ID: nht90-3.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-10-90 to Z. Taylor Vinson and Stephen P. Wood from Lawrence A. Beyer TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1990, on behalf of your client, Cantab Motors, requesting "official notification" by DOT that Cantab "is considered to be a manufacturer by your agency", and stating that counsel for Isis Imports received such a letter from us on July 10, 1986.

A review of our letter to Isis discloses that that company sought to import Morgans as "incomplete motor vehicles", and we informed it that it could not do so. However, we stated that a Morgan lacking major components of the fuel system such as fuel tan k, fuel lines, and carburetor could be imported as an "assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, with the package or container labelled as equipment items", and that individual items of equipment covered by the safety standards would have to bear the certif ication of their manufacturer. The result of this interpretation, that is to say, subsequent events occurring outside the letter, is that Isis has imported the assemblage pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), as equipment, rather than as a vehicle under 1 2.80(b)(1)(iii), and has added the propane fuel system components in the United States. The completed motor vehicle has then been certified by Isis as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

It appears from the petition for temporary exemption that you submitted on behalf of Cantab, that the facts are essentially similar to those of the Isis case. To the extent that Cantab's actions duplicate those of Isis, it, too, would appear eligible to import its assemblages of Morgans under the equipment conformance declaration. Although conforming and certified equipment items are no longer imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), the corresponding provision of the new regulation that allows im portation of such equipment is 49 CFR 591.5(b).

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: nht90-3.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1990

FROM: Nelson Behar -- National Marketing Director, LooPo

TO: Steven Kratzke -- Office of Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-90 from P.J. Rice to N. Behar (A36; Std. 208); Also attached to information sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for the time you recently spent with me on the phone discussing NHTSA guidelines. As I explained, LooPo is a seatbelt slacking device available to motorists across the country.

Additionally, we have received and are in the process of responding to several state highway/safety agencies, that have asked whether the product falls within the current guidelines of NHTSA.

At your earliest convenience, may I have a letter from you stating that LooPo does keep within those guidelines? And in the future, would it be possible to keep me updated on any changes or alterations the committee might make regarding the NHTSA guidel ines?

ID: nht90-3.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: M. Michael Mascho -- Safety & Compliance Specialist, Kenworth Truck Company

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to M.M. Mascho (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. My concern is with Identification and Clearance Lamps listed in Table I, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment O ther Than Headlamps; and Table II, Location of Required Equipment. I have attached three (3) photos to better explain my concern.

Kenworth Truck Company is a manufacturer of Class 7 & 8 trucks that are over 80" in overall width, thus falling into the requirements of the above mentioned tables. We manufacture a conventional model truck with a Aerodynes sleeper. The Clearance and I dentification Lamps are mounted on the top of the cab. (see the right hand truck in photo 1).

We have been asked to build trucks that also include an extra set of Clearance and Identification Lamps on top of the sleeper. (see left hand truck in photo 1, and photos 2 & 3). The requirements of Tables I & II for Identification Lamps are three (3) amber lamps mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, or alternatively as close as practicable to the top of the cab. Identification Lamps are to be two (2) amber lamps mounted as near the top as practicable to indicate overall width.

By mounting the extra lamps on top of the sleeper, we now have six (6) Identification Lamps and four (4) Clearance Lamps. This vehicle when viewed from the front at night would resemble a typical Class 8 truck pulling a trailer with front mounted Cleara nce and Identification Lamps.

Would this vehicle be considered to be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108?

Photographs attached to letter (graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-3.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: Robert B. Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-19-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Roden (A36; Std. 114; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to 55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your opinion on the following matter pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard #114, Theft Protection:

1) Does the Standard #114, Section S4.2(b) require that the key locking systems not allow an ignition key to be removed other than in the "park" position. In other words, does the requirement that the system prevent the vehicle from moving forward on it s own require that the key not be removed except in the "park" position.

2) If the key locking system is replaced for an existing system, is the replacement system required to comply with Standard #114 and particularly, Section S4.2(b)?

