ID: nht90-2.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 20, 1990

FROM: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TO: General Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Sterling Superlocking System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from B. Felrice to D.T. Johnston (A36; Part 543)

TEXT:

Rover Cars of North America (formerly Austin Rover Cars of North America, d.b.a. Sterling Motor Cars), importer of the British Sterling passenger car, manufactured by the Rover Group Ltd., U.K. sent you a letter dated March 14, 1990 outlining a proposed modification to our antitheft system in the 1991 Model Year. Due to marketing considerations, this enhanced system, referred to as 'superlocking' will not be available for the 1991 Model Year. Therefore Sterling would like to withdraw that submission. If we elect to offer this system at some point in the future we will resubmit a request for de minimus change to our currently approved theft prevention system.

We would like to introduce a minor revision to our currently approved system for the 1991 Model Year, however. Our present system, once armed, will activate if the trunk is opened, even using the key, unless the system is disarmed. Our proposed modific ation would allow the system to be disarmed when the trunk is opened by the key and rearmed when the, trunk lid is closed. Forcing open of the trunk without using the key would still activate the alarm.

If you have any questions regarding this request please feel free to contact me on (213) 437-6282 at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht93-5.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: Joel Trim -- Manager - Mechanical Service Dept., Neal and Massy Motors

TO: The Secretary -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Joel Trim (A41; Part 567)

TEXT:

Within recent times various owners of motorcars who have had their vehicle bodies modified (extended) in the main for Limousine Service have solicited my assistance in inspecting the modifications before inspection for licensing by our Road Transport Authorities. However, our country does not have any laws or regulations pertaining to the inspection and certification of these vehicles, nor for vehicles falling under the categories: Kit Cars or Homemade Vehicles.

As a result of this the owner of such vehicles are unable to obtain a license from the Transport Department to operate them legally on the roads. There are however a number of private modified (extended) vehicles on our roads.

I have discussed this matter with several persons some of whom are directly related to the Transport Department and it is in the general view that if proof is shown where these vehicles are modified, assembled, built and inspected according to certain National or International Standards, the Licensing Department of the Ministry of Transport may be willing to license these vehicles.

Could you be so kind to assist in obtaining copies of any existing regulations/standards which govern the certification and operation of such vehicles on highways.

Thanks very much for your assistance. I look forward in anticipation to your favorable response.

ID: 06-005826as

ID: 2669rbm

Mr. Charlie Steffens
Director, Systems Engineering
TRW Automotive
Occupant Safety Systems
4505 W. 26 Mile Road
Washington, MI 48094

Dear Mr. Steffens:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. The requirements in S19, S21, and S23 are designed to minimize the risk that air bags pose to infants and small children. S19 provides manufacturers with two different options for complying with the standard (low risk deployment or automatic suppression), while S21 and S23 provide three options (low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression). Your first question is related to the infant low risk deployment option while your three other questions are related to the interrelationship between the compliance options. I am pleased to provide a response.

You first request an interpretation of the requirement set forth in S19 and the test procedure provided in S20.4, relating to the low risk deployment option for infants. Specifically, you characterize the requirements of S20.4 as follows. "For S20.4.9, if the subject vehicle were equipped with any type of occupant sensing system that was
(1) able to recognize that the passenger seat was occupied by any infant restraint from Appendices A, B, or C of the regulation,
(2) secured into the positions and orientations described in sections S20.4.1 through S20.4.8, and a 49 CFR Part 572 subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy positioned according to S20.4 and
(3) the occupant sensing system and airbag control system were designed to control the output of the air bag system in a discrete manner, such as "low output", that the S20.4.9 testing would be conducted at the same discrete output determined by the occupant sensing system. Further, no additional tests to show compliance to S19, such as "high output" testing corresponding to that for a vehicle which does not have an occupant sensing system to meet S20.4.9 would be necessary."

The requirements for the infant low risk deployment option are found at S19.3, which states that "each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S20.4." The low risk deployment option is designed to address injuries that can result when an infant is placed very close to the air bag. The risk of being directly above or adjacent to the air bag is particularly high for infants because child restraints, when placed in their rear-facing mode, will always place an infant's head close to the dashboard. A poorly installed forward-facing child seat also creates a risk, because the restraint can slide or flip forward during a crash.

S20.4 specifies several conditions for testing the deploying air bag. First, the manufacturer must assure compliance to S19.3 using any child restraint listed in subparts B and C of Appendix A to the standard. Restraints listed in subpart A (car beds) need not be tested because these restraints are not designed to be rear facing. For purposes of S19.3, the air bag is only tested with the child restraints in their rear-facing condition. This represents the worst case injury scenario. Under the specified test conditions, the vehicle seat is moved as far forward as possible, while avoiding contact with the vehicle interior. This is done to ensure that the dummy's head is placed as close to the deploying air bag as possible. The air bag is only tested with the child restraint in a belted condition.

The air bag is deployed at whatever level of force and combination of stages that would deploy in any rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph) when a child or test dummy is positioned in a restraint as specified in the test procedure, except that the vehicle seat may be at any seat track position. This level is determined by running an indicant test, as described in S20.4.9, at impact speeds up to 40 mph with a dummy-occupied restraint installed in the passenger seat. [1]

When NHTSA runs a compliance test on a vehicle certified to S19.3, it will only deploy the air bag at the level and, if equipped with a multi-stage inflator, with the combination of stages, that would deploy in the specified indicant test. Accordingly, vehicle manufacturers that certify to the low risk deployment option will need to ensure that their sensing systems are sufficiently robust to detect the presence of an infant in any one of the child restraints listed in subparts B or C of Appendix A.

If only a "low output" air bag deploys in the indicant test, NHTSA will not deploy a "high output" air bag simply because the "high output" air bag is placed in the vehicle for other occupants who may be seated in the passenger seat. Such an approach would have the effect of preventing vehicle manufacturers from using sensing technology to identify the presence of an infant at higher speeds.

Your next two questions relate to how the different compliance options relate to one another. Specifically, you ask if "the intent of the regulation... mean[s] that at compliance strategy needs to be chosen for each occupant size [i.e., the 1-year-old, the 3-yer-old, and the 6-year-old], but that a different strategy can be employed for each." You then ask if it is "possible to comply with ... the regulation using multiple compliance methods within an occupant size grouping using a logical subgrouping. For instance, could a system use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in child restraints?"

A vehicle manufacturer must certify to one of the compliance options in S19, S21, and S23. You first ask whether a different compliance option may be used for each group of children addressed by the regulation. The answer is yes. Each set of compliance options specified for a particular group of children is unique to that group. Accordingly, a manufacturer could choose to use automatic suppression to meet the infant and three year old requirements, but low risk deployment or dynamic automatic suppression for the six year old requirements. [2] However, within a given age group, a manufacturer may not choose to certify some portion of the population to one option and another portion of the population to another option. This would result in a unique compliance option that may fail to address all conditions contemplated by each option. For example, it is not acceptable to claim certification by meeting only one of the two low risk deployment positions for the three year old and 50 percent of the suppression positions. A system needs to meet one of the two options in its entirety. A customized compliance option, where the manufacturer used part of different options, but not all of any option, would create a unique compliance scheme that was never contemplated by the agency in determining how best to meet the need for safety without imposing unreasonable constraints on vehicle manufacturers. We note that in the example you provided in your letter, whereby a manufacturer would "use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in restraints" would be a compliant system that could be fully certified to the low risk deployment option, but not to the suppression option. Nothing in the rule prohibits manufacturers from using such a design philosophy. The deployment strategies related to children restrained in child restraints would remain within the manufacturer's discretion.

Your final question asks whether a manufacturer could use both low risk deployment and automatic suppression systems as a system redundancy. You state: "Assume that a sensing system met all of the conditions... for the RFIS low risk requirement. Suppose the sensing system also had the further capability to classify and suppress for certain tested situations. The system would be certified to meet all the low risk deployment requirements, however under certain conditions the system would suppress the airbag instead of deploying at low level because of this redundant capability. TRW believes a system of this type would comply with FMVSS 208 based upon similar NHTSA interpretations using additional or redundant safety equipment."

Your understanding is correct. Manufacturers may choose to use multiple technologies to address real world risk, without certifying to more than one compliance option. NHTSA specifically addressed this possibility in the May 2000 final rule (65 FR 30680, 30710). For example, a manufacturer may decide to use both low risk deployment and occupant sensing technologies for the six year old because it has concerns that the occupant sensing technology is insufficiently robust for all real world conditions, even though it may meet all the conditions specified in the test procedure. In such an instance, the manufacturer could certify to S23 using either the low risk deployment option or the automatic suppression option, even though in actual driving conditions, the air bag may sometimes deploy when an occupant the size of a 6-year-old is seated in the passenger seat. However, the manufacturer must choose one of the options for certification. Once it decides which option to certify to, it cannot change its position, even though the vehicle may fully meet the requirements of the other options. See S4.8. We require manufacturers to choose a particular option so that we can conduct compliance testing in an effective and productive manner.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/8/03





---

[1] The preamble to the May 2000 final rule states that an indicant test is not required. The statement was made in response to a comment that an indicant test would be required for every child restraint on Appendix A. Multiple indicant tests are not required. It may also be possible that a manufacturer could otherwise ascertain that only a very benign air bag will deploy in the presence of a belted child restraint at any speed. However, NHTSA may choose to run an indicant test to verify that only a benign deployment was possible.

[2] Currently dynamic automatic suppression cannot be used to certify to the infant requirements.

ID: 86-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1986 letter to our office concerning Federal preemption of state motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Previously, you had requested us to clarify the language of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We responded by letter dated March 24, 1986, which explained the phrase "procured for [the State's] own use." Your current letter focuses specifically on requirements for school bus mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, and asks whether Massachusetts could require an additional mirror on school buses owned by the state and its political subdivisions to enhance the view of the school bus operator.

The answer to your question is yes. As explained in our March 24 letter, under @ 103(d) of the Safety Act, a state may establish safety requirements for motor vehicles procured for its own use if such requirements impose the same or higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. The phrase "higher standard of performance" means that the state standard must not conflict with the Federal standard, but may contain additional or more stringent requirements. Massachusetts may thus require an additional mirror on its school buses that provides greater views of areas in front of and along sides of the bus. This requirement, however, must not conflict with Federal requirements and prevent the school buses from complying with Federal safety standards.

We explained in our March 24 letter that states may not prescribe safety standards for privately-owned school buses transporting children to private and parochial schools that are not identical to the Federal safety standards covering the same aspects of performance. Your current letter asked further about Massachusetts' requirement that school committees (which we understand to be political subdivisions of the state) provide equal pupil transportation to public, private and parochial schools. You asked whether buses procured to fulfill this mandate are "procured for the state's own use," even though the buses would be used to transport students to private and parochial schools.

In our opinion, the answer is yes. NHTSA has interpreted the phrase "procured for its own use" to apply to any vehicle intended for transporting the public which is procured by a state or political subdivision thereof. Buses procured by the state to transport students to private and parochial schools are thus "procured for the state's own use," and may be required by Massachusetts to have additional mirrors to promote the safety of the school children they carry. We note, of course, that we suggest no position as to the constitutionality of state law.

I hope we have responded to your concerns. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

March 19, 1986

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood:

Pursuant to my letter of November 22, 1986, (copy enclosed), and subsequent telephone conversations with Ms. Hom of your office, I find it necessary to request additional clarification concerning a possible unique situation regarding the transportation of school pupils enrolled in private or parochial schools.

