ID: nht95-7.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/16/95 letter from William Shapiro to John Womack (occ 11298)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1995, to John Womack, requesting that we confirm your interpretation of certain provisions in the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581. As described in your letter, Volvo is contemplating attaching a device to the bumper face bar of its vehicles that will be used for purposes other than mitigating the effects of a low speed collision. In a telephone conversation on November 22, 1995, Steven Kraitz of your Office informed Coleman Sachs of my staff that the device will be some form of radar equipment, and that Volvo has yet to decide whether it will be offered as optional or as standard equipment on its vehicles.

You are of the opinion that even though this device could be damaged or destroyed in a low speed collision, the vehicles on which it is installed will still be in compliance with the Bumper Standard because it is not one of the components or systems that are specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(1) through (6) as having to remain operational after Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. You further characterize this device as being "part of the bumper face bar" for the purposes of 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8). That section provides:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . . except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

We disagree with your opinion that the radar device that Volvo is considering for its vehicles is either an integral part of the bumper face bar, or a component that is needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Consequently, the device would not fall within the exception in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8) quoted above.

Conditions for Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equipment." Therefore, if the radar device is to be offered as optional equipment, it must be removed from the test vehicle before Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. In this circumstance, the vehicle's compliance with the Bumper Standard would not be affected if the device were unable to withstand low speed collisions. If the device is to be offered as standard equipment, however, it must remain on the vehicle while Bumper Standard compliance tests are performed, and must withstand those tests free of damage to meet the protective criteria specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8).

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-7.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carrie Stabile

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/29/95 letter from Carrie Stabile and James V. Stabile III to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT: This responds to the letter from you and your brother James Stabile regarding a "Vehicle Illuminated Warning System" that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its "review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards."

While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messages to other drivers. These are "School Bus" (in green), "Slow Down" (yellow), and "Do Not Pass" (red).

You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the "School Bus" message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, "Slow Down" would show when the school bus driver brakes, and "Do Not Pass" when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Down message and the small red lamps would flash with "Do Not Pass."

The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain requirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each jurisdiction.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. n1 NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided.

n1 NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (such as your Warning System) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system.

General lighting requirements

In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady-burning.

Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the "message" that the required lamp is intended to impart. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform; at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment did not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard "making inoperative" in this context the equivalent of "impairment" discussed in the previous paragraph.

The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute.

Specific issues concerning "impairment"

As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. "Impairment" can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the performance of required lamp system, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference: * Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108.

* It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard.

* The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady-burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady-burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operating through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages.

"Impairment" can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely to be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the actions other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages -- an identification of the vehicle as "School Bus" and advisories of "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" -- generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108.

There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute "impairment." These are as follows:

* Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the "School Bus" message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory lighting equipment.

* Another feature that could distract a driver is the message "Slow Down," which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some drivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes.

State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things,

Be identified with the words "School Bus" printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.)

Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words "School Bus," and the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages. If you have questions about State law requirements, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-7.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1995

FROM: Lewis H. Goldfarb -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corp.

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 210 Compliance - 1995 Cirrus

ATTACHMT: 12/21/95 letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein to Lewis H. Goldfarb

TEXT: As we discussed last week, I am attaching a memorandum setting forth Chrysler's legal position regarding the above compliance review. I am also submitting a summary report of a compliance test performed on December 8, 1995 in accordance with the procedures specified in FMVSS 210 and the published test protocol.

The test data confirm that the Cirrus satisfied the 3000 load requirement with a 20% margin at NHTSA's slower onset speed of 25 seconds. We believe this demonstrates full compliance with FMVSS 210.

As you know, the non-compliance found by OVSC staff in July was the result of a laboratory test that placed the pelvic body block 4 inches forward from the seat back. Our tests are conducted with the block positioned against the seat back. We advised OVSC staff in September that this alteration in the pelvic body block location significantly altered the stresses imposed on the rear seat anchorages as compared with the stresses imposed when the body block is positioned against the seat back. Since neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory test protocol specify the location of the body block, our compliance test represents a valid demonstration of compliance with the standard and should be accepted by OVSC.

The attached memorandum provides a legal analysis in support of our position. In essence, it shows that NHTSA's interpretation of the standard as requiring that compliance be achieved regardless of the placement of the body block is contrary to the Safety Act mandate that standards "be stated in objective terms."

I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this further after your review.