3) In addition, how long is the key and/or key locking system required to perform under Section S4.2(b) of the Standard?

We appreciate your opinions with respect to these Standards.

ID: nht90-3.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: Michael L. Hayes

TO: General Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for the Establishment of Transport Safety Standards Regarding Incubators Used to Transport New Born Infants

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from Michael L. Hayes to James Gilkey (OCC 5046); Also attached to letter dated 1-15-91 from Paul J. Rice to Michael L. Hayes (A37; Std. 213; FMVSS 102(4))

TEXT:

This petition prays that transport safety standards be established to provide the new born infant, institutionally transported for medical reasons, with the same basic protection (per F.M.V.S.S. 213) as that of a privately transported infant.

The transport incubators currently in use needlessly endanger the new born due to the lack of occupant protection, proper construction methods, and adequate anchoring systems. The principal reason given by some of the companies involved for the lack of compliance with child transport safety standards was due to the belief that the fragile nature of the new born renders known restraint techniques useless in providing the infant with a reasonable chance of survival. This is no longer the case.

The development of the moldable air-bag can provide even the most frail infant with a reasonable chance of survival as well as meet the special needs associated with the new born while under medical care. This is accomplished by providing the infant wit h a non-constricting pouch made of small air-bags that can be positioned within a larger bag and the air removed from same, thus locking into a customized shape (pouch). This system of restraint is more clearly described in the attached engineering anal ysis and patent disclosure.

As this is a well established industry, resistance to change by the manufacturers is substantial and is the principal reason for this petition. The medical personnel directly responsible for the new born, however, greatly support the upgrading of the sa fety standards and equipment. The manufacturers belief that this upgrading would not be profitable enough has placed transport safety as a low or non-existent priority. It is believed that the only way to insure that transport safety for the medically distressed infant is to receive the needed priority by the manufacturers is though the establishment of safety standards or the enforcement of F.M.V.S.S. 213 in this area.

Marginalia: Checked w/ Hayes 7/20 is submitting separate petition to administration

ID: nht90-3.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: Michael L. Hayes

TO: James Gilkey -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Non Compliance to Standard 213 in the Transport Incubator

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 from Paul J. Rice to Michael L. Hayes (A37; Std. 213; FMVSS 102(4)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from Michael L. Hayes to General Curry

TEXT:

In our resent phone conversation regarding transport safety for the new born infant which is transported in incubators, I brought to your attention that the child restraint equipment used in this area does not meet Standard 213. I have enclosed a sales brochure to illustrate my point. It is anticipated that the companies involved will claim that, due to the special circumstances involved in this type of transport, Standard 213 cannot be met and, thus, is not applicable to transport incubators. In view of this objection, I have included a copy of an engineering analysis of a restraint technique showing a design that can meet Standard 213 and meet the special needs of this type of transport as well.

It is estimated that close to 100,000 infants are transported in this type of equipment each year. If only one half of one percent of these infants are injured due to the lack of proper protection, this represents hundreds of needless injuries and possi bly scores of deaths.

The companies involved are aware of the moldable air-bag restraint technique and its ability to vastly improve the safety of the infant. However, the belief that it would not be profitable "enough" to up grade the transport incubator with proper occupant protection has lead to the continued sales of substandard equipment. This equipment is designed and sold specifically as a "transport" incubator in that its principal purpose is the transport of the infant. It is clear that if this equipment is capabl e of meeting child transport safety standards through specifically designed occupant protection systems the compliance should be halted.

I would like to ask that you take up this project on behalf of the infant and enforce Standard 213 as it applies to "car bed" type restraints.

Attachment

Air-Shields Vickers sales brochure entitled TI-100 Infant Transport Incubator (Text omitted)

Attachment

An Engineering Analysis of a Developmental Transport Restraint System for the Neonate by Michael L. Hayes and Dr. Brent Coleman (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 3-16-90 to B. A. Kurtz from B. Gill with enclosure

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting o f a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts ma rking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6 (a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durabili ty of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system contr ol to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of

performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information pro vided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

ID: nht90-3.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Watanabe (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask you a question about a configuration of combination rear lamp which fulfils both tail and rear side marker functions as sketched below.

(Graphics omitted)

In accordance with the requirement of S.5.5.7 of FMVSS No. 108, the two functions (ie. Tail & Side marker) are presented at the same time. Thus the light output of side marker lamp is also emanated toward the rear of the vehicle mixed with tail lamp ligh t, and similarly, the light output of tail lamp is also emanated toward the side mixed with side marker lamp light.

Please let us have your answers to the following questions.

1) Should the Tail lamp function of this lamp meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections, or 3 lighted sections?

2) Should the Side marker function of this lamp meet the photometric requirement of SAE J592e by 3 lighted sections or 1 lighted section?

I greatly appreciate receiving your reply to the above as soon as possible.

ID: nht90-3.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo; Guy Dorleans -- Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: P.J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref: 861 M 90

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to M.J.P. Ravier from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen DeMeter

TEXT:

Valeo Lighting, manufacturer of car headlamps, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, " Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipmen t."

In its issue of May 9th 1989, the Federal Register Vol. 54 No 88 in paragraph S.7.7.5.2. allows the use of a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device for lamps with moving reflectors. This possibility is an important step in the direction of world harmonization, since this concept is widely used in Europe and in Japan. Valeo lighting is determined to use this possibility as soon as possible, and in this purpose has studied the:

" Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 2." The attached documents explain how our engineers have solved the problems of providing the aiming feature on each lamp, and summarize the instructions which will be written in the maintenance book of each car.

We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly treat all the drawings as confidential, because they involve our own idea for development of on-vehicle aiming which has something related to a patent application.

After our demonstration of a working prototype to NHTSA personnel on June 29th, we would ask you to provide us with your confirmation of our interpretation of Standard 108.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your promptly reply would be greatly appreciated.

Enclosure

July 13th, 1990

Aiming concept for Headlamps. Solution 2. 1) Description of the headlamp.

The lamp is composed of a lens with no aiming pads, a housing bolted on the car body and a reflector which moves independently inside the housing. The lens has a clear area which allows to observe a bubble spirit level fixed on the reflector. This cyli nder has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

The horizontal aiming feature consists in two combined coaxial screws and nut, hereafter referred to as AH and BH. The cap which gives access to the AH screw can be removed by using simple tools. The clearly legible outer surface of BH has graduations representing less than .38 degrees and a total amplitude of .76 degrees to the left and .76 degrees to the right.

2) Vertical reaim.

On the assembly lines of the lamp manufacturer, each lamp is individually aimed thanks to photometric means. The car manufacturer, on its assembly lines, also aims each lamp with photometric means. The position of the seating plane of the housing is ch ecked carefully, and each bubble vial is set to zero and then blocked for life in this position by the lamp manufacturer. To reaim vertically:

2 1) Check the car fulfills the specifications of SAE J 599 May '81. 2 2) Measure the longitudinal angular value of the floor slope. Note the figure and its orientation, positive or negative. 2 3) Operate the aiming control until the bubble has slid by an equal number of fiducial marks in the appropriate direction. 2 4) Do the same for both lamps.

3) Horizontal reaim.

On the assembly lines of the car manufacturer, provisions are taken so that the zero position of the BH nut coincides with the specified aim. To reaim horizontally: Rotate the BH nuts until their fiducial mark coincides with the zero of their body counterparts.

4) Vertical reaim after accident dammage.

This procedure is not part of the normal maintenance of the car. It involves tools which are normally owned by dealers or repair shops. The floor of their premices must be rigid, flat and substantially horizontal.

4 1) Rotate the vertical aiming control until the bubble comes to the zero position. If, after severe dammage, the bubble can not reach the origin of the scale because the stroke of the aiming screw is too small, place shims between the body panel and t he housing.

5) Horizontal reaim after accident dammage.

The remarks of the preceeding paragraph also apply.

