ID: nht88-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPT. 17, 1988

FROM: MARK JANSEN -- CHEVY DUTY PICKUP PARTS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER TO MARK JENSEN, CHEVY DUTY PICKUP PARTS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: I own and operate a small parts store specializing in parts for 1947-1966 Chevrolet and GMC pickup trucks. I have many requests for parklamp and taillamp lenses for these pickups that are not currently available. I would like to have these lenses reman ufactured and am requesting information concerning requirements and restrictions before proceeding.

These will be reproduced exactly like the original lenses, which I assume would have been approved by the D.O.T. Must the reproduction lenses also be supplied to the D.O.T. for approval? If so, how is this accomplished? Is there a charge for this serv ice? Will be anxiously awaiting your reply.

ID: nht88-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/18/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM HEROSHI KATO, OCC-2048

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kato:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, as it applies to so-called "one-piece" instrument panels and console assemblies. Your request for confidential treatment of the photographs and diagrams you enclosed with your letter of vehicle models "A" and "B" was granted by the agency on June 21.

The areas of the vehicle interior to which your question relates are the instrument panel, which generally speaking, is subject to the standard, and the console assembly, which is not. Most of our letters relating to these areas dealt with vehicles whos e console assemblies were separate structures distinguished by "gaps," or indentations. However, you ask about a vehicle interior that has no obvious gaps or separation between the dashboard and the console assembly (hence its "one-piece" appellation). Instead, the longitudinal floor-mounted structure that lies between the front seats of the vehicle rises gradually at an upward slant towards the vehicle's dashboard, and joins with the vehicle's dashboard without any obvious gaps or spaces, as though t he dashboard and center console were of one piece. At the top of the instrument panel is an overhanging surface above a setback area. This overhanging surface protrudes rearward in such a way that a vertical line tangent to the surface strikes the bott om of the one-piece structure at a point near the floor of the vehicle, between the front seats.

Paragraph S3.1 of Standard No. 201 sets the head impact protection requirements for instrument panels. These requirements apply primarily to the upper portions of the instrument panel. Paragraph S3.1 states, "Except as provided in S3.1.1, when that are a of the instrument panel that is within the head impact area is impacted" by a head form, the deceleration of the head form shall be within specified limits. S3.1.1 sets out five exceptions to the instrument panel performance requirements, two of which (S3.1.1(a) and S3.1.1(e)) are relevant to your design. The first of these, S3.1.1(a), provides that the requirements of S3.1 do not apply to console assemblies.

We believe your letter raises two primary issues. The first is whether a console assembly in effect ceases to be a console assembly for the purposes of the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201, and as a consequence becomes subject to those requirements, when it is part of a one-piece design and adjoined with the dashboard. While we concur with your assessment that the answer to this question is no, we note that determining the dividing line between a dashboard and an adjoining conso le is difficult where there is no intervening gap or indentation.

That brings us to the second issue, which is how to determine the rearmost surface of the instrument panel in a vehicle using a one-piece design such as yours. S3.1.1(e) of the standard provides that "(a)reas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel" are not subject to the head impact protection requirements of the standard. You suggest that the rearmost surface is the overhanging surface at the top of the instrument panels on your two vehicles and that the console is the area below that overhanging surface. While we are not prepared to pick the dividing line between the instrument panel and the console, we agree that those overhanging surfaces are the rearmost points of the instrument panel. A vertic al line tangent to those overhanging surfaces strikes the one-piece structure at a point that is clearly part of the longitudinal structure running between the seats, i.e., that is clearly part of the console, and therefore excluded by S3.1.1(a) from the head impact protection performance requirements of Standard No. 201.

Notwithstanding the direct reference in S3.1.1(a) to console assemblies, the agency has not defined the term either in Standard No. 201 or elsewhere. In the October 27, 1986 letter to which you refer in your letter, we told your associate, Mr. Shimizu, that we regarded a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor and [lying] primarily between the vehicle seats" to be a console assembly. However, no attempt was made to define what was meant by "low-lying" or "console assembly" or to apply the latter term to structures such as yours that join with the vehicle's dashboard without any obvious gaps or spaces.

Given that console assemblies are excluded from the requirement in S3.1 for instrument panels, it is important to determine the boundaries of the instrument panel. S3.1.1(e) is helpful in this regard. S3.1.1(e) has the effect of limiting the head impac t protection requirements of the standard to the upper portions of the instrument panel.