Attachments (2)

Enclosures

SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE (Summary Report)

Test Information

Test Number: 21095137 Test Type: FMVSS 210 Dev Date: 12/8/95 Time: 13:40:50 Technician/Engineer G. D. Redd/H. Farrah Model Year & Body: 1995 JA Body Component Description: 3-Passenger Rear Bench Seat; VIN # 1B3EJ56C1TN100005 Comments: Weldnuts For O/B Anchors, Anchor Brkts Str. Rrwd., Trailing Arm Brkts.

Installed, Lap Belt Body Block Against Seatbacks, Lab Seat Belts Were Used. Units: English Sample Rate (Hz): 50 Sampling Duration (sec): 70

Required 10 sec. Actual Max. 10 sec. Peak Load Channel Name Load (lbs.) Load (lbs.) and % Achieved Lt. Shoulder, S/N-68869 3000.0 3626.2 + 20.9% 3632.1 Rt. Shoulder, S/N-68864 3000.0 3624.6 + 20.8% 3633.3 Lt. Lap. S/N-68860 3000.0 3624.4 + 20.8% 3632.4 Ct. Lap. S/N-68830 5000.0 6044.5 + 20.9% 6054.6 Rt. Lap. S/N-68820 3000.0 3626.6 + 20.9% 3632.5

(Charts omitted.)

MEMORANDUM

December 13, 1995

TO: Kenneth Weinstein, Esq.

FROM: Lewis Goldfarb, Esq.

RE: FMVSS 210 Compliance

This memorandum summarizes Chrysler's legal analysis in support of its position that the 1995 Cirrus LX vehicles comply with FMVSS 210.

A. The Chrysler Cirrus LX Complies with FMVSS 210.

In July 1995, Chrysler was notified by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that a 1995 Chrysler Cirrus LX apparently failed a compliance test measuring conformity with FMVSS 210 S4.2.2. The OVSC staff informed Chrysler personnel that the rear outboard driver-side anchorage bolt weld-nut did not sustain the 3,000 lb. load required by the referenced subsection of FMVSS 210.

After careful analysis by Chrysler, the company has confirmed its position that the 1995 Cirrus LX complies with FMVSS 210 when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard and the published laboratory test protocol. Chrysler has also concluded that the NHTSA test result appearing to show noncompliance was attributable to the location of the pelvic body block during the NHTSA test. NHTSA's laboratory acknowledged that it placed the pelvic body block in the Cirrus test approximately 4 inches forward from the seat back. As the OVSC staff was advised by letter dated September 28, 1995, Chrysler has determined that this alteration in the pelvic body block location significantly altered the stresses imposed on the rear seat anchorages, as compared with the stresses imposed when the body block is positioned against the seat back.

Although Chrysler initially believed that the apparent noncompliance was attributable to differences between NHTSA's comparatively slow load application rate (approximately 25 seconds) and Chrysler's faster load application rate (approximately 10 seconds), Chrysler has now confirmed that the Cirrus meets the requirements of FMVSS 210 S4.2.2, even at the slower NHTSA load application rate, with the pelvic body block positioned against the seat back.

Chrysler has therefore determined that the only remaining issue is whether NHTSA's test can form the basis of a finding of noncompliance. In light of the obvious influence of the location of the pelvic body block -- a variable that is not specified in the Standard or in the accompanying test procedures -- Chrysler respectfully submits that NHTSA's test does not demonstrate a noncompliance with FMVSS 210, and that NHTSA cannot sustain a finding of noncompliance on the basis of an unspecified test procedure.

B. NHTSA Cannot Lawfully Base a Noncompliance Determination on an Unspecified Test Procedure.

NHTSA's statutory authority to promulgate standards is governed by the provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety) (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Chapter 301 provides that a motor vehicle safety standard "shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms." 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a).

These statutory criteria for motor vehicle safety standards have been construed by the Federal courts to require NHTSA to specify objective criteria and test procedures for measuring compliance with each safety standard. In one of the first cases construing NHTSA's safety standard-setting authority, the Court found as follows:

"The importance of objectivity in safety standards cannot be overemphasized. The Act puts the burden upon the manufacturer to assure that his vehicles comply under pain of substantial penalties. In the absence of objectively defined performance requirements and test procedures, a manufacturer has no assurance that his own test results will be duplicated in tests conducted by the Agency. Accordingly, such objective criteria are absolutely necessary so that 'the question of whether there is compliance with the standard can be answered by objective measurement and without recourse to any subjective determination.'

Objective, in the context of this case, means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is based upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings."

Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972) (two footnotes omitted) (quotation in first paragraph is from the House Report accompanying enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, H.R. 1776, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 1966 at p. 16).

The court went on to conclude that the provisions of FMVSS 208 under review at that time were not objective, because they permitted too much variability in the results of compliance tests conducted in literal compliance with the specified procedures.

Here, NHTSA has specified extensive test procedures for demonstrating compliance with FMVSS 210 within the text of the standard itself (S5. Test Procedures), and has supplemented those regulatory test procedures with a published laboratory test protocol, the latest version of which is TP-210-09. Neither the test procedures within the standard nor the accompanying test protocol makes any provision for locating the pelvic body block in the test vehicle for the anchorage loading compliance test. In the absence of a specification, Chrysler has consistently placed the body block against the seat back, which is the most natural and representative location for the body block. As far as Chrysler could ascertain from a review of prior NHTSA compliance tests, the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests.

On July 27, 1995, Chrysler representatives met with NHTSA compliance engineer Jeff Giuseppe and representatives of NHTSA's contractor, General Testing Laboratory. At that meeting, the Chrysler representatives were informed that NHTSA's contractor; GTL, moved the pelvic body block several inches forward of the seat back in order to prevent breaking the seat belt buckle during the load application test on the Cirrus.

This relocation of the pelvic body block away from the rear of the seat is not authorized by FMVSS 210 or its published test protocol. The rationale offered for the relocation - that the relocation was necessary to avoid breakage of the seat belt buckle during the compliance test -- is inconsistent with the 1990 amendments to FMVSS 210 and the implementing instruction in the published test procedure.

In 1990, NHTSA addressed the very issue of the potential for breakage of the buckle or webbing during the anchorage loading test, and decided to resolve the potential breakage problem by authorizing the use of cables, chains or high strength webbing to impose the load on anchorages during FMVSS 210 compliance testing, as long as the material used to apply the load to the anchorages duplicates the geometry of the original equipment webbing at that seating position at the initiation of the compliance test. Final Rule amending FMVSS 210, 55 Fed. Reg. 17970 at 17980 (April 30, 1990); Final Rule responding to Petitions for Reconsideration, 56 Fed. Reg. 63676 at 63677 (December 5, 1991). In the 1990 Final Rule, NHTSA emphasized that its decision was intended to assure that "compliance testing should not result in unrealistic loading for the anchorages."

In the published test protocol, NHTSA implemented this amendment to FMVSS 210 by directing laboratories to address potential buckle or webbing breakage by replacing seat belt webbing and/or buckles in the area of the body blocks with wire rope. (See Section 12, Compliance Test Execution.) At no time in the rulemaking or in the implementing test protocol has NHTSA ever suggested that the hardware breakage problem could or should be addressed by relocating the pelvic body block to some unspecified location away from the seat back of the test vehicle.

In any event, it does not matter whether the relocation of the body block is helpful to the agency in avoiding compliance test difficulties. The important point is that the contractor's relocation of the pelvic body block has adversely affected the outcome of the compliance test, by introducing a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard or its implementing published test protocol.

On its face, FMVSS 210 requires demonstration of anchorage strength under certain specified test conditions. Chrysler has demonstrated compliance with those requirements. It is only after NHTSA's contractor relocated the pelvic body block to a location not specified in the standard and not consistent with NHTSA's own prior laboratory test reports, that the laboratory was able to show an apparent noncompliance in the case of the Cirrus.

NHTSA is required to specify objective requirements in its safety standards, and to specify repeatable test procedures by which compliance can be demonstrated. Chrysler Corp. v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d at 676. In the Cirrus matter, the NHTSA laboratory's relocation of the pelvic body block was not authorized by the FMVSS 210 test procedure or the published test protocol. Thus, NHTSA is attempting to demonstrate noncompliance on the basis of an unspecified test variable, which it cannot do consistent with its obligation to specify repeatable test procedures. "Manufacturers are entitled to testing criteria that they can rely upon with certainty." Paccar, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 573 F.2d 632, 644 (9th Cir., 1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 862 (1978).

Furthermore, NHTSA is not free to make changes in its compliance test procedures if those changes can affect the outcome of the compliance test, unless NHTSA provides adequate notice to the regulated industry. Absent such notice, NHTSA cannot retroactively interpret FMVSS 210 to require compliance with the anchorage strength requirements with a relocated pelvic body block. General Electric Company v. U.S. EPA, 15 F.3d 1324, 1333-1334 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (even if agency interpretation of a standard is reasonable and entitled to deference on a prospective basis, it cannot be enforced retroactively if the standard does not "fairly inform" the regulated industry of the agency's perspective).

C. Conclusion.

NHTSA cannot base a determination of noncompliance with FMVSS 210 on a variable test procedure that is not specified in the Standard. To hold otherwise would sanction a wholesale departure from the fundamental requirement in Chapter 301 for "objective" standards, compliance with which can be measured in accordance with repeatable, producible test procedures. Chrysler has demonstrated the Cirrus' compliance with FMVSS 210 in accordance with the regulatory test procedures and published test protocol. NHTSA's compliance investigation should be closed.

(Copy of page 64469 of the Federal Register (vol. 60, No. 241, 11-15-95) omitted here.)

ID: nht95-7.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/09/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Guy Dorleans (Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The use of light-emitting diodes brings technical solutions to almost all the styling trends, and allows to obtain an even patch luminance on the whole extension of the light-emitting surfaces. The sketches hereunder examplify a new area of freedom for rear end lighting:

Functions: Tail, Stop, rear turn signal

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED -- SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

All the LEDs are red in color. The internal wiring is such that failure of one LED does not switch off a complete array of diodes: if we suppose that the system incorporates a total 32 diodes. The diodes will still be in operation if a single diode fails. In cases C, C', D and D' [ILLEGIBLE WORD], Standard 108 revised as of October 1, 1994 shall consequently apply in its relevant figure 1b for one lighted section.

Case A: During daytime, when neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated, all the LEDs are off and no lighting function is used.

Case B: At night, the tail lamp is on, but neither the service brake nor the turn signal is operated. The whole light-emitting surface is slightly glooming, enough to fulfill the optical specifications of Standard 108 for tail lamps. All the diodes are energized at low-level intensity.

Case C: When braking at night, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled. The whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case C': When braking during the day, the current in the diodes is increased, so that the photometrics of the stoplamp is fulfilled. The shole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity. At point HV, the light output is at lease fivefold bigger than in case B.

Case D: When changing direction at night, the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. All the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn signal. The sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp is then fulfilled and at point HV, the light output is at least fivefold bigger than in case B. During of off-period of the turn signal, the diodes receive the same intensity as in case B, which corresponds to tail lamp only.

Case D': When changing direction during the day, the diodes are energized at full intensity during the one-period of the turn signal and then the whole light-emitting surface is glooming. The photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp is then fulfilled. During the off-period of the turn signal, the diodes are not energized.

We hereby ask confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct.

Best Regards.

ID: nht95-7.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Tom Byrne to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106; Brake hoses. According to your letter, you plan to sell a brake hose assembly for hydraulic brake systems that you refer to as "Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines." n1 You then asked several questions about selling your product in this country.

n1 The standard defines a "brake hose assembly" as a "brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system . . ."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). This process requires each manufacturer to determine that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

You first asked NHTSA to "confirm" that an independent laboratory certification is valid for the United States. As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

You then asked NHTSA to confirm that such a brake hose assembly can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper. Your brake hose assembly can be used at any place in a motor vehicle, provided that in installing it, a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business does not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, a vehicle or item of equipment which is in compliance with any applicable safety standard. Specifically, inclusion of your brake hose assembly could not modify a hydraulic brake system subject to FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to the extent that it no longer complies with the standard.

Your next question asked whether there are any special marking requirements for brake hose assemblies manufactured for sale in the United States. Section S5.2.4 sets forth labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies.

Section S5.2.4 states that

Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S5.2.4.1. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters, numerals or symbols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information:

(a) The symbol DOT constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

(b) A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

In addition, section S5.2.4.1 provides as an option that at least one end fitting be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hai Tee Young

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/14/95 letter from Hai Tee Young to Secretary of Transportation

TEXT: This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclosed with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawings, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe that in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident

(Page 2 is missing.)

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable. Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1995

FROM: Kenneth N. Weinstein -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, NHTSA

TO: Lewis H. Goldfarb, Esq. -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: Compliance of MY 1995 Cirrus/Stratus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Lewis H. Goldfarb to Kenneth Weinstein

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1995, which transmitted a memorandum containing Chrysler Corporation's legal position on whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may rely on a July 11, 1995 compliance test to demonstrate that model year 1995 Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus vehicles fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

In the July 10 test, NHTSA's contractor placed the pelvic body block several inches forward from the seat back. n1 In that test, and in subsequent tests conducted by Chrysler with the body block in that location, the rear seat anchorage in the Cirrus/Stratus failed before the 3000 pound test load set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 210 was reached. Chrysler has submitted a summary report describing a recent test in which the anchorage did not fail when the body block was positioned against the seat back, which is the position that Chrysler customarily uses when it tests its vehicles to ascertain whether they comply with Standard No. 210. It is Chrysler's position that since "neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory test protocol specify the location of the body block," its test with the body block against the seat should be accepted by NHTSA as demonstrating compliance with Standard No. 210.

n1 Your memorandum states on several occasions that the body block in the NHTSA test was placed four inches in front of the seat back. This distance represents the post-test location of the body block. In fact, the post-test photographs reveal that the floor structure had been distorted during the test procedure, thus indicating that the body block was less than four inches from the seat back prior to the test.

The agency agrees that neither the standard itself nor the laboratory test procedure developed by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies a precise distance that the body block is to be placed in front of the seat back. However, rather than support Chrysler's argument, this fact demonstrates that the failure of the Cirrus anchorages to withstand the test loads in NHTSA's test reflects a noncompliance with the standard. In the preamble issued by the agency in connection with its 1991 reconsideration of several amendments to Standard No. 210, NHTSA reiterated its longstanding view of a manufacturer's compliance responsibilities under these circumstances (56 FR 63676, 63677; December 5, 1991):

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of the strength requirements in Standard No. 210, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the strength requirements were only to be measured with the safety belt or other vehicle features at certain adjustment positions. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that an anchorage will fail in a crash. To serve this purpose, the anchorage must be capable of meeting the strength requirements with the safety belt and other vehicle features at any adjustment, since those features could be at any adjustment position during a crash.

The quoted statement, which was made in response to assertions by auto manufacturers that the test procedure was not sufficiently "objective" because certain test conditions were not sufficiently specified in the standard, demonstrates the fallacy of the contention in your memorandum (at pages 6-7) that the positioning of the body block in the July 10 test "introduc[es] a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard . . ." It also completely undermines Chrysler's assertion (at page 7) that the agency is "retroactively interpret[ing]" the standard. The industry was certainly "fairly informed" that "the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions."

NHTSA also disputes Chrysler's assertion (at page 4) that "the most natural and representative location for the body block" is against the seat back. To the contrary, that location is not consistent with any possible occupant use. Conversely, the location of the body block in the July 10 test conducted for NHTSA reflects the approximate belt geometry that would exist if a 5th percentile female occupied the seat. n2

n2 Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages to be installed at each designated seating position, which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) in part as a "location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female." This is yet another indication that all anchorages should be strong enough to withstand the required test loads when occupied by a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female.

As reflected in the preamble to the 1990 amendments to Standard No. 210 (55 FR 17970; April 30, 1990) and the discussion of the petitions for reconsideration of those amendments (56 FR 63676; December 5, 1991), the agency has endeavored to have the test procedure be as representative as possible of real world crash conditions. See, e.g., 55 FR at 17976-77 (simultaneous testing of anchorages); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 1 (limits on substitute materials to "ensure that the loading imposed during compliance testing is a realistic simulation of actual anchorage loading"); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 3 (effort to assure that reduced body block width will not be "unrepresentative of persons likely to occupy the seating position . . ."); 56 FR at 63677, Col. 1 (use of original attachment hardware "to ensure that the load application onto the anchorage is as realistic as possible"); and 56 FR 63677, Col. 3 (requiring that test setups using replacement webbing "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing at the initiation of the test "to protect vehicle manufacturers from the agency identifying apparent noncompliances based upon test conditions with unrealistic loading"). n3 n3 NHTSA recognizes that in some respects the test procedure for Standard No. 210 does not simulate real-world conditions. See 55 FR at 17972-73 (explaining why the load onset and load holding times in the standard are "orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding time periods observed in crashes").

Your memorandum contends that an interpretation of Standard No. 210 under which a vehicle could be found noncompliant on the basis of a test with the body block several inches in front of the seat back would render the standard not "objective," and thus inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a), citing Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972). However, that case merely prohibits NHTSA from establishing test procedures that are based on "subjective determinations:"

Objective . . . means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is based upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings.

