ID: aiam2410

Dear Mr. Heath: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing a opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated 'December 5, 1975'. (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).; The 1969 letter informed you that 'if one compartment or lamp [in multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.'. The letter also stated that 'lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States.' Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.; There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 10 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.; The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is 'in addition to the minimum required number' as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.; We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 o lens color.; Sincerely,Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for three interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to motorcycle lighting.

Your first question is about the location of rear turn signals. Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires that rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles have a minimum horizontal separation distance "centerline to centerline" of 9 inches. You have asked whether this may be interpreted as filament center to filament center. The answer is no. The phrase means the distance from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other.

Your second question concerns the permissibility of an arrangement of lamps on the rear of a motorcycle. There would be a two-compartment combination stop/tail lamp on the vehicle centerline with separate combination lamps below it on either side of the centerline. The distance between filament centers of the separate lamps would be a maximum 16 inches, and there would be the same distance between the filament centers of each separate lamp and the compartment above it belonging to the two-compartment lamp. You have asked whether this is permissible if the minimum design candlepower complies with requirements for three lighted sections in SAE J585e and SAE J586c, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp is at least 3 1/2 square inches. This arrangement, though unusual, appears to be acceptable. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps and SAE J585e Tail Lamp state that if multiple compartment or multiple lamps are used, and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements, the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. Your design has four lighted sections, whereas the SAE Tables provide values for only three. In our opinion, your design would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Your final question concerns a combination stop/taillamp of four sections, two each on either side of the vertical centerline. Though no distance is given for the filament centers, they appear to be closer than 16 inches. You have asked if this design is permissible provided it meets the requirements for three lighted sections, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment is not less than 3 1/2 square inches. The answer is yes, this is acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 18, 1985

Att. : Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Required Lighting Equipment for Motorcycle

Dear Mr. Vinson,

1) Location of Rear Turn Signal Lamps

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies, is applicable SAE Standard or recommended practice to follow SAE J588e, September 1970. 2-. by 4.2 in the above SAE Standard it reads "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." 3-. Whereas by Table IV in FMVSS 108, when rear turn signal for motorcycle, it specifies, "having minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline of lamps) of 9 inches."

Our interpretation of the above -3 is between filament center to filament center. Please confirm.

As a matter of information, please refer to 6.1 in SAE J131 83MAR, Motorcycle Turn Signal Lamp - SAE Standard.

2) Location of two (2) Multiple Lamp Arrangement including one (1) Multiple Compartment Lamp and minimum design candlepower requirements of Stop/Tail Lamp (rear combination lamp) .

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies as applicable Standards to follow SAE J585e September 1977 for Tail Lamp and SAE J586c August 1970 for Stop Lamp. Would an arrangement on the next page be allowed to use when minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the above SAE Standards and the effective projected luminous Stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

3) Four (4) or more Multiple Compartment Lamp of Tail/Stop Lamp (rear combination lamp).

1-. Would the following lamp as long as minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the SAE Standards in the (2) on the page 1 and each effective projected luminous stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches be allowed to use?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

We would appreciate it very much having your reply as early as possible.

Sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

KW/es

ID: 77-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states are preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which regulates maximum seat spacing.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Section 103(d):

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of the states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.

The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandate minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.

The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states as broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 29, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification regarding the seat spacing requirements of FMVSS 222 vs the seat spacing specifications which have been or are in the process of being adopted by the states.

FMVSS 222 specifies a maximum seat spacing of 20 inches in S5.2.1 measured from the SRP forward to the rear surface of the next seat or barrier.

Some states have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, minimum knee space dimensions from the front of a seat back measured forward to the back of the next seat back. As might be expected, in the specifications which have been adopted so far, there is a lack of uniformity. For example, one specification calls for "a minimum of 24 inches knee space measured horizontally at the seat cushion level at the transverse center line of the seat." This requires 24 inches knee space in the area of the seat back which is recessed for knees but allows less than 24" around the periphery of the seat frame. Another specification requires "24 inches minimum knee space measured across the full width of the seat back." With the latter specification, using a seat back pad recessed in the knee area, the 20 inches maximum spacing requirement of S5.2.1 can easily be exceeded in the recessed area when seats are positioned to get at least 24 inches knee space at the closet point between two seats.

The following is exerpted from the preamble to FMVSS 222 published in the Federal Register of January 27, 1976.

"Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in part:

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat spacing, other than one identical to the Federal requirement for maximum spacing of 20 inches from the SRP, is preempted under @@ 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d)."

Based on this discussion it is our understanding that states are preempted from adopting any school bus seat spacing specification which differs in any way from the requirements of FMVSS 222; i.e. a maximum of 20 inches from the SRP.

Is this understanding correct? If so, we believe it would be helpful if the NHTSA published a bulletin to this effect to the states. This would prevent the adoption of specifications by the states which conflict with FMVSS 222.

Please be assured there is considerable current activity in this area by the states and a solution to this dilemma is urgently needed.

Your early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht88-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/88

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED TO HOWARD WOLPE, REDBOOK A33, SECTION 103(D) FMVSS 222, HSPG 17; TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY

TEXT: Dear Congressman Wolpe,

In response to a phone conversation with one of your staff I would like to ask you to forward the following questions to the Department of Transportation for their response to the individual questions.

I feel that part of Motor Vehicle Safety Program Standard 17 is in direct violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also feel that the manner in which S4.1 in Safety Standard 222 is being interpreted, influences the overloading of the passive restraint system, and nullifies the safety features of the passive restraint system.

Basically, the questions are in regards to the individual seating position for the passenger in the passive restraint system.

QUESTION #1; Is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act enforceable on the States, and school districts, and if so by whom?

QUESTION #2; If it is not enforceable, what is needed to make it enforceable?

QUESTION #3; It is my understanding that Standard 222 is the only enforceable Standard that address the passive restraint system, and is the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system.

Is the specifications in Standard 222 the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #4; S4.1 in Standard 222 says the number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Is the 15 mentioned in S4.1 the size of the individual seating position for a passenger?

If not, what is the width of the individual seating position?

QUESTION #5; I have been told by NHTSA that Standard 222 is for testing, and applies to the manufactures and is a condition of sale for new school buses.

As a result, NHTSA says the capacity for the standard 39 inch bench seat is 3. 39 divided by 15 is 2.6, and rounded to the next whole number is 3.

I have maintained that S4.1 says rounded to the nearest whole number, and the nearest whole number is 2, and not the next whole number of 3.

Understanding that the 6 tenths represents only 9 inches of the minimum 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system mentioned in S4.1, and can not be used as a seating position as it is in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 9 inches is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position in the applicable standard 222 which is still in effect.

The NHTSA says they carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number to insure that the bench seat is tested for the maximum number of seating positions.

I have maintained that the maximum number of seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat is 2, and there is not any need to carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number, even for testing.

I have maintained that the pounds of force that the symbol "W" is multiplied by should reflect the correct formula for testing the bench seat, and by adding a additional seating position to the bench seat to insure that the bench seat is tested for the m aximum number of seating positions, casts a shadow of dought on the formulas in Standard 222.

Also understanding that some fractional parts of the bench seats when divided by 15 is dropped, and others do not have fractional parts, and reflect the number of seating positions without adding the additional seating position as in the case of the 39 i nch bench seat.

The question is, what is the correct method for determining the number of the minimum 15 inch seating positions for any of the bench seats length?

QUESTION #6; It is my understanding that Safety Program Standard 17 is an elective Standard. In Safety Program Standard 17, under Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating (1); Seating shall be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufactures to provide seating accommodation for a

person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

It is my understanding that the manufactures have to comply to Standard 222, and by complying, Standard 222, and the 15 inch seating position mentioned in S4.1 is the intent of the manufactures, and the minimum seating position for the passive restraint system.

Regardless whether Standard 17 is, or is not adopted by a State, is Standard 222 the intent of the manufactures?

If not, what is?