With respect to the instrument panel for model A, we conclude that the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is the overhanging surface that is above the setback area. Any area that is rearward of a vertical line tangent to the overhanging surface on the one-piece instrument panel and console assembly is located on a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor and lying primarily between the vehicle seats"--i.e., it is located

on a console assembly. Since, for the purposes of S3.1.1(e), the relevant area is the rearmost surface of the instrument panel, areas of the instrument panel on model A that are below this rearmost surface are excluded from the head impact protectio n requirements of the standard.

Similarly, with respect to model B, the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is the overhang at the top of the panel. Any area rearward of this surface would be part of the "console assembly," as we have used that term in our letter to Mr. Shimizu. Accordingly, areas of the panel lying below the point at which a vertical line is tangent to this surface are excluded from S3.1. Generally speaking, the upper portions of the instrument panel of both models A and B are subject to S3.1 and would theref ore have to meet the head impact protection requirements of the standard.

In conclusion, we concur with your belief that there should be a reasonable way to distinguish a console assembly from an instrument panel. Your letter has highlighted a possible need to clearly define either "instrument panel" or "console assembly" in Standard No. 201, and also an issue as to whether there is a continued need for the exemption for console assemblies found in S3.1.1(a) of the standard. We will further consider these issues and may initiate rulemaking to possibly define console assembl y or to remove the current exemption in S3.1.1(a) of the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/23/88

FROM: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TO: RUTH SKLUZACEEK -- IOWA DIRECTOR OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION OFFICE

TITLE: THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 (@ 321.424) OF THE CODE OF IOWA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBER T A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARR Y LYNN SPEICH FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Ms. Skluzaceek:

Please be advised I represent the above named Defendant, who was charged with the violation of Section 321.424 of the Code of Iowa, which is Sale of Lights-Approval, which basically states that no person shall have for sale, sell or offer sale for use upon or as a part of the equipment of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, or use upon any such vehicle any headlight, auxiliary or fog lamp, rear lamp, signal lamp, or reflector, which reflector is required hereunder, or parts of any of the forego ing which tend to change the original design or performance, unless of a type which has been submitted to the director and approved by the director.

I also refer to you Section 329.428 of The Code of Iowa which authorizes the director to approve or disapprove lighting devices and to issue and enforce rules establishing standards and specifications for the approval of such lighting devices, etc.

The bottom line herein is the above named Defendant had headlight covers such as described in the information I have enclosed, which is pages 210 and 211 from an auto parts catalog.

I am wondering as to whether or not these headlights or covers are approved by the State of Iowa, and if so, would you please be so kind as to set forth the fact these headlight covers are an approved device. If they are not approved, please kindly s o state.

If you are looking for further information concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. As I have stated, for your assistance, I am enclosing pages 210 and 211 from an auto parts catalog, as well as a copy of the ticket issued to the young man.

For your information, the Hearing is set on this ticket for the 29th day of September, 1988, at 1:00 P.M.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you very much.

Yours very truly,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/23/88

FROM: HARRY B. SKINNER -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TO: RUSSELL A. STORMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/17/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RUSSELL STORMS; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; VSA 108[B]; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM RUSSELL A STORMS TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Storms:

The Office of Traffic Operations received your September 12 letter requesting approval of a vehicular device you designed to be used by motorists prior to the use of flares or other similar emergency devices.

Our office is responsible for establishing national standards for the design, placement, and application of traffic control devices used on roadways open to public travel. These standards apply to highway signs, signals, and pavement markings, not to ve hicular devices. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Since vehicle safety is one of its program areas, we feel NHTSA is in a better position to advise you concerning your device.

Thank you for your interest in motorist safety and much success in your endeavor.

Sincerely yours,

Please reply further to Mr. Storms advising him of his device. Also, please[Illegible Word] a copy of your response to HTO-22. Thank you.

ID: nht88-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/88

TO: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice;

On Dec. 9, 1980 my husband was involved in a fatal accident while driving a 3-wheel Cushman Vehicle, as a security guard, at the Lawrence General Hospital.

I have been informed by Ma. Secr. of Public Safety, Charles V. Barry that there are two basic designs for the Cushman Vehicle, one specifically for on-road use, categorized as a Police Vehicle and under the jurisdiction of the NHTSA as a motorcycle. The other an off-road unit which is not under the jurisdiction of the Registry of Motor Vehicles since the Registry is authorized to regulate only on-road Vehicles. According to Secr. Barry, the unit my husband was killed on is an off-road vehicle, ther efore, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Enclosed you will please find an Oct. 16, 1979 copy of the Common-weath of Massachusetts, Registry of Motor Vehicles classification and Registration of the vehicle on which my husband was killed. As you can see it contradicts Secr. Barry's informatio n to me since it had been registered and passed inspection for on-road use as a Police Vehicle, on the Public Roadways.

On July 22, 1988 you sent Congressman Florio the following statement in regards to the Cushman Vehicle; "This vehicle is classified as a motorcycle under current definitions found in Code of Federal Regulations Vol. 49, Part 571.3." You further stated "Ma. is currently one of the States that has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders."

After a Congressional Inquiry, Mr. Edward Harril, Director of Congressional Relations, sent Congressman the following information; "Our inquiry of the Vehicle's manufacturer indicates that the particular vehicle involved in this accident was indeed ce rtified for road use and would thus be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of NHTSA, and not the Commission, under 15 U.S.C. 2052 (A) (1) (C)."

Please be informed that none of the above regulations were made known to my husband, he was issued the vehicle by the Lawrence General Hospital as a motor vehicle requiring only his car license to operate and was not warned of the potential hazards in herent in the unit. I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on Public Highways and the person required to operate it should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit.

ID: nht88-3.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1988

FROM: CLARK, TRACY L. JR. -- COTTLE INDUSTRIES VICE PRESIDENT

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO CLARK

TEXT: We are finalizing arrangements to produce a three-wheeled gasoline-powered vehicle. The vehicle will be classified as either a moped or a motorcycle depending on choice of engine size.

In reviewing sections 566-568 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, it appeared that we should be classified as an alterer. I wanted to confirm this, so I contacted your organization directly. I discussed our classification by phone with Ms. Dorothy Nakoma of your offices. She believes that we should indeed be registered as an 'alterer of a certified vehicle'. She also suggested that we write to you and get a written opinion confirming the correct classification.

I have enclosed a brochure which highlights the basic description of the vehicle. The production process goes as follows:

1) We purchase a completed, certified Honda moped.

2) We then remove the plastic body shell and seating components.

3) Next, the frame is cut behind the steering column, separating the Honda vehicle into two sections.

4) The front section is welded to the tubular steel frame.

5) The rear section is welded to the tubular steel frame.

6) A third wheel assembly added to the frame.

7) Wiring is completed and the fiberglass body shell is installed.

The Honda front end and drive train components continue to retain their integrity.

We intend to issue a new Certificate of origin for each vehicle, but would continue to use Honda's VIN number as identification. Please confirm this procedure.

Several states make no provision for classifying alterers. Their categories are limited to manufacturers and franchised dealers or distributors. We will register as a manufacturer in these states.

If you have any questions, or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. We look forward to your response.

Now There Is Alternative Transportation For Disabled Individuals -- For Use On Public Roads

Introducing the Chariot

The CHARIOT is a three-wheeled vehicle unlike any other type of mobility vehicle available today. Designed for use on public roads, the CHARIOT provides safe, reliable, and self-sufficient transportation for disabled individuals -- at an affordable pric e.

Now You Can Easily Go Shopping, Visiting, or Sight-Seeing

Whether your trip is for business, pleasure, or adventure, the CHARIOT is the most enjoyable way to travel. With its reliable Honda engine, you can attain speeds of as much as 25 miles per hour. A three-mile trip in a power wheelchair can take up to an hour. In the CHARIOT, you can cover the same distance in just eight minutes.

Ease Of Use For Increased Self-Sufficiency

The CHARIOT's hand-operated controls, automatic transmission, lighted speedometer, electric fuel gauge, oil warning light, direction signals, and convenient gas tank make it a snap to use and maintain.

Individuals with normal upper-body abilities can use the CHARIOT. All you do is drive your wheelchair in from the back, fasten it in place, close the tailgate, turn the ignition key, and you're on your way.

For Business Or Pleasure -- A Safe Way To Travel

The CHARIOT has built-in safety features to ensure your ride is comfortable and safe:

* a low center of gravity and three wheels provide stability and balance

* a welded steel chassis and safety frame absorb shock and provide superior protection

* a patented safety lock holds your wheelchair in place

* a powerful headlight increases your visibility

* anti-vibration rear suspension gives a quieter ride

* front and rear independent brakes create smoother stopping

No Special Permits Needed

The CHARIOT is designed for use on public roads and is subject to the rules and regulations governing motor vehicles. It is licensed like a moped. All you need is a regular driver's license -- no special application forms or permits are needed.

A Full One-Year Warranty.

Your CHARIOT is covered by a full one-year or 2,500 mile warranty on all parts and labor. If anything should go wrong with your CHARIOT while it is under warranty, we'll fix it for free. Ask your dealer or refer to the vehicle warranty for specific cov erage.