The State of Massachusetts provides equal financial assistance for the transportation of public, private or parochial school pupils to and from school, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 76 Section 1 (summary attached).

Accordingly, I am in the process of drafting legislation that will require a system of mirrors that will provide the seated operator of a school bus with a view of the roadway immediately to each side of the bus, and of the area immediately in front of the front bumper.

In order to provide this reflected view, Massachusetts would require a minimum of one additional mirror and would, therefore, place Massachusetts in noncompliance with No. 111 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that I may require such mirrors on school buses owned by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions; however, it appears there may be some doubt regarding school buses used solely for the transportation of private and parochial children.

Thank you again for your much needed and appreciated guidance. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (617)727-3785.

Peter M. Kopanon, Director Vehicle Inspection Services

ENCS.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The following is a partial summary of current statutory requirements in the Massachusetts General Laws as they pertain to pupil transportation services in the Commonwealth. The statutes listed include school committee responsibilities, educational program requirements and reimbursement programs. This is only a summary: statutes should be consulted in their entirety.

CHAPTER 76, Section 1. REGULATION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATION - HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS - NON PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION)

. . . In order to protect children from the hazards of traffic and promote their safety, cities and towns may appropriate money for conveying pupils to and from any schools approved under this section.

Except as herein provided, pupils who attend approved private schools of elementary and high school grades shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as to transportation to and from school as are provided by law for pupils of public schools and shall not be denied such transportation because their attendance is in a school which is conducted under religious auspices or includes religious instruction in its curriculum. Each school committee shall provide transportation for any pupil attending such an approved private school within the boundaries of the school district, provided, however, that the distance between said pupil's residence and the private school said pupil attends exceeds two miles or such other minimum distance as may be established by the school committee for transportation of public school students. Any school committee which is required by law to transport any pupil attending an approved private school beyond the boundaries of the school district shall not be required to do so further than the distance from the residence of such pupil to the public school he is entitled to attend.

CHAPTER 71, Section 68. DUTIES OF TOWNS TO MAINTAIN SCHOOLS: TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN - (MILEAGE - SCHOOL BUS STOPS)

Every town shall provide and maintain a sufficient number of schoolhouses, properly furnished and conveniently situated for the accommodation of all children therein entitled to attend the public schools. If the distance between a child's residence and the school he is entitled to attend exceeds two miles and the nearest school bus stop is more than one mile from such residence and the school committee declines to furnish transportation, the department, upon appeal of the parent or guardian of the child, may require the town to furnish the same for a part or for all of the distance between such residence and the school . . .

CHAPTER 71 - Section 37H. PUBLICATION OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE RULES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS - (PUBLICATION AND FILING REQUIREMENTS)

The school committee of every city, town or district shall publish its rules or regulations pertaining to the conduct of teachers or students which have been adopted. Copies of the rules or regulations shall be provided to any person upon request and without cost by the principal or headmaster of every school within each city, town or district. Such rules or regulations shall not become effective until filed with the commissioner of education, accompanied by a certification by the committee that copies of the rules or regulations are available as previously set forth.

CHAPTER 40, Section 4. TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS)

A town may make contracts for the exercise of its corporate powers including the following purposes . . .

For the furnishing of transportation of school children. Contracts for such transportation may be made by the school committee for periods not exceeding five years; provided, that no such contract, whether written or oral, shall be made for the use of such transportation of a school bus, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, other than a motor vehicle for the operation of which security is required to be furnished under section six of chapter one hundred and fifty-nine A, unless there shall first have been filed with the registrar of motor vehicles and by copy with the city or town clerk the certificate of an insurance company or surety company authorized to issue or to execute as surety within the commonwealth motor vehicle liability policies or bonds, both as defined in section thirty-four A of chapter ninety, except as to amount, that there is in force such a policy or bond issued or executed as aforesaid, covering such school bus, which provides indemnity, protection or security to the amount or limit of at least fifteen thousand dollars on account of injury to or death of any one person, and subject to such limits as respects injury to or death of one person, of at least two hundred thousand dollars on account of any one accident resulting in injury or death of more than one person; and provided, further, that the termination of such a policy or bond during the term of any such contract shall be breach thereof and forthwith terminate it. All provisions of law applicable to motor vehicle liability policies and bonds as defined as aforesaid shall apply to policies and bonds containing such additional amount of indemnity, protection or security . . .

CHAPTER 71, Section 7A. TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS (REIMBURSEMENT)

The state treasurer shall annually, on or before November twentieth, pay to the several towns subject to appropriation, the sums required as reimbursement for expenses approved by the commissioner of education, incurred by any town for the transportation of pupils once daily to and from any school within the town, or in another town, in excess of five dollars per annum per pupil in the net average membership of such town; provided, (a) that no transportation reimbursement shall be made on account of any pupil who resides less than one and one-half miles from the school which he attends, measured by a commonly traveled route; (b) that the amount of grant, per pupil, for transportation to private schools in towns which furnish such transportation, shall not exceed the amount of grant per pupil for transportation to public schools and (c) that no contract shall be awarded except upon the basis of prevailing wage rates . . . and of sealed bids, and the school committee shall, in the event that a contract is awarded to other than the lowest bidder, file with the department a written statement giving its reasons therefore, which statement shall be open to the public inspection . . .

ID: Bailes.1

Mr. Alistair Bailes
Perei Group Ltd.
Sunbury House
Ivy Road
Aldershot
GU12 4TX
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Bailes:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek confirmation as to whether your proposed front turn signal lamp would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You also asked whether your proposed lower beam headlamps visual/optical aiming mechanism would meet the standards requirements. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant requirements of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Your letter described and depicted your proposed vehicle frontal lighting system as having a turn signal with a single reflector illuminated by a PY21W filament bulb. According to your letter, the housing containing the turn signal has two lenses, a primary lens (with an area of over 22 cm ²) and a smaller secondary lens which emits light but does so in a manner that is "superfluous to the performance and is primarily an aesthetic embellishment".(Looking at the exterior of the vehicle, the two lenses have the appearance of two separate lamps with a small amount of space between them.)You stated, however, that this second lens is necessary to meet European requirements that the turn signal be 400 mm or less from the extreme outer edge of the vehicle. In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108.

Furthermore, your letter shows a pair of headlamps with two separate adjustment mechanisms for the lower beam. You described the system as having visual/optical aiming, with two adjustment mechanisms: (1) a vertical/horizontal adjustment and (2) a horizontal adjustment. Your letter stated that vertical aim is adjusted by rotating the vertical/horizontal adjustment, and horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. According to your letter, the system is not equipped with a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108 or whether a VHAD would be required. Alternatively, you asked whether compliance could be achieved by disabling or removing the horizontal adjustment, but while retaining the vertical adjustment.

FMVSS No. 108 sets forth requirements for turn signals (see S5.1) and their location (see S5.3) on a vehicle, as contained in Tables I-IV of the standard. (We note that although these tables distinguish between vehicles less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width and those greater than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width, the requirements for the number and location of turn signals are essentially the same for the purposes of the present analysis.)For front turn signal lamps, the standard requires the vehicle manufacturer to install one amber lamp at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable.

In paragraph S5.3.2(b)(1), the standard states, "When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 19 of this standard [including front turn signal lamps], each such lamp must provide not less than 12.5 square centimeters of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 19 for each such lamp".Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of the standard further provides, "On a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5".

While we cannot provide a determination as to whether your proposed frontal lighting system would comply with FMVSS No. 108, we can offer certain observations based upon the photograph accompanying your letter. It appears that the front turn signal is amber, as required under the standard, and its location in the assembly suggests that it is capable of being mounted at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable. Your letter states that the primary lens has an area greater than 22 square centimeters, which is the minimum size for front turn signal lenses on passenger cars required by the standard (see S5.1.1 and SAE J588 Nov. 1984). Further, you must ensure that the lamps effective projected luminous lens area would meet the standards visibility requirement of at least 12.5 square centimeters, as installed with all obstructions considered. Alternatively, you could design this lamp to conform to the visibility requirements specified in S5.3.2(b)(2).

We would bring two matters to your attention. First, if our understanding of your photograph is correct, this lamp would be mounted on the drivers side of the vehicle, in which case it appears that the upper beam is more outboard than the lower beam. However, Standard No. 108 requires the lower beam to be at a more outboard location, relative to the upper beam. Unless your photograph is mislabeled, your proposed design would apparently not meet that requirement.

Second, the standard necessitates that careful attention be paid to the spacing between the turn signal and the lower beam headlamp. Again, if this turn signal lamp is located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, paragraph S5.3.1.7 requires the intensity of the turn signal to be multiplied by 2.5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the above issue related to upper/lower beam location is resolved and presuming that the primary lens meets all other requirements for a turn signal under FMVSS No. 108, we do not believe that the presence of a separate and discrete embellishment provided by the secondary lens would violate S5.3.1.7, because the turn signal provided by the primary lens would meet the requirements of the standard without being masked by the headlamp. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the illumination provided by the secondary lens would impair the vehicles required lighting equipment.

As to the issue of the horizontal aim of the lower beam headlamp, paragraph S7.8.5.3(b), Horizontal aim, lower beam, of FMVSS No. 108 provides, "There shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. If the headlamp has a VHAD, it shall be set to zero".In the 1997 final rule amending Standard No. 108 to permit headlamps that are visually or optically aimed, the agency adopted this requirement for horizontal aim to either be fixed and nonadjustable, or have a horizontal VHAD, because the lower beam would not have any visual cues for achieving correct horizontal aim, and it would not be possible to add such visual features without damaging the beam pattern (see 62 FR 10710, 10712 (March 10, 1997)). Visual/optical aim headlamps became part of FMVSS No. 108, but they were required to meet new beam pattern photometric requirements, with a beam pattern relatively insensitive to modest horizontal misaim.

In 1999, Federal-Mogul Lighting Products (Federal-Mogul) petitioned the agency for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow visually/optically aimed headlamps to have a horizontal adjuster system that does not have the required 2.5-degree horizontal adjustment range or a VHAD indicator, as required by the standard. As we noted in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, our 1997 final rule permitted visual/optical aim headlamps, based upon comments to the agency stating that vehicles could be built with such close tolerances that no horizontal aim adjustment would be necessary, and we noted that no useful visual cue for horizontal aiming exists (see 66 FR 42985, 42986 (August 16, 2001)). Because no visual cue was available for the purpose of horizontal aiming, the agency did not permit any horizontal movement of such headlamps, with the lamp essentially being correctly aimed as installed. As an alternative, horizontal-aiming VHADs were permitted (but not required) on visual/optical aiming headlamps as a means for manufacturers to meet European requirements for both a horizontal and vertical aim adjustment, but that the horizontal VHAD must be set to zero.

Because visual/optical aim headlamps do not currently have any feature that would allow anyone other than the headlamps manufacturer to objectively assess the accuracy of horizontal aim, a vehicle manufacturer seeking to adjust the horizontal aim of these lamps on a new vehicle would have no objective, repeatable way to assess the impact of its horizontal aim adjustments on real world lighting performance. Because of this limitation, neither the agency nor anyone else, including vehicle dealers and State safety inspectors, could assure correct headlamp aim. As stated in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, we believe that it is incumbent upon the industry to develop a single method for horizontal aiming that could be incorporated into FMVSS No. 108, and we will not assess individual manufacturers petitions for alternatives to installation of a horizontal VHAD.

In light of the limitations that the standard places upon horizontal aiming of visual/optical aim headlamps, your proposed design, as presented, would not comply with the relevant requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard does not permit a horizontal adjustment mechanism for the lower beams of such headlamps, unless it is a VHAD that is set to zero.

Furthermore, we do not believe that elimination of the "horizontal adjustment (2)", as depicted in the diagram accompanying your letter, would suffice to remedy this. Your suggestion to remove the horizontal adjustment and "have only vertical adjustment" would apparently not meet the requirement of the standard, because the remaining adjustment is presented as a "vertical/horizontal adjustment (1)" and the letter states that horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. Thus, elimination of adjustment (2) would nevertheless appear to leave horizontal aim adjustment capability as part of adjustment (1), which is not permitted under the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/4/05

ID: nht92-3.9

DATE: October 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. Mary Schiavo -- Inspector General for the Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Gerard Tucker -- Special Agent, DOT Office of Inspector General

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staff asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved.

Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer.

Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. ** In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified

information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle.

The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR S567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with S567.4.

Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle.

It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See S567.5(e) and S568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in S568.3:

Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.

Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced

certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit.

Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts.

A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR S568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles.

To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR S567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: "A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle." The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place.

The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Attachment

BUS INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA INC.

PRESENTED TO: NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PRESENTED BY: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. Special Agent (215) 337-2725

SUMMARY

Background and history of Bus Industries of America, Inc. (BIA)

Allegations:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 BIA provided a false statement to the government by certifying that they would meet the Buy America pro- vision of Section 165(b)(3) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1982

Title 18, United States Code, Section 542 BIA attempted to introduce imported merchandise into the commerce of the U.S. by means of a false or fraudulent statement

Title 19, United States Code, Section 1304 tampering with, or removal of Manufacturers Label of Origin

Chronology of events leading to allegations

Defense Counsel (ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT) assertions

Assistant United States Attorney's request for clarification from NHTSA

ATTACHMENTS

1. Title 18 U.S.C. 542 2. Excerpts from defense counsel brief 3. Excerpt from interview of Keith Sheardown 4. Ontario Bus Industries Label of Origin 5. Bus Industries of America Label of Origin 6. 49 C.F.R. 567, 568 7. Title 15 U.S.C. 1403

(Remainder of text is omitted.)

ID: nht67-1.6

DATE: 09/12/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your June 2, 1967, letter contained nine questions concerning several areas of Public Law 89-563 and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Answers to several of these questions are of common interest to many manufacturers and the National Highway Safety Bureau is developing and planning to issue appropriate policies, procedures and rules to guide manufacturers in respect to some of these questions. In the meantime, we are able to reply to questions 5, 7, and 8 of the June 2, 1967, letter and question 9 of the June 2, 1967, letter as amended by the corrected drawings furnished by your letter of July 18, 1967.

Question 5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

Answer

The Bureau is studying the requirements for procedures and forms on defect notification. At present a form is being considered for the manufacturers to report defect information to the Secretary. If after further study forms are also considered desirable for the manufacturer to report to his dealers and the purchasers, you will be advised as to what types of forms are acceptable via publication in the Federal Register.

It is not clear what you mean by "liability." If you refer to your obligations under Section III, this section defines the responsibilities of manufacturers in regard to motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment determined not to be in conformance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section III also requires the immediate repurchase of the nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, or that the required conforming part or parts of equipment be furnished to the dealer or distributor for installation and that financial renumeration be made for incoveniences involved. Additionally, the provisions of Section 108 would apply.

Question 7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with Contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstance provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

Answer

Motor vehicles intended solely for military or for export use are specifically excluded from compliance with Federal motor vehicle standards, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Question 8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3

"Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

Answer

The parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated.

Question 9. Standard No. 103 Table II Location of Equipment

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

Answer

The location of lamps and reflectors, as shown on the drawings dated July 17, 1967, appear to be acceptable.

Questions 1, 2, and 6 relate to the subject of "Incomplete vehicles" and questions 3 and 4 relate to labeling and record-keeping. We are currently working on the entire area relating to these other questions and you will be furnished with detailed answers as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 2, 1967

George C. Nield -- Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Nield: Listed below are several areas of Public Law 89-563 and the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that we are concerned about and need rulings and/or clarification. If at all possible, we need this information by June 12, 1967.

1. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563

It is quite possible that there might be new chassis at our plant January 1, 1968, to have new bodies mounted on them that do not meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Will we be able to mount bodies on these? From time to time it is a couple of months after a chassis arrives before a body is mounted on it. They also sometimes sit in our field for long periods of time finished before the end customer comes for them or arranges for delivery. I believe you can appreciate the situation we could find ourselves in if we are unable to mount or deliver chassis after January 1, 1968, that were received prior to January 1, 1968. Could we have your comments and a ruling on this?

2. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 Paragraph (a) (1)

Will replacement parts for buses built prior to January 1, 1968, have to meet applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? In some cases the conforming parts might not fit or work without a lot of rework, etc.

3. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 (b) (5)

In what manner should we label or tag motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export? Do you have examples or acceptable forms for this?

4. Section 112 of Public Law 89-563

What records, reports, technical data, performance data, and other information are we required to establish and maintain? Will we be required to give notification of performance and technical data to the Secretary and/or to the original purchaser? What will we be expected to do to satisfy this law?

Will we be able to have inspectors designated by the Secretary come here prior to January 1, 1968, to be sure we are in compliance with all applicable Safety Standards if we feel the need?

5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

6. Section 114 of Public Law 89-563

We mount bodies on three types of chassis. We build the Blue Bird Forward Control Chassis. The Conventional and Pusher Chassis are built by others, and we mount bus bodies we manufacture on them. It seems logical to me that the chassis manufacturer should certify the chassis by label or tag as stated in the law. Is this correct? We would then be required to certify what? The bus body or the complete vehicle? I don't see how we could certify items such as those cited in Standard No. 102 which we would not alter in any way or some of the equipment in Standard No. 108 that comes in on the chassis that we would not bother such as headlamps. What should the certification tag or label say? Do you have forms or acceptable examples for this?

7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3: "Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

9. Standard No. 108 Table II Location of Equipment

Enclosed are two prints of

34754 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom Conventional Bus

34755 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom Conventional Bus

34756 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

34757 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

We certainly appreciate your help and consideration on these matters.

Sincerely, David A. Phelps, Jr. Engineering Services

Enclosures

ID: nht75-4.34

DATE: 06/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

SINCERELY,

March 25, 1975

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration U. S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Petition for Rulemaking

The enclosed Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 supercedes and replaces Volkswagen's Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 dated February 20, 1975.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

J. W. Kennebeck, Manager

Emissions, Safety & Development

Petition for Rulemaking

of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Volkswagenwork Aktiengesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Petitioners

TO

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Petition for Rulemaking

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

Request to allow S4.5.3.3 to allow, at manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use.

Background:

In October, 1973, Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA to amend MVSS 208 to specify emergency release interlock and warning systems for vehicles equipped with passive belt restraint systems. Based on NHTSA's response to this petition (Docket 74-4; Notice 2), VW laid firm production plans for its diagonal belt/energy absorbing knee panel passive restraint system for incorporation in a new model, the Rabbit.

In October, 1974, President Ford signed into law the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, which stipulated that new regulations be written by NHTSA to effectively eliminate requirements for starter interlocks and long duration warning buzzers.

NHTSA responded quickly by eliminating all requirements in MVSS 208 for the starter interlock, and with a proposal for a new warning system (in S4.5.3.3) which, for passive belts, represented a change from continuous lights and buzzers, activated when either front outboard belt was disconnected, to four- to eight-second light warnings activated after ignition is turned on, with concurrent buzzers activated if the driver's belt was disconnected.

Between November 1974 and February 25, 1975, the effective date for the new warning systems, VW produced Rabbits for sale in the U.S. with optional passive restraints, equipped with the "old" warning system permitted under MVSS 208 until February 25. These vehicles were also fitted with starter interlocks for the emergency release. Excellent sales volume of early Rabbits largely depleted supplies of vehicles fitted with the passive restraint, and Volkswagen saw a need to produce more passive restraint cars after February 25 so that we could continue to offer our customers the passive restraint on an optional basis.

A letter from Mr. R. Dyson, Esq. (copy attached), confirmed that since starter interlocks were not regulated in any NHTSA regulation, they were not prohibited and could be installed at the manufacturer's option. Based on this interpretation, VW continued to fit its passive restraint cars with starter interlock. However, Volkswagen feels that the emergency release starter interlock must be supplemented by an effective warning system to inform the driver why he cannot start the car and to discourage occupants from unbuckling the belt while driving, although it is much easier to wear the belt properly than to defeat it. Therefore, we petitioned NHTSA with our letter of February 20, 1975, to allow manufacturers to continue to produce a more effective warning system, i.e. the "old" system.

While this petition was under consideration, our engineers have been able to develop on short notice, a warning system which meets the new S4.5.3.3, and, in addition, provides that release of the passenger's belt, as well as the driver's belt, as stipulated in the rule, activates the buzzer system during the specified four- to eight-second period. In a telephone conversation with NHTSA Legal Counsel, it was decided that this feature is allowed under MVSS 208 because the driver's side requirement is only a minimum standard.

However, we feel this warning system is not adequately effective, as it does not warn the occupants when a belt becomes disconnected after the four- to eight-second warning period. Therefore, by making a simple change to the visual warning, we developed a more effective system which satisfies the letter and the intent of Section 109 of the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974" and, we believe, satisfies the intent of MVSS 208 in meeting the basic provisions of S4.5.3.3. The substantive request of this petition is merely to allow a system in which the visual warning can remain activated indefinitely if belts are not in use, at the manufacturer's option. Although we still feel that the most effective warning system available (the "old" system specified formerly under MVSS 208) offers the greatest safety benefits, we submit the following proposal with the hope that it will meet more favorable response from NHTSA.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEW WARNING SYSTEM

1. The warning light activates for a period of four to eight seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position, when both passive belts are in use, as determined by emergency release being buckled.

2. The audible signal activates for a four- to eight-second period after the ignition is switched to the "on" position if one or both front outboard belts are not in use, as determined by the emergency release belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

3. In addition to the above, the warning light activates continuously whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position and either front outboard belt is not in use, as determined by the emergency release being unbuckled, regardless of the elapsed time after the ignition has been switched "on".

Since Section 109 of the Public Law 93-492, the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974," does not address the time duration of visual warning systems, we believe our proposed system satisfies the wording and intent of the law.

Therefore, Volkswagen petitions NHTSA to amend MVSS 208, S4.5.3.3 to allow, at the manufacturer's option, passive belt systems to retain the warning lamps with indefinite activation when belts are not in use. We suggest that the following words might be used:

Subparagraph S4.5.3.3 (b) (1) is amended to read:

(1) At the left front designated seating position (driver's position), and, at the manufacturer's option, at the right front designated seating position, be equipped with a warning system that activates, for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B), and, at the manufacturer's option, activates a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B).

(A) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(B) The driver's lap belt, or, at the manufacturer's option, either the driver's or the right front passenger's belt, is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

July 11, 1975

Tad Herlihy, Esq. Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Subject: Letter from Robert L. Carter Dated June 23, 1975

This will confirm our recent telephone conversation advising that our engineers are not entirely happy with the suggestion that we install a continuous warning light in addition to the 4-8 second lamp.

It is our intention to reaffirm our Petition for Rulemaking previously submitted to your office and plan to submit additional supporting data as soon as the annual factory recess in Germany has ended. We hope to be able to have this information on file in Washington no later than the last week in August or the first week in September.

Gerhard P. Riechel

Attorney

ID: nht87-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc. 4747 N. Channel P.O. BOX 3849 Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Rossow:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Section 56.2.1 of that standard specifies for certain tests conducted on a dynamometer that "(the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load an the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating." According to your letter, you have interpreted the term "equivalent" in this section to "authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual st opping conditions." You requested confirmation of this interpretation. As discussed below, we disagree with your suggested interpretation.

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

As indicated in your letter, your request for an interpretation was submitted in light of recent correspondence between your company and NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). OVSC requested you to submit information on the compliance with S tandard No. 121 of the Mercedes-Benz model L-1317, a two axle straight truck. You responded to that request by submitting a compliance certificate and interpretation concerning section 56.2.1. In letter dated April 9, 1987, OVSC informed you that it did not agree with your interpretation.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of 55.4.1 (brake retardation force-relevant only to towed vehicles), 55.4.2 (brake power), and 55.4.3 (brake recov ery), under the conditions of 56.2. One of those conditions, set forth in 56.2.1, is as follows:

S6.2.1 The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating. For a vehicle having additional gross axle weight ratings specified for operation at reduced speeds, the GAWR used is that specified for a speed of 50 mph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, any speed greater than 50 mph.

In support of your suggested interpretation, you noted that axle loads of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions, i.e., as a vehicle traveling forward decelerates, the load of the axles shifts so that the front axle load rise s and the rear axle load falls. You stated that it is your reading of Standard No. 121 that the manufacturer "can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in vi ew of actual vehicle behavior." With respect to gross axle weight rating (GAWR), you suggested that when used in the context of Parts 567 and 568, the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit a static determination of whether the load carr ying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. For dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions, however, you argued that such tests should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration.

You then stated the following:

The language of 56.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicates that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the "equivalent" to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAWR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This languag e is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an "equivalent" loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the texts required by 55.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic condition s by the word "equivalent."

We disagree with your suggested interpretation, which we believe is inconsistent with the language of S6.2.1, past interpretations of that provision, and the compliance test procedures the agency has long followed with respect to this provision. As indic ated above, 56.2.1 specifies that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is "equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating." The phrase "equivalent to the load" uses the singular "load," instead of the plural "l oads," to show that the dynamometer inertia has only a single value. By itself, this suggests that 56.2.1 was not intended to provide multiple options for the dynamometer inertia setting, depending on the dynamic conditions simulated.

Further, the overall language of 56.2.1 shows how the single dynamometer inertia setting is to be determined. The term "GAWR" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single ax le system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces." When an axle is loaded to its load-carrying" capacity, there is one "load on the wheel," at whose "equivalent" the dynamometer inertia must be set.

While we believe that the language of section S6.2.1 is clear on the issue raised by your letter, we also note that agency guidance in the form of a past interpretation letter and OVSC's laboratory procedures for Standard No. 121 are also clear. In an in terpretation letter to Wagner Electric, dated May 26, 1972, the agency stated:

In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamometer inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pound s as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.

That interpretation explicitly states that the dynamometer inertia is set with regard to the assigned GAWR, and makes no reference to the varying values of axle load during braking. This agency interpretation has been a matter of public record for the la st 15 years. Moreover, as OVSC noted in its letter of April 9, 1987, its test procedure TP-121-02 provides a specific formula for calculating "dynamometer inertia equivalent to the GAWR for the applicable vehicle axle." This test procedure has been used by the agency since March 163 1978, and has been available to the public since that date.

You asserted in your letter that the static GAWR is "permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word 'equivalent'." We find no basis in the word "equivalent" for your suggestion that the load on the wheel- should somehow be calculated during bra king. Section S6.2.1 uses the term "equivalent" to account for the fact that the terms "load" and "inertia" are different without the same dimensions and are not numerically equal; an axle's tire rolling radius must be considered in determining the prope r inertia as well as the load. We note that section S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 121 uses the term "equivalent" in the same manner. That section specifies for dynamometer testing that the drum or disc be "rotating at a speed equivalent to 50 m.p.h." Since t he drum or disc is obviously not moving along longitudinally, the word "equivalent" in that section is used to bridge the gap between longitudinal and rotational movement.

Your letter also argued that a February 18, 1976, interpretation letter to Oshkosh supports your suggested interpretation of 56.2.1. Oshkosh had asked whether a vehicle that meets section S5.1.1's requirements for air Compressor capacity when it is movin g must also comply when the vehicle is stationary. The agency stated:

Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they aff ect the outcome of testing.

We do not agree that this letter supports your suggested interpretation. The letter addressed only the issue of how a requirement should be read in view of the absence of a particular test condition. As explained at length above, we conclude that section S6.2.1 clearly specifies the particular test conditions to be followed for this section. Therefore, the Oshkosh letter is not relevant to requests for interpretation of S6.2.1.

You also argued that in order to provide an appropriate braking system, with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions. You stated that such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle. You also argued that NHTSA has recognized your braking system as "a safe and effective system" in its research te sting.

We agree that a manufacturer must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle when designing an appropriate braking system. This is necessary to provide safe brake performance during varying loading conditions, for norma l and emergency brake applications on varying road conditions: and it is so for all kinds of vehicles. However, the requirements of Standard No. 121 do not require vehicles to have too much rear braking, as you appear to imply. The requirements of S5.4.2 (Brake Power), and S5.4.3 (Brake Recovery), are minimum performance requirements intended to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driv ing. In practice, in order to perform well in such conditions, both front and rear brakes must have a minimum capacity, and this capacity is related to GAWR despite the fact that the actual loads borne by the front and rear axles vary during different br ake applications. The agency therefore referred to GAWR in section 56.2.1, because this is an objective value that is readily ascertainable for every vehicle, and performance based on this value meets the particular safety need provided for by the requir ements of section S5.4. These minimum requirements are not intended, nor do they operate, as a restriction on the design decisions that manufacturers must make independently to distribute braking capacity to meet anticipated load distributions.

Contrary to your assertion, NHTSA has not concluded that your brake system is "safe and effective." We also note that the quotations of the agency's research report cited in your letter address only limited aspects of braking performance and are taken ou t of context. We note that you stated that "(t)he Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were '. . . well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level.' (p. 19)." A more complete quotation is as fol lows:

. . . In the empty driver best effort stops the driver was also able to utilize this peak friction, although not as effectively as the antilock, because the brakes on front and rear axles of the vehicle were well balanced and tended to lock at close to t he same pedal effort level. In the loaded case, however, the front axle tended to lock prematurely and it Has not possible for the driver to maintain all four wheels near the peak friction level. He could keep the front tires near the peak but when this occurred rear braking was relatively low. If he applied more braking, the front axle locked and he lost steering control due to lack of lateral traction at the front tires."

Based on the information before the agency, OVSC is continuing its investigation concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 22,1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for an Interpretation Concerning FMVSS 121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of our parent company, Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft (DBAG), Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc. (MBTC) requests an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems. This standard specifies that for tests c onducted on a dynamometer, "The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.

49 C.F.R. S 571.121.56.2.1. DBAG has interpreted the term "equivalent in this regulation to authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual stopping conditions. It is this interpretation which we are asking be confirmed by your offic e.

The need for such an interpretation is the result of recent correspondence between MBTC and NHTSA. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked MBTC, as the manufacturer of trucks bearing the trade name of Mercedes-Benz, to submit information on the compliance with FMVSS 121 of Mercedes-Benz truck model L-1317. MBTC filed a response to this request containing the DBAG compliance certificate and the foregoing interpretation. In a letter dated April 9, 1987, NEF-31 HTS CIR 2879.1, the Office info rmed MBTC that it does not agree with the DBAG interpretation of FMVSS 121 used to assess compliance.

In determining compliance with FMVSS 121, DBAG recognizes, as do all automotive engineers, that axle loads of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions. That is, as a vehicle traveling forward decelerates, the load on the axles shifts so that the front axle load rises and the rear axle load falls. (See DBAG Compliance Certificate, section 2.16) Under Standard 121, the manufacturer must specify an axle load in connection with the tests conducted to assess compliance. It is DBAG' s reading of Standard 121 that the manufacturer can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in view of actual vehicle behavior.

As noted above, Standard 121 refers to the "gross axle weight rating" (GAWR) of the vehicle. GAWR is defined generally as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-grou nd interfaces."

49 C.F.R. S 571.3(b). When used in the context of Parts 567 (Certification) and 568 (Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages), the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit a static determination of whether the load carrying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. The nominal GAWR value on the certification label therefore must be used for such a determination.

A test to represent a dynamic procedure such as braking presents quite different requirements. Instead of a static measurement, such a test should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration. Standard 121 mandates dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions. Thus, the question is whether the standard is specific in requiring a GAWR determined on a static test or whether language would permit the type of interpretation utilized by DBAG.

The language of 56.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicates that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the "equivalent" to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAwR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This languag e is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an "equivalent. loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the tests required by 55.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word "equivalent."

The foregoing interpretation is supported by prior interpretative guidelines of the Agency. The standard itself does not specify that the "load on the wheel" must be evaluated in a static manner. In fact, it specifically uses the word "equivalent," a wor d not used in other sections of the standard. (See for comparison 5.5.6.1) In the context of braking, a manufacturer could, therefore, reasonably conclude that the dynamics of wheel loads under deceleration can be considered. In a letter to the Oshkosh T ruck Corporation, the Chief Counsel's Office has supported such an interpretation. In the Oshkosh case, the Agency indicated that, where the standard is silent as to an issue, the manufacturer may exercise its discretion. Oshkosh had asked whether a vehi cle that complies with S5.1.1 of the standard (air compressor capacity) when it is moving must also comply when the vehicle is stationary. The Chief Counsel replied:

"Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they af fect the outcome of testing." Letter from Richard B. Dyson to Oshkosh Truck Corporation (February 18, 1976).

For these reasons also, DBAG relies on the conclusion that Standard 121 does not specifically restrict the test procedure and permits a manufacturer to assess compliance by reference to the dynamics of braking for an actual vehicle. DBAG has concluded th at in order to provide an appropriate braking system, with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions . Such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle.

The Agency's own testing of the L-1317 supports this Conclusion. In August 1986, the Agency issued a report entitled, "Performance Evaluation of a Production Antilock System Installed on a Two Axle Straight Truck (NHTSA's Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Researc h Program Report #6)" which included dynamic testing of this vehicle with and without the use of its ABS system. The Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were "... well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same p edal effort level." (p. 19). Further, the Agency reported that "... in the empty condition the vehicle has a relatively high braking efficiency over a broad range of road friction levels." The report explains that efficiency is a measure of the vehicle's ability to use available friction before lockup and loss of control occurs (p. 19). Finally, the report generally notes "if loss of control of the overbraked axle prevents the driver, no matter how skilled he is, from utiliz ing the full capability of the underbraked axle .." (p. 22). Accordingly, not only does FMVSS 121 provide sufficient breadth to allow the interpretation utilized by Daimler-Benz, its use results in a braking system which the Agency has recognized as a sa fe and effective system.

Based on the foregoing request, we would appreciate your office responding with respect to the appropriateness of this interpretation. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Gary W. Rossow Director, Government Technical Affairs

cc: Mr. George L. Parker