ID: 2620y

Mr. Brian Gill
Senior Manager
Certification Department
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
100 West Alondra Boulevard
P. O. Box 50
Gardena, California 90247-0805

Dear Mr. Gill:

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 of 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 marking. 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 durability 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 control 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 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 aspects 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 provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:7/ll/90

ID: 1982-2.40

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 16 1982

AIR MAIL

Mr. Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section Ichikon Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara City Kanagawa 259-11 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Takata:

This is in reference to your letter of June 30, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency concerning the effective luminous lens area of a front turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 with respect to three proposed designs.

We assume that you wish to know what is the effective projected luminous lens area for a front turn signal on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The SAE Standard No. J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," which you quote, imposes no additional requirements for a two compartment front turn signal lamp. Thus, it appears that so long as you meet the minimum of 3.5 square inches for a single compartment lamp, your proposed designs (Case 1 and 2) meet the necessary requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Case 3 would not conform as neither of the two section compartments meets the 3.5 square inch minimum.

Sincerely,

Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

L57/30 June 30, 1982

Mr. Marx Elliott Program Manager Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Effective projected luminous area of Front Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We would like to inquire as follows. FMVSS 108 references SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, and SAE J588e prescribe Effective Projected Luminous Area as follows.

SAE J588e

3.2 The effective projected luminous area of a single compartment lamp measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp must be at least 8.0 sq in. for a rear lamp and at least 3.5 sq in. for a front lamp.

3.3 If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 3 1/2 sq. in. provided the combined area is at least 8 sq in.

That is, in the case of front turn signal lamp, section 3.2 provide that Effective Projected Luminous Area should be more than 3.5 sq in.

But when we want to take into account of two compartments of front turn signal lamp, may we understand that the following cases are acceptable for FMVSS 108.

*Insert artwork

Condition of Effective Projected Luminous Area

Area A Area B A + B

Case 1 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2

Case 2

/3.5 in.2

Case 3 < 3.5 in.2 <>/3.5 in.2

We await your early reply.

Very truly yours, ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section

ID: 7641

Mr. Dan Trexler
Thomas Built Buses
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Trexler:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your questions about requirements addressing the activation of a stop signal arm and the permissibility of a manual override device. In addition, I am enclosing a September 14, 1992 interpretation letter from this agency to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which explains these requirements.

As your letter indicates, there are two different types of lamp systems on school buses: a four lamp system with four red lamps and an eight lamp system with four amber and four red lamps. You asked several questions about the stop arm's activation and the manual override device.

You first ask whether the stop arm is required to extend every time the signal lamps in a four lamp system are activated. (emphasis in original). As a general rule, S5.5 of Standard No. 131 requires that the stop arm be automatically extended at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps are activated. Nevertheless, Standard No. 131 includes an exception to this general rule which permits the installation of an override device. If the override device were activated, then the stop arm would not extend.

Your second question addresses the operation of the stop arm on buses with an eight lamp system. Specifically, you ask whether the stop arm is required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by opening of the bus entrance door or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated. (emphasis in original).

As stated above, Standard No. 131 includes provisions addressing the activation of the stop signal arm. Standard No. 131 requires the stop arm to be automatically extended whenever the red signal lamps are activated, whether those lamps are activated by opening the bus door or for some other reason. Of course, the stop arm may be extended for a longer period of time than when the red signal lamps are activated, given that Standard No. 131 includes the phrase "at a minimum" in explaining when the stop arm must be extended. In the final rule establishing Standard No. 131, the agency addressed methods of stop arm activation used by Washington State, Illinois, and Florida in which the stop arm was activated to control traffic before the door was opened. (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991).

Your third question asked whether a device may be used that is capable of remaining in the "override" position with only a one time activation by the driver. The override would have an audible signal that would automatically sound for at least 60 seconds and would automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. As mentioned above, Standard No. 131 permits a device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm. In our September 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Lyle Walheim from the State of Wisconsin, we explain a situation in which an override would be permissible. Based on S5.5 of Standard No. 131 and the September 14, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Walheim, it would appear that the override device you describe also would be permissible.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:131 d:10/2/92

ID: nht88-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph 54.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembl y is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assemb ly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicl e. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1987 Ref: W-253-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., on behalf of Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, "Lam ps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Among its requirements, S4.1.1.36(b) (3) of Standard 108 stipulates that the replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1 - "Aiming Adjustment Test" of SAE J580 AUG79, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

Item 6.1.1 of the above-referenced "Aiming Adjustment Test" states that, "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of + 4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes."

