ID: nht92-9.13

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anonymous

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/14/91 from anonymous to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. You asked whether vehicles that incorporate any of five proposed designs that your company has developed would comply with the standard's new provisions at S4.2.2(b) that permit transmission shift override devices. As you may know, that section of Standard No. 114 was amended by NHTSA after you prepared your letter. See 57 FR 2039, January 17, 1992 (copy enclosed). This letter reflects that amendment. The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

Before discussing the substantive issues that you raised, I note that you requested confidential treatment of the identity of the source of the material that you submitted. This request was granted by NHTSA in a letter dated December 9, 1991. Accordingly, references to your identity will be deleted from the copies of your incoming letter and our response that are placed in the public docket.

By way of background information, 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 and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your five proposed designs can be described as follows:

PROPOSAL ONE: An override button would be provided that is covered by a small non-transparent plastic access panel on the horizontal surface of the automatic transmission shift gate. The cover would be held in place by barbed features that are incorporated into the cover and which engage with the walls of the shift gate. In order to remove the cover, one would apply a blade-like device such as a knife or screwdriver to a 2 mm vertical gap between the shift gate and the surface of the horizontal member of the cover, and pry the cover upward. A vertical load of approximately 5 to 10 kg is necessary to remove the cover. Once the cover is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by depressing the override button.

PROPOSAL TWO: This design would be identical to Proposal One, except that the override button is replaced by a threaded screw. Once the cover is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by using a screwdriver to turn the screw.

PROPOSAL THREE: An override device would be provided that is covered by a small non-transparent plastic access panel. The cover would be held in place by a cross recessed counter screw. In order to remove the cover, one would

use a screwdriver to remove the screw. Once the cover is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by inserting a screwdriver or similar tool through the hole created by the removal of the cover screw.

PROPOSAL FOUR: An override device would be provided that is underneath the console finisher panel. A special access panel would not be provided for the override device; instead, the entire finisher panel would be removed to obtain access. The finisher panel would be fabricated from injection molded plastic resin, which has some degree of flexibility. To remove the finisher panel, one would place a screwdriver or similar tool in a 6 mm crease at the surface of the panel to housing interface and apply a prying action. Once the finisher panel is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by depressing the actuation link.

PROPOSAL FIVE: An override button would be provided that is covered by a non-removable cover. The cover would have a slot to permit access to the override device. To actuate the device, a key, screwdriver, or similar tool would be inserted though the slot so that the override button is depressed.

Section S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows:

S4.2.2(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

Section S4.2.2 (b)(1) becomes effective on September 1, 1992; section S4.2.2 (b)(2) becomes effective on September 1, 1993. Thus, vehicles manufactured between September 1, 1991 and August 30, 1992 may have a transmission shift override device provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. Therefore, provided that steering is prevented, all five of your proposed override devices would be permitted during that time period.

For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, an additional requirement must be met. For these vehicles, the override device must either be operable by the key defined in S3 or be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

It is our opinion that none of your proposed designs would be operable by the key defined in S3. While the override device described in Proposal 5 could be activated by inserting a screwdriver or any key (including the key defined in S3) through the slot in the access panel, we interpret the term "operable by the key defined in S3" to refer to the normal use of the key and not to using it in place of a screwdriver.

There remains the question for each of your proposed designs of whether the override device would be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. As discussed below, it is our opinion that your Proposal 3 design would meet this requirement, your Proposal 5 design would not meet the requirement, and we are uncertain, based on the facts provided in your letter, as to whether your Proposal 1, 2, and 4 designs would meet the requirement.

We believe it is clear that your Proposals 1 through 4 designs would meet the first part of the requirement set forth above, i.e., the override device would be operable by a means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The second part of the requirement is that the non-transparent surface must be removable "ONLY by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." (Emphasis added.) It is our opinion that your Proposal 3 design would meet this part of the requirement, since the cover would be held in place by a screw and could be removed only if a person used a screwdriver or similar tool to remove the screw.

While the covers in your Proposal 1, 2 and 4 designs can be removed by using a screwdriver or similar tool to "pry" them off, it is unclear whether the covers are removable "only" by those means. In particular, we are unable to determine whether a person might pry the covers off by using his or her hands or fingernails. Therefore, we are unable to provide an opinion of whether those designs would comply with section S5.2.2(b)(2).

It is our opinion that your Proposal 5 design would not comply with section S5.2.2(b)(2), since the non-transparent surface (cover) would not prevent activation of the override device. Your letter also proposes to identify the transmission shift override device by placing the words "shift lock" in white lettering on the surface that covers the shift lock override mechanism. Nothing in Standard No. 114 or any other standard would prohibit identifying the override device in that manner. However, it might be more helpful to place the words "shift lock override" on the surface as these words more accurately describe the device that is accessible by removing the surface.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.14

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Lance Watt -- Director of Engineering, The Flxible Corporation

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Paul J. Rice to Lance Watt (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Flxible Corporation is a major domestic manufacturer of city transit buses and requests an interpretation concerning FMVSS 108, "Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment," while also referencing FMVSS 121 "Air Brake Systems."

An air brake system is used on our vehicles. As the driver starts to apply the service brake pedal to slow or stop the vehicle, a service brake stop lamp switch is activated. The stop lamp switch is installed to comply with Section S5.1.7 of FMVSS 121, "Air Brake Systems." The stop lamps are in turn activated by the stop lamp switch.

The Flxible Corporation offers optional transmissions which have internal hydraulic retarders for supplemental braking as a means to increase brake lining life. This retardation deceleration would be over and above that obtained by the normal service brake system. In our current design, the transmission retarder is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn triggers the stop lamp switch which in turn illuminates the stop lamps.

The Flxible Corporation has received requests from customers to activate the transmission retarder when the ACCELERATOR pedal is released. In this scenario, the service BRAKE pedal would not be used to activate the transmission retarder. However, if required, the driver could also depress the brake pedal to in turn activate the service brakes in order to achieve an even higher rate of vehicle deceleration over and above that obtained by the transmission retarder itself.

If the brake pedal were not depressed however, and with the vehicle deceleration caused solely by transmission retardation, the stop lamps would not be illuminated and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed.

Some of our customers have also requested to have the transmission retarder activate the stop lamps to provide following vehicles with a warning that a sudden reduction in vehicle speed was in progress, even though it was caused by the transmission retarder as opposed to a service brake application. Again, this application of the stop lamps would be achieved by release of the accelerator and without depressing the brake pedal, and potentially without any intent to apply the service brakes on the part of the driver.

Section S5.5.4 states: "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This is interpreted by Flxible to mean the brake pedal would activate the service brakes which would activate the stop

lamp switch which in turn would activate the stop lights. By virtue of our customer's requests, the stop lamps would already be activated when the driver released the accelerator pedal and without any application of the brake pedal.

Flxible has in the past requested a NHTSA ruling on a further scenario outside of that, but somewhat related to that which is described here-in. Please find attached a copy of that request along with a copy of your response for reference.

Additionally, some of our customers, especially those in locations likely to experience icy or slippery road conditions, request a retarder cut off switch in order to disable the retarder and reduce the possibility of uncontrolled drive axle wheel lock-up. In cases such as this, without a dual system that would then allow stop light switch and stop light activation to be caused by application of the brake pedal as in our standard system today, a stop light activation would occur at the time of accelerator release with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes.

Flxible to date has resisted the customer requests as noted, however, these customers, without a specific NHTSA ruling on the request as stated above, threaten to declare Flxible a non responsive bidder on transit bus procurements. The basis of their complaints or requests in this regard stem from the fact that they require operating standardization across their various manufacturer fleets to prevent operator error or confusion.

A ruling is requested on whether a non-compliance with Section S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 would result, if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers.

Flxible appreciates the opportunity to petition for a ruling in this complex matter so that we may use your response accordingly in responding, to our customer's requests.

Should you desire any further clarification or information on this subject, please feel free to contact the writer at (614) 362-2730.

ID: nht92-9.15

DATE: February 10, 1992

FROM: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet / Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeff Ruff (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Several months ago I wrote you voicing my concern with FMVSS 208 and how it affects the transportation needs of the physically challenged. My concern in that letter was the head clearance needed for wheelchair passengers and our inability to cut the "B" pillar support brace from the chassis.

Since my first letter, we at The Braun Corporation have been busy adapting the new vehicles to the needs of our customers. One of our more recent observations concerns the location of the front passenger shoulder belt anchorage point. As you will see in the pictures, the original anchorage point for this vehicle was above the front side cargo door. Because the transportation needs of the physically challenged sometimes demand extended doors for added head clearance, this anchorage point must be moved. The obvious choice for relocating this is at the "B" pillar. (Please note picture.) However, when relocating the anchorage point the OEM FMVSS 208 certification is voided.

Please advise us as to how our industry can adapt to this requirement. I would appreciate a response to not only this letter, but the letter dated October 30, 1991.

Your immediate response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-9.16

DATE: February 10, 1992

FROM: Brad Beach

TO: Taylor Vinson -- U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Brad Beach (A39; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing you to obtain information and literature on the laws and restrictions of attaching objects to the rear and side windows of the automobile.

I am interested in putting an object that is rectangle in shape with dimensions of 18 inches in length and 12 inches in width and it is not transparent. It could definitely hinder the drivers vision depending where it was placed. But my question is at what point does it become illegal to have the object placed on the window? Is it only in certain places that I could be written a citation or is it illegal to have it placed anywhere on the rear window? side window?

I spoke with Kevin Cavey from your department and he suggested to write you in order to obtain literature that would state the laws and answer my questions concerning the automobile windows.

Mr. Vinson, thank you for your time. Please send information to the address below.

ID: nht92-9.17

DATE: February 8, 1992

FROM: Carl C. Clark -- Safety Systems Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rich (Rice) -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: CC-92028

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/9/92 from Paul J. Rice to Carl C. Clark (A39; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I would appreciate your legal interpretation of the glass-plastic glazing types covered by the designation AS-14 in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205. The definition reads,

" 'Glass-plastic glazing material, means a laminate of one or more layers of glass and one or more layers of plastic in which a plastic surface of the glazing faces inward when the glazing is installed in a vehicle."

Subsequently in the standard, Item AS-14 Glass-Plastics are identified as glass-plastic glazing materials that pass certain tests and meet labeling requirements. These may be used anywhere in any motor vehicle except a convertible (a restriction added because of the possible degradation of the plastic layer(s) by direct sunlight).

This prohibition of the use in convertibles of AS-14 glass-plastic glazing, and AS-15A, Annealed Glass-Plastic Glazing, was subsequently limited to the windshield, allowing the use of these materials for the side and rear windows of convertibles (57 FR 1652, January 15, 1992). Item AS-14 has no stipulations as to the nature of the glass other than those qualities examined by the stipulated tests, and indicated by the required label. Is this a correct interpretation?

In response to a General Motors Corporation letter/petition (56 FR 12669, March 27, 1991), clamping of the glass-plastic glazing sample was allowed for Test 26, (effective date September 26, 1991, revised by the correction - 56 FR 49149, September 27, 1991, to be "effective upon publication in the Federal Register"). With clamping, a test of penetration through the material could be achieved for a two-ply glass-plastic glazing sample. Without clamping, the sample might crack and fall through the test frame without demonstrating its penetration resistance.

My understanding, then, is that if one meets the requirements of AS-14 material, whatever the form of the "glass," one can today use this material for automobile glazing in any position, except for the windshield of a convertible. Please correct me if I am wrong. This would therefore include a "tempered" or an "annealed" glass-plastic glazing, even though one could also call the "annealed" glass-plastic glazing used for a side window "Item 15A" (56 FR 18526, April 23, 1991). A Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 18559, April 23, 1991) has proposed calling "tempered" glass-plastic glazing Item 15B, to be used anywhere in the motor vehicle, excluding the windshield. The final rule on this proposal has not yet been issued.

May I note my understanding that the tempered glass-plastic side window material developed by DuPont and used in the contract for which I was the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative while at NHTSA (NHTSA Report DOT ES 807 397, Contract DTNH22-87-c-07442) and in my research reports with Peter Sursi (SAE 851203, 870320, and 890226) would pass all of the AS-14 requirements, once clamping is allowed for Test 26, and so could be designated as AS-14 material, with proper labeling, and put into use immediately. Please correct me if I am wrong.

May I note that the terms "annealed" and "tempered" are qualitative terms for a quantitative process of heat treatment of the glass as if cools from the melted condition. In the discussion of the new glass-plastic "items" 15A and 16A and 16B (56 FR 12669, March 27, 1991), NHTSA agreed to drop the "proposal to prohibit the installation of strengthened glass-plastic glazing in windshields and other locations requisite for driving visibility." This was because of industry comments that the term "strengthened" glass is, in effect, another qualitative term for the quantitative process of heat treatment, intended or a consequence of the industrial process used. Even annealed glass is "strengthened" to some extend, and windshield edges are appropriately tempered to some extend to reduce breakage in installation. A potential future difficulty with Items 15A and 15B is the need for a quantitative definition of conditions and proportion of the total surface that leads to or defines when a glass is "annealed" and when "tempered." To what extent can the small test sample be considered representative of the entire glazing piece used in the vehicle? In my view, the problem disappears if the glass, however named, meets the tests specified for AS-14 material, in which case it can be labeled AS-14, with the appropriate warning label also added as required, and put into general use immediately. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A number of companies have been running road tests of two-ply tempered glass-plastic side windows. My hope (and plan) is to have more of these tests, a process that can extend beyond private use, in my view, if indeed the glazing meets AS-14 requirements. May future road tests go forward with commercial installation of after-market glass-plastic glazing that meets the AS-14 tests and is properly labeled, whatever the designation of the glass component?

ID: nht92-9.18

DATE: February 7, 1992

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

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, EAS, GENERAL MOTORS

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to NHTSA memorandum dated 12/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6741)

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville 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 Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change.

As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors 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 antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413).

As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again.

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. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" 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 General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions.

ID: nht92-9.19

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Marc C. Gravino -- Williams & McCarthy

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Marc C. Gravino (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am seeking in your legal opinion as to the interpretation of Standard 108 of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Code, found at Title 49, S571.108 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In particular, I would like to obtain your opinion as to the following question: Does NHTSA Standard 108 contain any requirement that the parking lamps, tail lamps, or side marker lamps (otherwise sometimes commonly referred to "marker" lights or "delineation" lights) operate INDEPENDENTLY of the ignition or equivalent switch, so that when they are activated, they will remain activated regardless of whether or not the ignition switch is in the on or off position? If there is such a legal requirement, was it in effect for cars manufactured in 1988 and sold in the U.S.?

I have reviewed Standard 108, Subsection 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.5.7, a copy of which I have enclosed herewith for your reference.

I was referred to you by Mr. Gene Wright, who I understand is the Chairman of the signaling and marking devices committee of SAE. Thank you for your assistance in providing a legal opinion in this matter. If there is any further information you need from me, or if you would like any clarification, please feel free to write to me or call me at my office at 815/987-8900.

Attachment

Copy of 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-89 Edition) regarding Section 571.108. (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-9.2

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen C. Bartch -- Applications Engineer, Quigley Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/92 from Stephen C. Bartch to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that you propose to convert certain 1992 Ford vans to your 4x4 drive system; however, the fuel tank in the vans interferes with the transfer case placement. You therefore plan to either replace the OEM tank with a smaller one that has identical attachments or modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference. You requested that we summarize your responsibilities regarding Standard No. 301.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meets all applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. The operations you propose to conduct on 1992 Ford vans would make you an alterer, and the operations would affect the compliance of the vehicles with Standard No. 301.

An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards, such as Standard No. 301, that specify dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body

builder's guide."

I have enclosed a pamphlet which provides additional information concerning relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985, entitled: Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985, entitled: Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted)

ID: nht92-9.20

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Charles Danis, P.Eng. -- Les Entreprises Track Test Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 121 - S5.3.3 (as per our phone call with your Mr. Marvin Shaw, on February 6th 1992)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Charles Danis (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

We recently performed a compliance FMVSS 121 test on an articulated bus made by MCI Greyhound Canada. For the middle axle of this articulated bus, MCI is using different air pressures than those specified in paragraph S5.3.3. of FMVSS 121 (for reasons of safety).

Based on the attached interpretation dated July 23rd 1976 from your Mr. Frank A. Berndt, MCI is using 40 psi as initial service reservoir system air pressure and 28 psi as brake. chamber pressure (at .45 sec. max.). In the case of release, MCI is using 40 psi.

We would appreciate very much if you could confirm by return that this attached interpretation is still valid.

ID: nht92-9.21

DATE: February 6, 1992

FROM: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Marking requirements of FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated March, 1992 (est.) from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Watanabe (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

As the overseas company of our firm-Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Japan, there are Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Thailand and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Taiwan. We would like to have your advice about the Manufacturer Identification Mark required by FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b) on Thai or Taiwan made headlamps for U.S.

As the Manufacturer Identification Mark, Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TH STANLEY", "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), as well as Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TW STANLEY", "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters). Can Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. use one of the marks to identify the manufacturer in order to conform the requirements of FMVSS NO. 108 S7.2.(b)?

In connection with this matter, we inform you that "TH STANLEY" and "TW STANLEY" have been made an application to the U.S. Patent and Trade Marks Office as a trade mark. However, "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters), "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters) are not registered as a trade mark, because we think that they are not a trade mark, but a manufacturer's name.