that put me into such a situation. My conclusion is that through the years I was lulled into a false sense of security. I realized there were co untless number of times when I was in a line of cars that were slowing down and the brake lights of the car or cars in front of me were lit even though we all were in the process of moving. Also, there are many times when drivers "ride" the brakes in hi gh density traffic. The activated stop light, therefore, does not indicate a drivers intent to actually come to a stop or the degree of his slowing down.

In the military as well as in other organizations, people are trained for emergency situations so that they will react in the correct manner, subconsciously. If drivers can learn to apply their brakes quickly and fully when they see a very bright red br ake light, I believe a false sense of security will not be developed and thus, hopefully, rear end collision can be reduced. I would like to pursue to research and develop my concept to test its validity and effectiveness.

I would appreciate any advice and suggestions that I should have in seeing how I could make it legal.

Sincerely,