Nissan's question is whether this minimum aiming adjustment requirement is to be achieved:

1. by the headlamp assembly (by the component unit) itself, or

2. by both the headlamp assembly (as a component unit)

and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the

vehicle?

Erika Jones June 30, 1987 Page Two

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington staff at (202) 466-5284, if you have any questions or require further details. I would appreciate it if you would please also notify Mr. Hayashi when your respons e has been issued.

Sincerely,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

ID: nht92-3.30

DATE: October 2, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dan Trexler -- Thomas Built Buses

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lyle Walheim (Std. 131) and letter dated 8/10/92 from Dan Trexler to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7641)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your questions about requirements addressing the activation of a stop signal arm and the permissibility of a manual override device. In addition, I am enclosing a September 14, 1992 interpretation letter from this agency to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which explains these requirements.

As your letter indicates, there are two different types of lamp systems on school buses: a four lamp system with four red lamps and an eight lamp system with four amber and four red lamps. You asked several questions about the stop arm's activation and the manual override device.

You first ask whether the stop arm is required to extend every time the signal lamps in a four lamp system are activated. (emphasis in original). As a general rule, S5.5 of Standard No. 131 requires that the stop arm be automatically extended at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps are activated. Nevertheless, Standard No. 131 includes an exception to this general rule which permits the installation of an override device. If the override device were activated, then the stop arm would not extend.

Your second question addresses the operation of the stop arm on buses with an eight lamp system. Specifically, you ask whether the stop arm is required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by opening of the bus entrance door or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated. (emphasis in original).

As stated above, Standard No. 131 includes provisions addressing the activation of the stop signal arm. Standard No. 131 requires the stop arm to be automatically extended whenever the red signal lamps are activated, whether those lamps are activated by opening the bus door or for some other reason. Of course, the stop arm may be extended for a longer period of time than when the red signal lamps are activated, given that Standard No. 131 includes the phrase "at a minimum" in explaining when the stop arm must be extended. In the final rule establishing Standard No. 131, the agency addressed methods of stop arm activation used by Washington State, Illinois, and Florida in which the stop arm was activated to control traffic before the door was opened. (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991).

Your third question asked whether a device may be used that is capable of remaining in the "override" position with only a one time activation by the driver. The override would have an audible signal that would automatically

sound for at least 60 seconds and would automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. As mentioned above, Standard No. 131 permits a device that prevents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm. In our September 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Lyle Walheim from the State of Wisconsin, we explain a situation in which an override would be permissible. Based on S5.5 of Standard No. 131 and the September 14, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Walheim, it would appear that the override device you describe also would be permissible.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-2.49

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Registry of Motor Vehicle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1976, question whether specific aspects of Massachusett's requirements for the construction, location, and size of fuel tanks in school buses would be preempted by the Federal requirements for school bus fuel system integrity that become effective April 1, 1977 (Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity). I regret that we have not responded to your questions sooner.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In the cases you cite, it appears that the fuel tank seams and the location of the tank are items of design that are identical to the aspects of performance (integrity of the fuel system) regulated by the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301-75. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that these aspects of fuel system construction are preempted by Standard No. 301-75, effective April 1, 1977. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate fuel tank size.

The second sentence of @ 103(d) 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. Thus the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its political subdivisions could specify additional fuel system features in the case of public school buses. 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. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

June 29, 1976

Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Department of Transportation

Enclosed is a copy of current rules and regulations concerning minimum standards for construction and equipment of school buses. We have two distinct bus categories, a type I bus has a seating capacity of seventeen or more passengers and a type II bus has a seating capacity of sixteen or less passengers.