QUESTION #7; It is my understanding that if Standard 222 is the minimum specification for the passive restraint system, the seating position for the 5th percentile adult female mentioned in Standard 17, would be in violation of Section 103 (d) of the Nat ional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 5th percentile adult female has minimum 15 inch seating position in Standard 222 which still is in effect.

Understanding that NHTSA has in an elective Standard, given directions for the use of a seating position that is less than the seating position mentioned in the enforceable Standard.

Also understanding that because of Standard 17 being an elective Standard by the states, and not a requirement of the manufacture, the 5th percentile adult female is not the intent of the manufactures.

Is the 5th percentile adult female seating position in Standard 17 in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #8; The school bus manufactures are rating the capacity of the bus by a 13 inch seating position instead of the 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system.

It is now my understanding that this is because the NHTSA has carried the fractional part of S4.1 to the next whole number instead of to the nearest whole number as S4.1 says.

I have maintained that the passive restraint system is to protect the individual, and the method used by NHTSA launders the individual minimum 15 seating position mentioned in Standard 222.

By NHTSA saying the 39 inch bench seat has 3 considered seating positions, the school districts are saying 39 divided by 3 is 13, and maintain that the 13 inch seating position is the seating position for the standard 39 inch bench seat, even though it i s the 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222, and not the 13 inch seating position.

At the same time the school districts are being told the manufactures have complied to the requirements of Standard 222.

Is the method the manufactures rate the capacity of the school bus in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #9; As a result of the manufactures rating the capacity of the bus by the 13 inch seating position, the third passenger in middle or high school is required to sit in a standard 39 inch bench seat on only 9 inches of the bench seat.

This puts the third passenger outside of the head, and leg impact zones as described in Standard 222, S5.3.1, and S5.3.2., understanding that only one leg is in the impact area, and the head would also miss the intended impact zone, and in the event of a collision that passenger would be thrown out of the bench seat and receive additional injuries that he would not normally receive if he remained inside of the passive restraint systems impact area.

Is the placing of part of the passenger outside of the passive restraint system in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #10; According to the Blue Bird letter, the school bus manufactures follow the specifications of the State, and the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), instead of f ollowing the specification for the seating position in Standard 222.

This is my understanding of a triple violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

First, the States specifications of a 13 inch seating position is less than the 15 inch seating position in the applicable Standard for the passive restraint system, and does effect the performance of the item of equipment by placing the third person in the standard 39 inch bench seat outside of the impact zones for the head, and legs.

Second, the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), is the same as above, and in addition is the recommendations in part of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, a political Subdivision of the States they represent, and they have recommended the 13 inch seating position for the 3-3 seating plan.

And third, the Manufactures have ignored the Standards for the passive restraint system in favor of the States

specifications for a seating position that is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 when rating the school buses capacity.

Also understanding that the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 is not a estimated seating position, and only a seating position above the minimum 15 inch seating position can be rated, or estimated.

Is the above three items in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #11; Standard 222, S4.1 makes reference to a 15 inch seating position. Standard 208, S7.1.1 makes reference to the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male, who has a sitting width of 16.5 inches. Understanding that the seat belt is t o fit a person who is as large as the 95th percentile adult male.

This is the same John Doe sitting in the same length bench seat, and the only difference is in one instance he is sitting on a bench seat in the passive restraint system, and in the other instance he is sitting on the bench seat with seat belts.

Why is there the need of a larger seating position for a person wearing seat belts, than there is for a person seating in the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #12; Because of the trend of wearing seat belts, some school districts are adding seat belts to buses already purchased.

The seat belts are being attached to the 13 inch seating position instead of the 16.5 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 7.1.1. because of the states specifications being 13 inch seating position.

This is also my understanding of a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Is the attachment of the seat belt suppose to be along side of the seating position, or behind the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male?

Respectfully,

ID: 001851cmc

Mr. Agus The
Amsafe Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043


>

Dear Mr. The:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the Locktec child restraint buckle release meets the "two or more finger" requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, as incorporated into FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, the two-finger standard is a width requirement, which is not satisfied simply by the use of two fingers in actuating the buckle release.

S5.4.3.5(c) of FMVSS No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209, except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch [387 mm²]." You state in your letter that: "The Locktec buckle has [a sliding mechanism for release] and not a push button or a lever application." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), your buckle must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate the release. In the photos you provided of the release being actuated, one finger is in the slide action release button and an additional finger is on the buckle base opposite of the sliding mechanism. The placement of the finger on the base merely provides support to the buckle while the release is actuated. Only one finger is accessing the slide action release button.

FMVSS No. 209 requires that a slide action release button be large enough to be accessed by a minimum of two fingers, placed side-by-side. While there is no clear indication of what is meant by "two fingers" in terms of a minimum width, the two-finger requirement of FMVSS No. 209 was included in FMVSS No. 213 to ensure that child restraint buckles are easy to operate.(See, 50 Federal Register 33722.)The buckle release mechanism must be sufficiently large enough to reduce the force to surface ratio required to actuate release. The need to conveniently unbuckle a child restraint system (CRS) is of particular importance in emergency situations when there is a need to quickly remove a child from a CRS.

The release mechanism on your buckle does not accommodate two fingers of a majority of adults. The width of the index finger of a small, 5^th percentile adult female at the knuckle nearest the hand is approximately 16 mm, and the width of the index finger of a 50^th percentile male at the same position is approximately 21 mm. [1] Given the normal reduction in finger width at the tip as opposed to the knuckle nearest the hand and approximating the combined width of the index and middle finger, "two or more fingers" for a 5^th percentile female is approximately 28 mm. The contactable surface for actuating the release on the Locktec buckle is less than 25 mm. As such, the vast majority of adults would be unable to place two fingers side-by-side to actuate the Locktec buckle.

We recognize that there is some ambiguity in the two-finger specification and that a more objective criteria, specifying a minimum linear width would be appropriate. We plan to address this requirement in future rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/25/03





---

[1] Stephen Pheasant, "Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics, and the design of work" 49 (Taylor & Francis) (1996).

ID: nht71-2.8

DATE: 02/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Arctic Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 7 setting forth certain facts about the manufacture and marketing of Arctic mini-bikes, and asking for assurance that Arctic is not a "manufacturer" of "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

The criteria determinative of this question were published in the interpretation on mini-bikes (34 F.R. 15416). Persons who manufacture mini-bikes are not "manufacturers" if they

"(1) do not equip them with devices and accessories that render them lawful for use and registration for use on public highways under State and local laws; (2) do not otherwise participate or assist in making the vehicles lawful for operation on public roads (as by furnishing certificates of origin or other title documents, unless those documents contain a statement that the vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or highways); (3) do not advertise or promote them as vehicles suitable for use on public roads; (4) do not generally market them through retail dealers in motor vehicles; and (5) affix to the mini-bikes a notice stating in substance that the vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or highways and warning operators against such use.

The facts as you state them indicate that Arctic fulfills all but the first criterion. Your letter is not clear on this point,

but it implies that you furnish lighting equipment that is sufficient even without a manufacturer's title documents, to render your mini-bikes registerable in some States. Our position is that a manufacturer who equips his vehicle in such a manner that it is registerable for use on the public roads is a "manufacturer," not withstanding his fulfillment of the remaining criteria, and must comply with all applicable regulations including provision of lighting equipment meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, appropriate certification, and motorcycle consumer information.

ID: nht88-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: D. BURKARD; H. T. EBNER; ALFRED TEVES

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, AND MAY 24, 1974 FROM TEVES TO GREGORY

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You raised several issues concerning the standard in regard to a brake system you are considering p roducing. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

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

The master cylinder reservoir of your proposed brake system can be described as follows. The master cylinder services two brake circuits, Brake Circuit 1 and Brake Circuit 2, and an ancillary unit which itself services Brake Circuits 1 and 2 directly. The total volume (V) of the master cylinder equals V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], where:

V[1] represents the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[1] servicing Brake Circuit 1. The fluid represented by V[1] is not available to Brake Circuit 2 or the ancillary unit.

V[2] refers to the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[2] servicing Brake Circuit 2. The fluid represented by V[2] is not available to Brake Circuit 1 or the ancillary unit.

The sum of V[3] + V[4] refers to the volume of the portion of the reservoir which provides a common supply to Brake Circuits 1 and 2 and the ancillary unit. V[4] refers to that portion of this volume which is above the level where a fluid level indica tor lamp is activated.

You noted that your proposed brake fluid reservoir design differs from conventional designs in having the exit for the ancillary unit. You stated that you believe your design meets the requirements of sections S5.4.2 and S5.3.1(b), and requested confirm ation of your interpretation.

Section S5.4.2 reads as follows: S5.4.2 Reservoir capacity. Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs m ove from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separa te compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston. . . .

With respect to the requirement expressed in the first sentence of section S5.4.2, you stated that the total volume (V), i.e., the sum of V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], of your reservoir is "greater or equivalent to fluid displacement resulting when all whee l calipers move from a new lining position to a fully worn lining position." An issue raised by this statement is whether you are correctly calculating the total volume for purposes of section S5.4.2. More specifically, the issue is whether fluid which i s available for use by the ancillary unit, i.e., the fluid represented by V[3] and V[4], can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2.

It is our opinion that such fluid can be counted, since, even with the presence of the ancillary unit, the fluid is solely available to the brakes. In an October 9, 1981 interpretation to Toyota (copy enclosed), the agency interpreted section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. In that letter, the agency concluded that fluid which was available to both the brakes and the clutch could not be counted, since some or all o f the fluid might be used by the clutch and thus not be available for the brakes. The ancillary unit in your design is not comparable to the clutch, however, since it is part of the brake system and does not use brake fluid for purposes other than for t he brake circuits.

With respect to the requirement expressed in the second sentence of section S5.4.2, your letter indicates that V[1] and V[2] are each greater than or equivalent to the volume displaced by a full stroke of the related master cylinder piston. Given this s tatement, and the fact that compartments V[1] and V[2] are separate compartments such that their fluid is neither available to the other brake circuit or to the ancillary unit, we do not see any particular interpretation question raised by your design fo r this requirement.

For manufacturers choosing to meet Standard No. 105's brake system indicator lamp requirements by means of a fluid level indicator lamp, section S5.3.1(b) requires activation of the lamp under the following condition:

A drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

With respect to this requirement, you stated that (V[1] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[1] + V[3] + V[4]), and that (V[2] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[2] + V[3] + V[4]). An issue raised by this stat ement is whether you are counting the correct fluid in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b).

The issue of which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b) was addressed in the letter to Toyota, discussed above. As discussed in that letter, the minimum warning level is determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment and not the capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommends a higher safe level. In reference to your design, the compartments in question are compartment V[1] and compartment V[2]. Thus the warning level for compartment V[1] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[1]. Similarly, the warning level for compartment V[2] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[2]. This interpretation differs from your stated understanding, and ma y result in a lower minimum warning level. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in your design.

Enclosure

ID: nht91-1.48

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Gary P. Toth -- Attorney, Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation,

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert A. Rogers; Barry A. Felrice; Robert Hellmuth; Steven R. Kratzke

TITLE: Re FMVSS 209 Compliance of GM Dual-Spring Retractor Designs

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary P. Toth (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

On September 11, 1990, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with NHTSA personnel to review several seat belt retractor designs planned for future GM products. These retractor designs included comfort features involving dual-spring rates and intentional set slack capability. By letter dated November 2, 1990 (USG 2829), we sent your office copies of the presentation materials, with a request for confidential treatment.

The purpose of this letter is to seek the agency's concurrence that the two dual-spring retractor designs we reviewed with the agency meet the minimum retraction force requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In connection with this request for interpretation, we also seek the agency's reevaluation of a February, 1984 interpretation, which implies that use of dual-spring retractors planned by GM might be precluded by FMVSS 209. But for that interpretation, GM would have no difficulty in concluding that these designs meet the minimum retraction force requirements of S 4.3(j)(5) and (6) of FMVSS 209, when tested in accordance with S 5.2(j).

Attachments 1 and 2 of this letter contain proprietary information describing in more detail the operation of the systems we reviewed with the agency on September 11. This information is not customarily made public by GM, and contains trade secrets and commercial information within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore, it is our position that these attachments are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Accordingly, pursuant to 49 CFR S 512.4, GM requests that Attachments 1 and 2, which have been stamped "G.M. Confidential", be withheld from public disclosure as confidential business information for an indefinite period (except for any information which will ultimately be publicly disclosed by the availability of these designs in production vehicles). Any disclosure of this information before that time is likely to result in substantial competitive harm to GM for the same reasons set forth in USG 2829 and in the certification provided with that letter.

INTRODUCTION

GM has been a strong advocate of safety belt usage and is continuing to evaluate alternative means for improving the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems. During the September 11 meeting, we reviewed two dual-spring retractor systems, both of which are intended to reduce shoulder belt pressure on all sized occupants, which we know to be a significant factor in belt comfort.

The operation of both of these retractor designs is such that when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant, a lower retractor spring rate is, or can be, engaged to minimize the shoulder belt pressure on the occupant. When the belt is removed, a higher force spring rate is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Detailed descriptions of the operation of the two designs are provided in confidential Attachments 1 and 2.

FEBRUARY, 1984 NHTSA INTERPRETATION

By letter dated February 29, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation to the United States Testing Company, Inc., of Hoboken, New Jersey. That company sought the agency's evaluation of a retractor design utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism), described as a "Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor". The tension reducer device was activated by the vehicle door. With the door open, the mechanism operated in a high tension mode. With the door closed, the mechanism operated in a low tension mode.

The company suggested that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. The company also stated its opinion that: (1) the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force; and (2) the low tension mode be tested for maximum retraction force.

The agency agreed with the company's suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort, but disagreed with the suggestion that only the high tension mode should be tested for minimum retraction force, and that only the low tension mode should be tested for maximum retraction force. In this regard, the agency stated:

... (B)ecause Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range.

The agency's interpretation, however, did not consider, or attempt to reconcile its conclusion with, S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209, which identifies the test procedure for evaluating the retractive forces specified in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). Stated differently, the substantive requirements in FMVSS 209 S4.3(j) (5) and (6) are tied directly to the test procedure in S5.2(j), and there is no analysis of how the United States Testing Company device would perform when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). The 1984 interpretation simply states that both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the specified range without reference to the procedure specified for assessing compliance to these requirements.

Factually, the United States Testing Company device is clearly distinguishable from either of the GM retractor designs. It was apparently designed to activate the lower rate spring simply depending upon whether the vehicle door was open or closed. This is not the case with either of the GM systems reviewed with the agency. The first retractor system requires intentional occupant action -- extracting three to five inches of webbing -- to activate the lover rate spring. The lower rate spring in the second system is activated only when lap belt webbing has been extracted a certain length from its stowed position.

The two GM retractor designs can be tested in accordance with the procedure in S5.2(j) without modifying the hardware or the test procedure. When tested in accordance with S5.2(j), both designs meet the minimum retractor force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). If it were necessary, however, to modify the retractor hardware or test procedure in some way so that the lower rate springs (which would not otherwise be operational) were tested separately, as is suggested by the agency's February, 1984 interpretation, it is unlikely that these springs could meet the minimum retraction force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). However, such an interpretation would impose a new substantive requirement upon dual-spring retractors divorced from the test procedure in S5.2(j).

CLOSING

In closing, GM requests that NHTSA provide us a new interpretation indicating that the dual-spring retractor designs which we reviewed with the agency on September 11, and which are further described in Attachments 1 and 2, would comply with the minimum retractor force requirements of S4.3(j)(5) and (6) if tested in accordance with S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209 without separately testing the lower rate springs. In addition, to minimize future concerns relative to the meaning or effect of the February, 1984 interpretation, we ask that NHTSA reevaluate that interpretation, and consider limiting its effect to the facts presented in the United States Testing Company letter.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented on September 11 will provide a sufficient basis for the agency to concur with GM's determination regarding the compliance of these dual-spring retractor designs with FMVSS 209. However, please contact me if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

ID: nht94-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

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

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/94 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Barbara A. Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the BMW 7 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The propo sed modification is to be effective beginning with the 1995 Model Year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

In a Federal Register notice dated October 9, 1986 (51 FR 3633), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on the MY 1988 BMW 7 car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

In assessing whether changes are de minimis, the agency has focused its inquiry on whether the changed device would continue to provide the same aspects of performance as did the device on which the exemption was based. An example of a de minimis change is the substitution of new components for old components, without changing the aspects of performance provided by the device. NHTSA has also determined that adding a new aspect of performance, making an exempted antitheft device even more effective, wh ile leaving the original aspects undisturbed, is a de minimis change.

The change from the original BMW MY 1988 antitheft device to the one proposed for the MY 1995 BMW 7 car line does not present a simple case of either substituting new components for old, without changing the aspects of performance provided, or enhancing the effectiveness of an existing device, by adding a new aspect. Instead, the change is more complex, involving not only the addition of a new aspect (monitoring glass breakage), but also the deletion of some original aspects (monitoring the radio and g love box).

2

The agency is uncertain about the net effect of these changes and is therefore also uncertain whether the new modified device would be at least as effective as the original device. Monitoring glass breakage might decrease the likelihood that a would-be thief would ever enter a vehicle. On the other hand, adding this aspect of performance would not necessarily enhance effectiveness of the antitheft device. If a thief were to gain access to the passenger compartment with a slim-jim or other tool, witho ut breaking the glass, no alarm would sound, making the inside compartment vulnerable to theft. Further, no alarm would sound if the thief then tampered with the radio or glove box, individually.

NHTSA believes that the necessity for making judgments about the relative effectiveness of new and removed aspects of performance, and the complexity of the issues underlying those judgments, indicate that the changes are not de minimis. Indeed, these ju dgments are similar to the ones that the agency must make in considering a new petition for exemption.

Accordingly, if BMW wishes the planned MY 1995 device to be the basis for a theft exemption, it must submit a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information or the m odified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor on (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht90-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/90

FROM: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR.,-- SNUG SEAT, INC.

TO: ERIKA T. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-15-90 TO N. B. SCOTT, JR., FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 213); ALSO ATTACHED--PHOTOGRAPH (OMITTED)

TEXT:

During a meeting held at NHTSA offices on June 13, 1990, 1 presented a new product being introduced to the market in the next 60 days which will transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position.

This "LBW" car bed is to be called the Mini-Swinger and will be represented as appropriate for infants no longer than twenty (20) inches and no more than eight to ten (8-10) pounds in weight. The Mini-Swinger was developed as a safer means of transporta tion for the "LBW" population of infants that do not have the skeletal/muscular structure required for safe transportation in the standard rear facing six (6) month old car seats. The Mini-Swinger is protected by patent number 4,113,306 issued to Mr. vo n Wimmersperg and owned by the West German firm, Romer-Britax.

As FMVSS 213 does not deal directly with infants of this size we would like an opinion on the following:

In order to certify to FMVSS 213 we are required to place the six (6) month old seventeen (17) pound dummy in the Mini-Swinger. The six (6) month old dummy's torso fits in the Mini-Swinger; however, the legs do not. A dynamic crash test showed the dumm y staying in the shell and the shell maintaining its integrity.

Given that FMVSS 213 does not address the comfort of the occupant of a car seat, we need to know if you accept our testing as adequate relative to the present standard.

On July 8, 1988, you wrote a six (6) page letter to Donald Friedman, Liability Research, Inc., relative to a similar issue. During review of this letter, it seems evident to me the testing we have done is an acceptable test for compliance to FMVSS 213.

Would you please review our request and let me know your thoughts at the earliest convenience?