ID: nht90-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: R.W. SCHREYER -- SENIOR SALES ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING CORP. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-5-90 TO HARRY THOMPSON FROM R. W. SCHREYER ATTACHED; (OCC 4509). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 12-11-89 TO FRANK BERNDT FROM JOE DABROWSKI, LETTER DATED 3-22-89 TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, AND LETTER DATED 3-25-77 TO ROBERT B. KURRE, WAYNE CORPORATION, FROM FRANK BERNDT. TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompson of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt AssemblY Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented.

First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seatin g positions on buses, but asked if this agency could "provide direction on what course of action (TMC) should take." You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standa rd No. 210.

NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any "guidelines" beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses.

Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 reads as fo llows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to thos e anchorages." You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth.

Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are "floor-mounted" anchorages for "adjacent designated

seating positions." Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only "adjacent" designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant sea t's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-2.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 9, 1990

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

TO: Patrick S. Baran -- I.D.E.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-21-89 To Taylor Vinson and From Patrick S. Baran; Also attached to letter dated 8-2-82 To William R. Harris, Jr. and From Frank Berndt; Attachment SAEJ586c not included.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this office, with respect to "D.O.T. guidelines for tail light brightness" with respect to a "brake light for the back of a motor cycle helmet. I regret the delay in responding.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove items of equipment, but we can provide guidance on the relationship of equipment to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose a copy of a 1982 interpretation with respect to a simila r device, a headlamp intended for installation on a motorcycle helmet. It also represents our views with respect to your device. I enclose also a copy of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, which our Rulemaking office promised you.

We note that you use the term "tail light" and "brake light" interchangeably. In seeking State guidance you should be clear as to whether your device indicates the presence of the cyclist (taillamp), or the application of the brakes of the motorcycle (st op lamp), or both.

ID: nht90-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/90

FROM: HIROSHI OZEKI -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MAZDA

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 06/05/90 ON STD 108 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MITZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION; LETTER FROM FRANK BE RNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO CHUCK HOWARD -- SAFETY ALERT CO, DATED 06/17/83

TEXT: Mazda is exploring the possibility of installing a deceleration warning system on its future models. Such a system would operate using the vehicle's hazard warning system. Under certain circumstances, as of yet undetermined, the hazard lamps (amber in color and flashing) would be activated concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear.

In reviewing FMVSS No. 108 and previous interpretations concerning this standard and considering how each would apply to deceleration warning systems, Mazda has discovered, what its believes, are conflicting interpretations. For your convenience, the interpretations in question have been reproduced as Attachments 01-02. The purpose of this letter is to request your definitive interpretation of this standard with respect to S4.1.3 and the enclosed attachments.

An interpretation issued on June 17, 1983 (Attachment 01), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Berndt, determined that the simultaneous activation of both the rear stop lamps (red in color and steady-burning) and the rear hazard warning system o r rear turn signal lamps (red or amber in color and flashing) is permissible provided, " . . . the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed." In Mr. Berndt's opinion the operation of the rear stop lamps, and the rear hazard warning lamps or turn signal lamps in this manner would not be in violation of S4.1.3. of FMVSS No. 108.

Conversely, an interpretation issued on December 6, 1986 (Attachment 02), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Jones, expressly states that the described deceleration warning system, ". . . must be steady-burning in every mode. There is a good r eason for this requirement, as simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and

steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion. . .", thus, ". . .impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3."

Could you please provide a definitive interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 as they pertain to the deceleration warning system under consideration by Mazda; as described above.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Rob Strassburger (313-930-2513) of my staff or Mr. S. (Ted) Kadoya (202-626-3263) at our Washington, D.C. office.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1990

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney for Petitioner

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson; Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for ruling submitted on behalf of Cantab Motors

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-90 to Lawrence A. Beyer from Paul J. Rice; (A35; Part 591) TEXT:

This letter requests official notification by DOT that Cantab Motors is considered to be a manufacturer by your agency. We have filed the required documents several months ago.

As you may recall, Cantab Motors imports Morgan built non-functional vehicles as parts, which do not have a functional fuel delivery or storage system. Cantab manufactures a propane system for these and completes the compliance with all applicable FMVSS on each vehicle.

Please be reminded that ISIS Motors received such an opinion letter from your office on July 10, 1986 (Addressed to their counsel B. Lew). We would appreciate it if we could receive a similar letter.

Please process the request for exemption as soon as possible, since my client cannot remain in business without having vehicles to sell.

ID: nht90-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/12/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: ACTION: PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE, A 35 PART 543; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: On April 4, 1990, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) submitted a request for approval of a modification to the existing antitheft device for the exempted MY 1990 Porsche 911 and 928 carlines.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes submitted by Porsche, and finds that the system activation process as described by Porsche would not undermine the device and that it would qualify for de minimis treatment. Porsche has changed the antitheft system by allowing it to additionally monitor the glove box for opening. This means that if the glove box is opened while the system is armed, the alarm will be activated. Previously, the antitheft system would only monitor the vehicle's doors, hood, hatc, igni tion switch, and removal of its radio.