5 1) Set to zero the fiducial mark on BH, right hand side. 5 2) Remove the bulb service bonnets, and attach the string aimer to the reflector, as shown on section AA of attached documents. No mispositionning can happen, because the aimer for t he left hand lamp cannot fit into the right hand lamp.

5 3) Unroll the string from its right hand reel and affix it to the opposite string aimer. 5 4) Tightly prevent the BH nut from rotating, remove the cap 5 5) Operate the right hand screw AH until the string comes to the zero of

the fiducial marking on the right hand aimer. 5 6) Symetrizing the instructions, do the same for the left hand lamp, remove aimers, reinstall the bonnets.

It is important to note that this example does not exclude the use of conventionnal means, like the aiming screen or even the more modern fractionnal balance aiming machines. Like for vertical reaim after dammage, shims may be necessary if the stroke of the AH screw does not suffice.

Attachments

Drawing of string aimer left hand unit solution 2. (Graphics omitted.)

Drawing of horizontal aiming feature solution 2. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.; Signature by Kazuo Iwasaki

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-18-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 101)

TEXT:

This letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101 (Controls and Displays) would apply to two vehicle systems that Nissan is considering using. These systems are described below.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering offering a car phone for use in certain of its passenger cars. The car phone would be installed in the vehicle's console, in the lower, forward portion of the driver's field of vision. The car phone would have five visual displays, each of which is bright enough to be seen under all ambient lighting conditions. The illumination for these displays is not variable and the system may not be turned off while the vehicle ignition switch is in the "ON" position.

The first display shows the number that is being dialed (see Figure) through an LED. This display is illuminated whether or not the telephone is in use, and the number being dialed is shown during the time that the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons for dialing numbers. This display is illuminated when the first button is pushed when dialing a number, and the display remains illuminated for a period of ten seconds.

Finally, the system uses three LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use." The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when the system is outside an area where cellular phone service is available (i.e., "no service" ), as determined by the failure of the system's "roaming" function to lock on an available phone line. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when this "roaming" function is operating, when outside the system's local operating area.

It is our understanding that this phone system would comply with FMVSS 101 requirements if the five information displays are considered to be "telltales." The term "telltale" is defined in section 4 of FMVSS 101 as "a display that indicates the actuatio n of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or a failure to function." Since the displays used in the phone system indicate operation of various functions of the phone system, the displays may meet the definition of "telltale" in sec tion 4 of the standard. If so, the system would appear to be consistent with the requirement for telltales in section 5.3.4(a) of FMVSS 101, since the illumination of the displays is bright enough to be visible under all ambient lighting conditions. On the other hand, the system would not appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.5 of the standard

if the displays are considered to be other "sources of illumination," since the displays do not have variable illumination, are brighter than "barely discernible" in night conditions, and may not be turned off without shutting off the vehicle.

Please inform us whether the displays used in this car phone system are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated whenever the air-conditioning system operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. When the air conditioner or the ignition switch is turned "OFF," the indicato r light is extinguished.

Nissan believes that the air conditioner indicator qualifies as a "telltale," since it indicates the "actuation of a device." If the air conditioner indicator display is considered to be a "telltale," it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions.

On the other hand, this display would appear to be comparable to the radio display that is described in NHTSA's January 7, 1988, letter to Isuzu. In that letter, the Agency concluded that the illuminated radio display is considered to be one of the other "sources of illumination" in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 101. Since the radio display can be turned off by turning off the radio, NHTSA considered it to be consistent with section 5.3.5(3). In the same manner, the air conditioner indicator display can be tu rned off by shutting off the air conditioner system. The radio display referred to in the Isuzu interpretation would also seem to meet the "telltale" definition, although the radio display serves the function of aiding tuning of the radio in addition to indicating whether the device is operating.

Please inform us as to whether the proposed air conditioner lighting display is considered to be a "telltale" or an "other source of illumination" under section 5.3.5 of the standard, and whether the display would be consistent with applicable requiremen ts.

If you require further clarification regarding the proposed Nissan systems, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff at 202/466-5284.

(Drawing attached).