Factory-Trained Dealers

The CHARIOT is distributed through a network of dealers trained by Cottle Industries.

Our dealers help you learn how to operate your CHARIOT and provide you with the courteous after-sales and repair service you deserve.

If you ever need any help with your vehicle, just call. We'll be there to help. If it's necessary, we'll even send a representative to see you in person to make sure your problem is solved quickly and to your satisfaction.

Independence At An Affordable Price

The CHARIOT gives you the independence to do what you want to do, when you want to do it, at a price you can afford. There's no other vehicle like it available today.

The basic price is just $ 4,800. Compare this to price tags on specially equipped vans, which often require assistance to use and a lot of money to maintain. And when you compare the CHARIOT's speed and freedom of mobility with traditional motorized wh eel-chairs, you'll find there's really no comparison.

Get Around In Style

Classy and attractive, the CHARIOT gives you the thrill and exhilaration of motorcyling -- but with much greater stability and safety. You go places where a regular wheelchair can't. And you go in style.

"There are quite a number of handicapped people that would love to know and own a vehicle such as the CHARIOT; so we can feel the sun on our shoulders and the wind at our backs, rather than being stuck in a stuffy, hot car or being pushed around in our w heelchairs." -- Martin Speller, Bridgeport, Connecticut

Now Available In The United States

The CHARIOT was originally developed under the name Nippi by Special Vehicle Designs, Ltd. of Leicestershire, England. Over 400 vehicles have been sold in England since 1986 to help disabled individuals lead a more fulfilling life.

Today, through a special agreement with Special Vehicle Designs, Cottle Industries, Inc., has the exclusive rights to manufacture and market the CHARIOT in the U.S. and Canada.

The CHARIOT/Mobility Vehicle At A Glance

* Welded steel safety chassis * Safety locks

* Gasoline-powered

* 70 miles per gallon

* One gallon gas tank

* Three wheels

* Dimensions: 72" long, 52" wide, 40" high

* Total weight: 270 pounds

* 49 cc two-stroke engine

* Electric ignition

* Automatic transmission

* Steel wheels

* 2.75 x 10-inch tires

* Independent suspension with hydraulic damper

* 12-volt battery

Options for the CHARIOT

* wind screen

* custom colors

* 80 cc engine (licensed as a motorcycle, speeds of up to 45 m.p.h.)

About Cottle Industries

Cottle Industries, Inc., researches, develops, manufacturers, and markets devices that help disabled people lead more productive, independent, and fulfilling lives. Our product line includes the CHARIOT and other fourth-generation mobility vehicles that overcome many of the limitations of conventional wheelchairs.

We are committed to excellence. To this end, we conduct extensive research to apply technological innovations to our products. We offer a complete sales and after-sales support service to ensure customer satisfaction. All complaints are handled direct ly by us, not by our dealers. This direct approach makes for better quality control and service.

Cottle Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 1165 Fairfield, Iowa 52556

Call Your Local Dealer Today To find out more about the CHARIOT, call your local dealer today or phone Cottle Industries at 515/472-7281 directly for the name of the dealer closest to you.

Cottle Industries recommends wearing a safety helmet when operating the CHARIOT.

ID: nht88-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/88

FROM: LEBOEUF LAMB LEIBY AND MACRAE

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: PORSCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KARL H. MAYER, REDBOOK A33 (4), STANDARD 101, STANDARD 102; CONFIDENTIAL LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -- CLARIFICATION F MVSS 101 AND FMVSS 102; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

TEXT: Dear Ms. DeMeter:

I write to confirm our conversation of August 15 concerning Porsche's June 28, 1988 request for a regulatory interpretation of FMVSS 101 and 102. We ask that the June 28 request and the attachments to that request remain confidential until September 30, 1988, at which time this information may be made public.

I understand from our conversation with NHTSA will honor our request to keep the information confidential until September 30. If my understanding is not accurate, please let me know.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours truly,

ID: nht88-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KUNIO SHIMAZU -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. OFFICE - TOYOTA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 26, 1988 LETTER FROM SHIMAZU TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you were concerned with the requirements for positioning automatic safet y belts on the test dummy prior to dynamic testing. You noted that, before conducting compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belt systems, section S10.5.2 of Standard No. 208 necessitates the following step: "Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy." You asserted that this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. You further expressed your concern that, during the agency compliance testing, test personnel might believe that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path on the dummy after the door has been shut for any reason other than the belt's failure to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. You asserted that, if NHTSA does not adjust the belt path as you have suggested for its compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belts, the compliance testing will be insufficiently representative of "real-world" performance of the automa tic belts.