NHTSA's test procedure, as implemented by its contractor in the July 10 test, clearly satisfies each of these three criteria for objectivity. There can be no dispute that it produces "identical results," as demonstrated by the fact that the anchorages failed in tests performed by Chrysler using that procedure. The procedure is also "rational," in that it reflects a belt geometry that is found in the real world (as opposed to the belt geometry in the body block location favored by Chrysler). Finally, the anchorage failed in a test conducted in accordance with measurable readings, rather than any "subjective opinions of human beings."

Your memorandum states (at page 4) that Chrysler's review of prior NHTSA compliance tests suggests that "the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests." Our review of the tests conducted by the agency indicates that this statement is not correct. As I advised you approximately ten days ago, the distance of the body block from the seat is not a data point that is memorialized in the test reports. Therefore, OVSC personnel reviewed the test photos and/or films of all Standard No. 210 tests conducted by NHTSA contractors of MY 1990 and later vehicles in an attempt to ascertain the body block position in those tests. Of the 21 tests in which the body block position could be definitely ascertained, in all but one (a test of the front seat anchorage in a MY 1992 Geo Storm), the block was not flush against the seat back.

In accordance with its usual procedures, OVSC provided Chrysler with contemporaneous reports of the Standard No. 210 compliance tests that the agency performed on its vehicles. Photos of the two Standard Nos. 207/210 tests conducted on Chrysler vehicles during the past five years (on the 1994 Dodge Caravan and the 1994 Dodge Ram Van) reveal that the test body block was placed at some distance from the seat back. Thus, Chrysler cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised by the body block location used by the contractor in the July 10 test.

In sum, although Chrysler has submitted a test that indicates that the anchorages in the 1995 Cirrus did not fail when the body block was placed against the seat back, such a result is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 210 when the anchorage fails in tests at other body block positions, and particularly where those positions are more reflective of real world belt geometry.

Under the circumstances, if Chrysler does not promptly notify the agency that it has decided that a noncompliance exists and conduct a notification and remedy campaign in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance would be justified in issuing an initial decision pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(a) that such a noncompliance exists. Please advise me or Michael Brownlee of your intentions immediately.

ID: nht95-7.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terence J. Kann -- P.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/14/95 letter from Terence J. Kann to Ricardo Martinez (occ 11392)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 14, 1995, to Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have asked whether "pole trailers such as those used in the logging industry, [are] required to have retro-reflective sheeting, reflex reflectors, or a combination?" If not, you asked whether NHTSA issued "any explanation for failing to extend the requirements to pole trailers."

As you noted, Section S3(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 applies to "trailers (except pole trailers) . . ." This means that pole trailers, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) are exempted from all the requirements of Standard No. 108 including those of Section S5.7 which specifies conspicuity requirements for "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds".

Pole trailers have always been excluded from Standard No. 108 (see 23 CFR 255.51, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section S2, effective January 1, 1968). Thus, the agency never proposed in the first instance that conspicuity requirements apply to pole trailers, and there was no discussion of pole trailers in the preambles to the proposal and final rule. Apparently, pole trailers were defined and excluded on the basis of comments to Standard No. 108 as originally proposed late in 1966 that a standardized lighting scheme might be impracticable for this category of vehicle.

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

ID: nht95-7.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth W. Easterling -- Plan B Engineering, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/16/95 letter from Kenneth W. Easterling to Taylor Vinson (OCC 11372); 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1995, asking for our opinion of "G-Lamps", ("proportional deceleration indicator lamps) intended as a rear end collision avoidance device. Your system would flash the stop lamps proportionally to the rate of deceleration.

Over the years, the agency has received many requests for interpretations of the laws which it administers as they relate to deceleration warning systems. Our reply has been that it is impermissible to wire the stop lamp system so that it flashes, no matter what the purpose of the flashing. I enclose for your information, as a representative reply, a copy of our letter of July 30, 1993, to Wayne Ferguson of the Virginia Department of Transportation, which fully sets forth our views and interpretations.

If you have questions about these matters, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this office at 202-366-5263.

Enclosure: (see 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson)

ID: nht95-7.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Russell

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/15/95 letter from Rick Russell to Blane Laubis

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, to Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.

You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT approved." The answer is no; the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of information, your use of the words "DOT approved" reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.

You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.

Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366-5263).