On page 16 under fuel system we specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank for either type bus and we also state where said tank shall be mounted. We also require both type buses to have a tank meeting Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. On the type II school bus, the chassis manufacturers have a tank that is mounted at the rear of the vehicle. We have always considered this as a hazardous and dangerous location. A small bus hit in the rear, with a fire ensuing in that area would render the emergency door useless for evacuation. The same would apply when such a bus is tipped over on its' right side rendering the service entrance useless. If a fire occurred at the rear, the emergency door could not be used and the children would be trapped inside the vehicle.

In reference to F.M.V.S. Standard 301, Fuel System integrity I am posing several questions.

1. Will this standard pre-empt Massachusetts requirements for special heavy duty welded seam fuel tanks on both type I and type II school buses?

2. Will this standard force us to accept a standard 301 tank mounted wherever the chassis manufacture wishes to mount same or can we retain our requirement of mounting the tank on either side of a type II school bus.

3. Will this standard specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank?

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor School Bus Inspection

[ENCLOSURE OMITTED.]

ID: nht94-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: William G. Franz -- Vice President Fabrication, Wells Aluminum Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/4/94 from William G. Franz to Walter Myers (OCC 9857)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Franz:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Walter Myers of this office requesting an interpretation of window opening size as provided in paragraph S5.1.2, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explained that Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures pushout windows for the school bus industry. You asked whether the 8-inch window opening size referred to in paragraph S5.1.2 applies to the "total outside frame dimension" or to each pane of gl ass. "In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test [of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 217]?" To illustrate your question, you enclosed with your letter a picture of an upper/lower-pane pushou t window which was positioned for a retention test.

To be excluded from Standard No. 217's window retention requirement, the entire window, and not just a pane of the window, must be less than the 8-inch window opening size described in S5.1.2 of the standard. Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 217 specifies reten tion requirements for windows other than windshields in buses. Paragraph S5.1.2 provides that those requirements do not apply to "a window whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 8 inches." This exemption of 8 -inch windows was included in the standard in the final notice establishing the standard, published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1972 (37 FR 9394). In the preamble to that notice the agency stated at 37 FR 9395:

Since there is little likelihood of passenger ejection or protrusion from window openings whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of the area is less than 8 inches, an exemption for windows of this size has been granted (emphasis adde d).

2

It is clear that the intent of the agency in providing this exemption was to exempt window openings, as measured by the perimeter of the window, not just individual panes of glazing material. A window can be composed of more than one pane of glazing mat erial, such as the window in the picture you provided, where 1 or more individual panes may have a minimum dimension smaller than 8 inches, but the whole window is larger than 8 inches. Regardless of the size of the individual panes which make up a wind ow, passenger ejection or protrusion could occur through such a window opening. Since ejection through such a window is precisely what the standard was intended to prevent, S5.1 would apply.

We note that you did not explain what you meant by "total outside frame dimension" and the meaning of the quoted phrase is not entirely clear. We assume you meant the entire window opening which, for the window in your picture, would include the combina tion of both panes and the window frame. Thus, for purposes of S5.1.2, we would measure both the pane and the window frame.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ncc-20WMyers; mar:7/25/94:62992:OCC 9857 Ref:217 U: NCC20 INTERP 217 9857.WKM Greenbook: (2); Interps: Std. 217 Coord: NRM, NEF

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: aiam4418

Dear Mr. Rossow: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. Section S6.2.1 of that standard specifies for certain tests conducted on a dynamometer that '(t)he dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.' According to your letter, you have interpreted the term 'equivalent' in this section to 'authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual stopping conditions.' You requested confirmation of this interpretation. As discussed below, we disagree with your suggested interpretation.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; As indicated in your letter, your request for an interpretation wa submitted in light of recent correspondence between your company and NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). OVSC requested you to submit information on the compliance with Standard No. 121 of the Mercedes-Benz model L-1317, a two axle straight truck. You responded to that request by submitting a compliance certification and interpretation concerning section S6.2.1. In letter dated April 9, 1987, OVSC informed you that it did not agree with your interpretation.; Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are set forth in section S5.4 That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. One of those conditions, set forth in S6.2.1, is as follows:; >>>S6.2.1 The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to th load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating. For a vehicle having additional gross axle weight ratings specified for operation at reduced speeds, the GAWR used is that specified for a speed of 50 mph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, any speed greater than 50 mph.<<<; In support of your suggested interpretation, you noted that axle load of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions, i.e., as a vehicle travelling forward decelerates, the load on the axles shifts so that the front axle load rises and rear axle load falls. You stated that it is your reading of Standard No. 121 that the manufacturer 'can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in view of actual vehicle behavior.' With respect to gross axle weight rating (GAWR), you suggested that when used in the context of Parts 567 and 568, the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit determination of whether the load carrying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. For dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions, however, you argued that such tests should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration.; You then stated the following: >>>The language of S6.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicate that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the 'equivalent' to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAWR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This language is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an 'equivalent' loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the tests required by S5.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word 'equivalent.'<<<; We disagree with your suggested interpretation, which we believe i inconsistent with the language of S6.2.1, past interpretations of that provision, and the compliance test procedures the agency has long followed with respect to this provision. As indicated above, S6.2.1 specifies that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is 'equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.' The phrase 'equivalent to the load' uses the singular 'load,' instead of the plural 'loads,' to show that the dynamometer inertia has only a single value. By itself, this suggests that S6.2.1 was not intended to provide multiple options for the dynamometer inertia setting, depending on the dynamic conditions simulated.; Further, the overall language of S6.2.1 shows how the singl dynamometer inertia setting is to be determined. The term 'GAWR' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.' When an axle is loaded to its load-carrying capacity, there is one 'load on the wheel,' at whose 'equivalent' the dynamometer inertia must be set.; While we believe that the language of section S6.2.1 is clear on th issue raised by your letter, we also note that agency guidance in the form of past interpretation letter and OVSC's laboratory procedures for Standard No. 121 are also clear. In an interpretation letter to Wagner Electric, dated May 26, 1972, the agency stated:; >>>In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamomete inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.; <<>>Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is movin as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they affect the outcome of testing.<<<; We do not agree that this letter supports your suggeste interpretation. The letter addressed only the issue of how a requirement should be read in view of the absence of a particular test condition. As explained at length above, we conclude that section S6.2.1 clearly specifies the particular test conditions to be followed for this section. Therefore, the Oshkosh letter is not relevant to requests for interpretation of S6.2.1.; You also argued that in order to provide an appropriate braking system with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions. You stated that such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle. You also argued that NHTSA has recognized your braking system as 'a safe and effective system' in its research testing.; We agree that a manufacturer must take into account the transfer o weight from the rear axle to the front axle when designing an appropriate braking system. This is necessary to provide safe brake performance during varying loading conditions, for normal and emergency brake applications on varying road conditions, and it is so for all kinds of vehicles. However, the requirements of Standard No. 121 do not require vehicles to have too much rear braking, as you appear to imply. The requirements of S5.4.2 (Brake Power), and S5.4.3 (Brake Recovery), are minimum performance requirements intended to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. In practice, in order to perform well in such conditions, both front and rear brakes must have a minimum capacity, and this capacity is related to GAWR despite the fact that the actual loads borne by the front and rear axles vary during different brake applications. The agency therefore referred to GAWR in section S6.2.1, because this is an objective value that is readily ascertainable for every vehicle, and performance based on this value meets the particular safety need provided for by the requirements of section S5.4. These minimum requirements are not intended, nor do they operate, as a restriction on the design decisions that manufacturers must make independently to distribute braking capacity to meet anticipated load distributions.; Contrary to your assertion, NHTSA has not concluded that your brak system is 'safe and effective.' We also note that the quotations of the agency's research report cited in your letter address only limited aspects of braking performance and are taken out of context. We note that you stated that '(t)he Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were '. . .well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level.' (p. 19).' A more complete quotation is as follows:; >>>. . . In the empty driver best effort stops the driver was also abl to utilize this peak friction, although not as effectively as the antilock, because the brakes on front and rear axles of the vehicle were well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level. In the loaded case, however, the front axle tended to lock prematurely and it was not possible for the driver to maintain all four wheels near the peak friction level. He could keep the front tires near the peak but when this occurred rear braking was relatively low. If he applied more braking, the front axle locked and he lost steering control due to lack of lateral traction at the front tires.'<<<; Based on the information before the agency, OVSC is continuing it investigation concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 121.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. First you asked if the 17-character vehicle identification number (VIN) required on original equipment engines and transmissions had to appear in a single line. You stated that your Client would like to mark the engines and transmissions by splitting the VIN into two groups, with the second group of characters directly below the first. Such markings could comply with Part 541. Second, you asked if your client could use a trademark that has less than one centimeter high for marking replacement parts. Markings less than one centimeter high would not comply with the requirements of Part 541 applicable to replacement parts. These conclusions are explained in detail below.

If a vehicle manufacturer was not identifying its engines and/of transmissions with at least an 8-Character VIN derivative as of October 24, 1984, S541.5(b)(1) requires the engine and transmission to be marked with the full 17-character VIN. That section does not require that the 17 Characters appear on the same line. However, the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541 explained the-policy reasons for requiring the full 17-Character VIN as follows:

One of the primary purposes of the Theft not is to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to establish that a vehicle or a major part is stolen. ... If this purpose is to be promoted,this standard must ensure that police officers learning of suspicious, potentially stolen vehicle parts can quickly verify whether those parts are stolen. 50 FR 43168, October 24, 1985.

In the agency's view, S511.5(b)(1) requires that the full 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN here placed on the lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.

Your second question Has whether your Client could mark replacement parts by using a trademark that was one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter high. You explained that your client's trademark is wider than it is tall. After noting that the one centimeter height requirement was adopted so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit (50 FR 43177), you stated your opinion that a one centimeter wide trademark would serve these purposes as effectively as a one centimeter high trademark.

Section 541.6(c) reads as follows: "The trademark and the letter "R" required by paragraph (a) of this section must be at least one centimeter high." Any marking of the trademark which is less than one Centimeter high would not comply with this requirement, regardless of how wide the marking is.

However, the stated reasons for promulgating the minimum height requirement for trademarks were to ensure that they would be both clearly legible for investigators and more difficult for thieves to counterfeit. See 50 FR 43177, 43178, October 24, 1985. The agency did not specifically consider the situation where a trademark is wider than it is high. When a trademark is wider than it is high, it would be as clearly legible and as difficult to Counterfeit as a trademark that is higher than it is wide. However, the wider trademark might not comply with the standard while the higher trademark would. It does not appear that any purpose of the theft prevention standard is served by this anomalous result.

Accordingly, we have treated your letter as a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552, and it is hereby granted. We will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this topic shortly. Please note that, unless and until an amendment becomes effective as a final rule, S541.6(c) requires the trademark on replacement parts to be one centimeter high.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Regulatory Interpretation 49 CFR Parts 541 and 556 Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Porsche has two questions concerning the final rule implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Enforcement Act of 1984 (49 CFR Parts 541 and 567).

First, may the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number marking to be placed on the engine and on the transmission be affixed on two lines rather than on a single line, assuming that the second line is directly below the first? Securing a flat surface on the transmission and on the engine with sufficient length to place a seventeen digit number on a single line is extremely difficult, and Could tend to impair the legibility of the number. Allowing the marking to be placed on two lines, one directly below the other, would afford is substantially greater flexibility and would improve its readability. There is no prohibition we could find in the rules to placing the VIN number on two lines, with the second line directly below the first. (See 49 CFR Sections 541.5 and 567.4(g)).

Second, may Porsche use a trademark which is at least one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter tall on the replacement parts? Replacement parts must be marked with the manufacturer's register trademark. 49 CFR 541.6. However, Porsche has an implementation problem in that its trademark is longer than it is tall.

A trademark is to have a minimum height of one centimeter. 49 CFR 541 6(c). The rationale for the minimum size for the trademark is to insure its visibility and to make it more difficult to counterfeit. As the Statement of Consideration for the final rule provides:

"NHTSA proposed the one cm minimum height for these markings so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit."

50 Fed. Reg. 43,177(1985) Porsche completely agrees with NHTSA's two interests but believes they would be equally well met with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in length as with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in height. Such an alternative standard would permit Porsche to position the trademark in the optimal location.

We would appreciate your early response to these issues.

Your truly,

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq., Associate Chief Counsel for Rule Making

Stephen R. Kratzke Esq., Office of General Counsel

Brian McLaughlin, Office of Market Incentives