The system's alarm control unit will now be integrated with the central locking and interior light control units to save space and to simplify the vehicle's electrical system. Porsche's antitheft system will also now have the capability to accept other inputs such as motion sensors, and improved diagnostic capability to enhance serviceability.

The new system will continue to be armed by locking either the driver or passenger door with the ignition key. The same points of entry will continue to be monitored by the system and the disabling and alarm features will remain the same. The new syste m will also continue to be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by Porsche and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter gra nting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to Porsche, pursuant to Part 543.9(j).

Attachment Letter from Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

ID: nht90-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1990

FROM: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Waltz from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood; (A34; Std. 108) TEXT:

Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a "Determination of Inconsequentiality" for non-compliance. We have been asked to assemble antique-appearing sealed beam headlamps for Lectric Limited.

Lectric Limited, a small manufacturer of parts geared toward the antique automobile industry, perceived a need among automobile collectors and hobbyists for sealed beam headlight bulbs for their cars which cosmetically appeared to be the same as those which were originally supplied with their vehicles. These authentic styled bulbs would enhance the value of their vehicles and also add valuable points to their scores at various shows.

Most of these same auto enthusiasts are acquiring old bulbs from wrecking yards which in most cases are extremely dim due to their age and the fact that they were built to the J579A spec. These old bulbs are also prone to sudden failure which is of no consequence at a car show; but can be hazardous on the occasional drive that these vehicles are sometimes used for. In spite of these risks, auto enthusiasts search the junk yards for these rare bulbs and use them.

After considering this problem, Lectric Limited requested a license from Fisher Guide Division of General Motors to duplicate their original lens design on October 6, 1987. On November 9, 1988, a license was granted to Lectric Limited to produce these bulbs.

On March 4, 1989, Lectric Limited contracted with Corning Glass to produce the lenses in accordance with J579A spec. It should be pointed out, that at the time the order to produce these lenses was given, the J579A spec was still on the books. However, shortly after Corning manufactured the tooling to produce these lenses the J579A spec was taken out of the book.

After the J579A spec was declared obsolete (approximately May, 1989), Lectric Limited requested that Corning attempt to upgrade the lens designed to meet J579C. This change also added to the cost of the project, but since the J579C spec would produce a superior and safer product it appeared that the added expenditure would be justified.

Corning was successful in modifying the design to meet J579C spec without noticeable change to the outward appearance of the bulbs and thereby still allowing these bulbs to be acceptable to the vast majority of antique auto enthusiasts.

Lectric Limited was not aware, at the time, that the markings 1D1 or 2D1 were a part of the spec and were required to be on the top of each bulb

produced. These markings on the face of each bulb would in effect make them useless to the antique auto enthusiasts. With no alternative, the car hobbyist would continue to purchase the unsafe but cosmetically accurate junk yard bulbs.

Lectric Limited is a small company and this waste of funds invested would be devastating to its financial future. This, in turn, would cause layoffs and a curtailment in new investments and projects.

OPTION #1

Wagner is requesting permission to produce these bulbs to 579A spec which would allow the use of the word TOP on #6012 (7") bulbs, #1 on 4001 (5 3/4") bulbs and #2 on 4002 (5 3/4") bulbs. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on the bulbs.

OPTION #2

Wagner would produce these bulbs to meet 579C specs and would use the word TOP on #6014 (7") bulb in place of 2C1, use the #1 designation on the 5001 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 1C1 designation and use the #2 designation on the 4000 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 2C1 designation. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on these bulbs.

ADDENDUM TO OPTION #2

Lectric Limited is willing to ink stamp the 1D1 or 2C1 and DOT designation on either the face and or the rear of each bulb, in order to avoid mistaking these bulbs for J579A spec bulbs.

Lectric Limited would produce an instruction sheet for insertion in each bulb package or print instructions on each box explaining the variations to the end user. This would also help to avoid confusion.

Lectric Limited is also willing to assure that these bulbs will only be marketed through antique auto specialty retailers and not through major chain stores and retail outlets. This, in addition to the added cost of the bulb which will be necessitated by the small production volume, and the need to amortize the tooling cost over a limited run will help to assure that these bulbs will not be in wide use in everyday transportation vehicles.

In short, Lectric Limited is willing to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the NHTSA requirements in order to obtain a reasonable variation to the 579C spec in regard to the 1D1 and 2C1 designation issue.

We believe that this product will, in effect, enhance the safety of antique automotive enthusiasts and a variation should be granted on these grounds as well as the others stated in this request.

ID: nht90-2.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1990

FROM: Michael O'Donnell

TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: Applicable Regulations

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-18-90 to Michael O'Donnell from Paul Jackson Rice; (A35; VSA 108(a)(2) TEXT:

Some time ago, I contacted Ms. Tislghman at telephone #: 1-202-366-2992 inquiring about your departmental regulations regarding non-commercial vehicles. At that time, I was informed that National Highway Transportation Safety Regulations only apply in r egard to the manufacture of New Vehicles and further these regulations only apply in regard to vehicles made/used for commercial application(s).

If this is still the case, I would appreciate a letter from you to that effect. If not, please inform me of any regulations applying to a recreational vehicle/house coach.

The vehicle is a 1977 school bus conversion and is for personal and family use only, not for any type of commercial operation.

I will supply any further information you may require. Thank you for your prompt attention and cooperation.

ID: nht90-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/90

FROM: CARL HEINZ FABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA

TO: BARRY FELRICE, ASSOCIATE -- ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: ARMREST STORAGE COMPARTMENT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/14/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO KARL HEINZ FABER; A35; STANDARD 20

TEXT: In the near future, Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating positions. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storage. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone for the driver so that he can keep his basic attention on driving without having to deal with a small latch. A blue-print of the armrest is enclosed.

Our new armrest complies with the requirements of Standard 201 S3.5.2 which state that armrests that fold into the seat back or between two seat backs shall "Be constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material."

In addition, we believe that the center armrest lid is not covered by S3.3 and S3.3.1, based on the fact that S3.3 (Interior Compartment Doors) is very specific as to the components and the locations of compartment doors which must be tested. It specifi es neither the armrest itself nor a location between designated seating positions as being subject to S3.3.1.

Based on the above and in an effort to remove the car phone from an exposed interior position where it could interfere with the driver's use of controls, potentially be contacted by the head, or be insufficiently secure in case of collision, we will init iate production of the above described phone holder/armrest in the very near future.

If any member of your staff would like additional information, they should please contact Thomas Baloga in our Safety Engineering department at (201) 573-2616.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/90

FROM: MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK PRESIDENT

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/13/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK; A35; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Panda Technik, the North American agent of GEKA Gunther & Kastl GmbH., Eislingen/Fils, West Germany, is contemplating the distribution of the GEKA early warning panel in the United States. As this is a safety related devise, we respectfully request your evaluation of this product's suitability as a supplemental safety reflector. Our main concern is to insure that no laws or regulations are violated in the use of the GEKA early warning reflector.

Safety reflectors of this type are required, by law, in West Germany and we feel can make a significant contribution in the reduction of nighttime accidents in our roads as well.

The GEKA safety reflector consists of a metal backing plate, to which triangular section reflectors are affixed by means of rivets, to form a square reflector body. The individual reflector elements are assembled so that a pattern of diagonal, alternati ng red and white reflective strips is created (other color combinations can be made available as well). This pattern resembles the similarly alternating red and white stripe reflective tape developed by the NHTSA as a measure to increase the nighttime v isibility of on highway trucks.

The purpose of the GEKA reflector is to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationary vehicles which may be positioned in a manner which generates a hazard of collision with oncoming traffic. This is accomplished through a r eflective efficiency up to ten (10) times that of conventional reflectors (such as those required by law on all motor vehicles).

The GEKA reflector is intended solely as a supplemental safety devise and will be advertised as such, with specific mention that this is only an auxiliary devise which in no way replaces, supersedes or eliminates required safety devises or safety procedu res.

Applications for which the GEKA safety reflector are considered beneficial are:

* Slow moving trailers/convoys

* Parked or broken down vehicles within or near roadways

* Public Utility vehicles (i.e. utility line trucks, road crews, etc.)

As mentioned, Panda Technik firmly believes the GEKA early warning reflector can make a substantial contribution in the reduction of nighttime accidents through the increase in visibility and presence of slow moving or stationary vehicles.

Furthermore, the GEKA reflector can be installed with simple hand tools on either the front or rear of the vehicle. In cases where the vehicle is transverse to the flow of the traffic (such as line crews performing telephone or electric repairs) the rem ovable version can be positioned in accordance to the direction of traffic flow and which portion(s) of the vehicle is (are) exposed to the risk of collision.

In order to facilitate your evaluation of the GEKA reflector, a sample has been included. This particular model represents a fixed version, to be deployed whenever needed, which remains in the close, protected position, under normal usage.

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this matter. Should you have any additional questions, require additional documentation or need further test samples please, do not hesitate to contact Panda Technik.

Sincerely

ID: nht90-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BILL WALTZ -- WAGNER DIVISION, COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-13-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM BILL WALTZ ATTACHED; (OCC 4056). TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter requesting permission for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps.

Wagner has been asked to assemble some Headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the 1950's. The lamps would be marked "1" and "2" in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than "2D1", "1C1", and "2C1", as required by Standard No. 108. The DOT symbol would not be provided, "since this obviously was not on the original lamps." You have informed us that the lamps will be made to today's photometric standards" and "subjected to all the tests curren tly required of the round headlights." Finally, "they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers."

I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under 15 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As su ch, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December 1978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of standa rd No. 108, including marking and certification.

Standard No. 108 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, 1968, and January 1, 1969. On January 1, 1972, it became effective for equipment intende d to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for 1950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on 1950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. 108. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. 108, and marked and certified accordingly.

The intended markings "1" and "2" would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE standard J579a, October 1965 (which also did not require the OT symbol on the lens). Until June 1989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. 108 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a.