Standard No. 208 does provide for adjustment of automatic belts only if the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. Belt systems that require some additional deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to provide effective crash protection f or the occupant are not automatic belt systems within the meaning of Standard No. 208, as explained below.

Standard No. 208 has always permitted manufacturers to comply with its requirement for automatic crash protection by any means that "requires no action by vehicle occupants." See 35 FR 14941; September 25, 1970. Automatic safety belts that require no ac tion by vehicle occupants are one means of satisfying the requirement for automatic crash protection. On April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency issued an interpretation of this concept, in which the agency said that it would not consider a belt

system that had to be manually moved out of the way by the occupant to be an "automatic" system within the meaning of Standard No. 208. The following discussion also appeared, at 39 FR 14594:

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) Entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

* * *

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive system is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. A t this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mph impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

After further consideration, the agency tentatively concluded that its interpretation might have been too stringent in suggesting that a belt system that had to be manually moved out of the way by an occupant to enter or exit the vehicle would not be con sidered an automatic belt system for purposes of Standard No. 208. The agency sought public comment on this tentative conclusion in an April 12, 1985 notice (50 FR 14580). The four commenters that responded to this request all concurred with the agency 's judgment that the 1974 interpretation was too stringent, and the agency revised its interpretation in a November 6, 1985 rule (50 FR 46056). The following discussion appears at 50 FR 46064:

. . . The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupants to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but w ould normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort. . . . (Emphasis in original)

This interpretation was added to the end of Standard No. 208 to make clear that a belt system requires "no action by vehicle occupants" if the occupant must slightly push the webbing when entering or exiting the vehicle or if the occupant must make a sli ght adjustment to improve comfort. This interpretation neither said nor implied that a belt system

that must be adjusted to provide effective occupant protection would be considered an automatic belt system for the purposes of Standard No. 208. Indeed, since the vehicle occupant would have to take separate deliberate actions to deploy such a belt syst em, the interpretation makes clear that such a system would not be considered an automatic belt system.

The positioning procedures for automatic belts reflect this understanding of what constitutes an "automatic" belt system. Such procedures were added to Standard No. 208 in a September 5, 1986 final rule (51 FR 31765). The following discussion appeared in the preamble to that rule: In the agency's NCAP testing, the only adjustment NHTSA has made to an automatic belt once it has been deployed on the test dummy is to ensure that the belt is lying flat on the test dummy's shoulder when the belt is in its final position. The agency is adopting the same procedure for the Standard No. 208 compliance test. 51 FR 31766.

An adjustment to ensure that the belt webbing is not twisted on the test dummy's shoulder is the sort of adjustment that would normally be made by a vehicle occupant for comfort. Hence, this type of adjustment in compliance testing is consistent with th e November 6, 1985 interpretation of automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA intentionally did not provide for any further adjustments of automatic belts prior to Standard No. 208 compliance testing, because automatic belts require no action by vehicle occupants. Any belt systems that need some further adjustments to offer effective occupant protection require some action by vehicle occupants, and therefore are not automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

ID: nht88-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enclosure

ID: nht88-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/04/88

FROM: FRANK J. TRECY -- GENERAL MANAGER - MANUFACTURING MILLER STRUCTURES, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO FRANK J. TRECY, REDBOOK A33 (4), VSA 102 (3), STANDARD 115; LETTER DATED 11/14/88 FROM F. J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC 2811

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing with regard to an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, subpart S2, titled: Application.

I called your office and was told it would be better to put my request in writing. After you have reviewed my request, I was told I could expect an interpretation shortly.

Miller Structures, Inc. primarily manufactures offices, storage buildings, classrooms, laboratories, branch banks, medical clinics and other related commercial buildings. The buildings are constructed in widths of 8, 10, 12, and 14 feet, with lengths ranging from 10 to 80 feet. I do not classify them as over-the-road type trailers. A considerable number of our units go to a location, are placed on a foundation and remain there permanently. The remainder are placed on a location for varying length s of time and are then re-located. A good description of our product would be a permanent or relocatable type commercial building.

It has been my interpretation that we are exempt from implementing the VIN identification system. At the present time, we are using a numerical system of serial number identification and once a serial number is used, it is never used again.

The state of South Dakota has issued a directive stating all trailer manufacturers would have to implement the VIN system by January 1, 1989. I spoke with Ms. Deb Hillmer, Deputy Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, regarding the interpretatio n stated herein. Ms. Hillmer stated that if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurs with my interpretation, she would accept it.

Therefore, I am requesting an interpretation of this matter from your office. Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerely,