ID: nht90-4.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Mark G. Southern

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Child car restraints

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-4-91 to Mark G. Southern from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Recently I contacted Mr. George Shifflett in your office regarding federal and state safety requirements for child car restraints. I have reviewed FMVSS No. 213, and would like to obtain further clarification as to whether it is applicable to the device that I have designed. I have enclosed sketches of my devise for your review.

Specifically my question relates to FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.1 which reads as follows:

Each (add-on) child restraint system shall have no means designed for attaching the system to vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back and component (except belts) that is designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back. (53 F.R. 1783-January 22, 1988. Effective: January, 22, 1988)

My child safety devise provides additional restraint for children from the ages of two (2) to seven (7) years old; however it is not the primary restraint. The vehicles existing seat belt is the primary restraint.

I am requesting an interpretation as to whether it is permissible for my devise to attach to the seat back as shown in the attached diagrams.

My patent council has recommended that I request confidentiality from anyone, with whom I show the design. I would like to request confidentiality in this matter and that your office not publish or release any information with respect to my design, with out my approval.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at work (206) 389-5055 or at home (206) 838-4530.

ID: nht90-4.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase --General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Shizuoka Works, Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-22-90 from M. Iwase to E.Z. Jones (OCC 5135); Also attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1990, to Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. 108 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our in terpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA "interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop m anual, re-calibration could be addressed." (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, 1990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable.

We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD "shall be capabl e of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage." Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree.

NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed:

"Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reco nstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim." However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied

Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

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

TO: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-90 from D.T. Johnston to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that ther efore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR S5 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as par ts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the tr unk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understand ing that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated. Aft er reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relie s on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to S 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

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

ID: nht90-4.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Roger C. Fairchild -- Shutler and Low

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from P.J. Rice to R.C. Fairchild (A36; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

We are writing on behalf of a client who wishes to import an off-road vehicle called the Pinzgauer. We request your opinion as to whether this vehicle is considered to be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and is therefore subject to motor vehicle safety standards.

The Pinzgauer model in question is a six wheel, six wheel drive (6x6) cross country vehicle that is manufactured by Steyr-Daimler-Puch in Austria. A 4x4 version of the Pinzgauer is also produced, but this request relates only to one 6x6 vehicle. The veh icle has a turbo-diesel engine and is rated at approximately 10,000 pounds GVWR.

Enclosed for your consideration are copies of factory brochures on the vehicle (enclosure 1). As can be seen from the brochures, the vehicle was designed to operate on a wide variety of terrain conditions. Its features, such as locking differentials, 4 5 degree gradeability, 335 mm ground clearance, 40 degree angle of approach, 45 degree angle of departure, and 700 mm deep water fording capability clearly distinguish the Pinzgauer from Jeep-type utility vehicles. The Pinzgauer's unusual body configura tion sets it apart from typical on-road vehicles. As noted in the enclosed letter from the vehicle's manufacturer (enclosure 2), the Pinzgauer "was developed as an off-road vehicle with limited on-road suitability."

The Pinzgauer was designed and is principally used for military purposes. According to the manufacturer, approximately 95 percent of the 1,100 Pinzgauers that are produced annually are sold to the armed forces (see enclosure 2). The U.S. Special Forces have purchased a small number of these vehicles. Examples of military uses of the Pinzgauer include uses as platforms for rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns, mobile workshops and field medical shelters (see enclosure 3). The importer of the vehicle i n question plans to use the vehicle for off-road, recreational purposes. A photo of the vehicle in question is enclosed (see enclosure 4).

According to Steyr-Daimler-Puch, the one vehicle that competes directly with the Pinzgauer in terms of similarity of product and design philosophy is the Mercedes Unimog. On February 7, 1984, NHTSA determined that the Unimog is excluded from the "motor vehicle" category. (See enclosure 5). It appears that both vehicles provide a platform enabling substantial off-road activity, although the Unimog would appear to be used on-road to a greater extent than the Pinzgauer (for highway maintenance purposes). We see no basis for establishing differing classifications for these directly competitive vehicles, particularly classifications based on a finding that the Unimog is used off-road to a greater extent than the Pinzgauer. To do

so would inappropriately provide a major competitive advantage to one manufacturer over the other.

On March 25, 1982, NHTSA issued an interpretation letter regarding the classification of Pinzgauer vehicles. In that letter (see enclosure 6), the agency stated that the Pinzgauer presents a "borderline case" in terms of classification as a motor vehicl e. The agency concluded that, based on available information, the Pinzgauer appeared to be a "motor vehicle." However, the agency also stated that if additional information on five matters (principally relating to the marketing of the vehicle) were prov ided, the agency might reach a different conclusion. The agency offered to reconsider the matter if such information were provided.

Since the current situation involves an owner of a single vehicle wishing to import the vehicle for personal use and does not involve any plan to market the vehicle commercially, we cannot address several of the five information requests. The point rega rding on-street licensing may not be relevant, due to the nearly exclusive use of the vehicles by national military services. To the best of our knowledge, the only Pinzgauers that have been sold in recent years for use in the United States were purchas ed by the Special Forces. An off-road use warning label would not be of significant value where no sale of the vehicle is intended, but such a label could be affixed, if necessary to assure off-road status.

On the other hand, we believe that certain circumstances distinguish the current matter from the one that was raised in 1982. These circumstances are:

1. The current request relates solely to the 6x6 version of the Pinzgauer. This version has a unique body configuration and drive train which distinguish the vehicle from typical, on-road vehicles and make the vehicle particularly well suited to off-road use. It is our understanding that the 1982 letter related to the entire Pinzgauer line, including the 4x4.

2. On February 7, 1984, NHTSA issued a letter stating that the Unimog is not a "motor vehicle." As noted above, the Unimog is comparable to and directly competitive with the Pinzgauer. We believe that the two vehicles should be regulated in a consisten t manner.

3. It is our understanding that the information submitted with respect to the 1982 consideration of the Pinzgauer by NHTSA did not include substantial information on the manufacturer's principal design intent for the Pinzgauer, for tactical (military), o ff-road use and the high percentage of vehicles that are actually used for such military purposes.

For the reasons set forth above, we believe the 6x6 version of the Pinzgauer is not "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways ..." within the meaning of section 102(3) of the Safety Act. As discussed above, the vehicle's manufacturer has stated that the Pinzgauer "was developed as an off-road vehicle, with limited on-road suitability." We believe that this description of the design intent for the Pinzgauer is particularly true with regard to the 6x6 version; that versi on has a drive-train configuration that is useful in a harsh off-road

environment, but is overdesigned for on-road use.

If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht90-4.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Gordon Bonvallet - Consulting Lighting, Engineer

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108, Request for interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon Bonvallet (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation of ruling of FMVSS 108 is being made for HELLA KG, Lippstadt, Germany. Please direct any questions and the NHTSA response to the above address.

A design consideration for a future automotive vehicle headlamp system consists of four lamps, using gaseous discharge "integral beam" headlamps for the low beams and incandescent "replaceable bulb" (HB3) headlamps for the high beams. The gaseous discha rge lamp and the incandescent lamp on each side of the vehicle will be independent of each other but will share a common frame assembly. Each will be able to be replaced in part or completely without disturbing the other lamp.

The gaseous discharge lamp and ballast will be physically separated from each other but will be electrically connected with no means of disconnecting either component from the other. If either the lamp or ballast fails to operate, both components must b e replaced.

PHOTOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS: Although a combination gaseous discharge/incandescent system is not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108, it is our opinion that the Figure 15 photometric requirement would apply to both the low beam and the high beam lamps. Ple ase advise if this is correct.

AIMING REQUIREMENTS: At this time, it is anticipated that each individual lamp will have external aiming pads and therefore can be independently aimable. There is a possibility that an on-board aiming system of some type may be used. Are there any spec ial considerations that must be adhered to that are not specifically addressed in FMVSS 108?

It is our opinion that the above described system is allowable under FMVSS 108. We request that you review this concept and advise if you concur or if there are other factors that must be considered.

ID: nht90-4.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 8, 1990

FROM: William Walters

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to article entitled Dankert's Device, Local inventor wants to produce Info-Lite (text omitted); Also attached to United States Patent information for patent number 4,922,225 (text and graphics omitted)

TEXT:

I am concerned why the D.O.T. and the National Safety Council have not investigated the enclosed material.

The original 3rd brake lite patent and the one adopted for mandatory use was designed by Norman Dankert. His addition which is covered by the enclosed patent not only addressed highway problems but gives you the solution. This safety is before the fact , not after as is the case of ABS & Air Bags. Why not prevent the occurance.

This lite also becomes the ultimate flow meter which prevents "bunching" and congestion.

Please read the enclosed, "Correcting the Path-Following message."

The United States Patent Office came to the conclusion that the analysis merited a patent.

I would like the National Safety Administration's opinion on this and also the reason why this System is not being used.

Attachments

Attached is an article entitled Dankert's Device, Local inventor wants to produce Info-Lite (text omitted);

Also attached is United States Patent information, patent number 4,922,225, dated May 1, 1990, (text and graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-4.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 8, 1990

FROM: Jack Barben -- President, Custom Form Mfg. Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jack Barben (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company has developed a lighted side rail for pick-up trucks which we will sell in the aftermarket. Please see enclosed pictures. These rails would be offered in an amber, hot pink and hot yellow. They would not be exposed directly to the rear as the mounting fixtures which contain the source light are opague. Our installation literature would caution against mounting on the cab roof or on the tailgate or front rail where they could be exposed directly to the front or rear. Also we would give i nstructions for seperate fusing of the electrical supply lines.

Would you please comment to me in writing regarding your departments position on compliance on this product.

This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such.

Attachment

Photo of lighted side rails for pick-up trucks (Text and photo omitted)

ID: nht90-4.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William D. Rogers -- President, SportsCar America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to report entitled NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Reports Accepted During September 90 for Test Program 90

TEXT:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a pro totype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section 1 of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those mo difications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CPR Part 567, th e Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CPR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale i n the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it woul d like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar fi gure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on

the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is av ailable to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

ID: nht90-4.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1990

FROM: Mary Rees -- D.C. (USA) Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-18-90 to Mary Rees from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Part 567; Std. 207)

TEXT:

Thank you for sending a copy of the Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I have received this, as well as the code of federal regulations CFR Ch. V (10.1.88 edition).

I was wondering two things:

1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

2) We propose to manufacture an automotive seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

I would appreciate it if you could let me know the answers to these questions at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht90-4.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dean A. Palius -- Program Manager, Via Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-2-90 from D.A. Palius to S. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidel ines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and Sll. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied.

You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject.