ID: nht88-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON STEENBOCK -- ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING FWD CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS; OCC 2650

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle leve l. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the t hrottle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicl e acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood yo u to be referring to this type of design.

2

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The pur pose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to ongoing runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

(EXCERPT FROM PRODUCT SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORT DATED 04/02/88)

Leon Steenbock, administrative manager, FWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis., in a March 17 opinion, that it is not permissible under Standard No. 124 -- Accelerator Control Systems (Reference File, 901:0889) to install a locking hand throttle control in a n ew motor vehicle. These devices are expressly prohibited by the standard, Paragraph S5.1 of that standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose o f the standard is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm the standard was designed to reduce, Jones said.

7/1/87

Subject: FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

Attn: Erika Z. Jones:

having discussed this standard requirements with your office in the past, as they pertain to locking hand throttles controls, I was left with the interpretation that a vehicle with a locking hand throttle would not meet the requirements of this standard.

As I have never received a written opinion regarding lacking hand throttle controls would your office consider giving me a written opinion of this standard requirement in regards to the use of locking hand throttle controls.

Your earliest consideration would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation

ID: nht88-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/88

FROM: R. C. ROST -- PRESIDENT; MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO.

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL -- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: WE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L. FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF S CHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FOR FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROUCHERS ON SCHOOL BUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Council:

We request clarification of a matter pertaining to buses sold to Headstart organizations. As a bus dealer we are in a catch 22 situation where no matter what we do it is wrong. According to Department of Transportation Chief Council in 1977 Headstarts must comply as a school bus which would include construction, seats, roof warning lights and all items covered in FMVSS part 571, amended in the federal register (40FR60033) on Dec. 31, 1975.

1. All "school" buses over 10 passenger require roof warning lights whether yellow or non yellow.

2. Regional Headstart in Kansas City, Mr. Frank Magona, 816-426-5401, tells his district roof lights are not required on non yellow headstart buses and it is up to the individual states to set their own regulations and that Headstart does not recognize federal D.O.T. rulings. The same is true of Central Headstart in Atlanta.

3. The State of Iowa D.O.T. and Department of School Transportation say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and cannot have roof warning lights.

J. P. Golinvaux District Representative Iowa Department of Transportation Air and Transit Division State Capitol DesMoines, IA 50319 515-281-4265 Dwight R. Carlson Assistant Chief Bureau of School Adm. and Accreditation Grimes State Office Building DesM oines, IA 50319-0146 515-281-5811

4. The State of Wisconsin Department of School Transportation and Wisconsin D.O.T. say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and can not have roof warning lights.

Mr. Frank Potts Division of Planning Wisconsin Dept. of Transp. Po Box 7913 Madison, WI 53707 Donald Schneider Director School Transportation Supv. Pupil Transportation Po Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707 608-266-2853

5. We have no problem building a bus to meet school safety standards. School standards do not require the bus to be yellow so color is no problem. The only problem is the requirement for roof warning lights on a non yellow bus. If the conflict was no t considered in the previous 1977 ruling we ask that it be considered at this time. Since the buses do not say "school bus" they cannot use the lights to safely stop traffic.

6. What ever your decision we request that you start enforcing your ruling and make public to Headstart, all the states and the bus manufactures what your ruling is.

Since Headstart has several million dollars set aside to buy buses in 1988 we ask you to make this ruling as soon as possible.

Yours truly,

ID: nht88-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers.

This respond to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFa 5571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking re tractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourage; vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote s ensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors.

The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16,1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certi fied as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to ini tiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept."

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1988

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On December 1, 1987, representatives from General Motors (GM) and TRW participated in discussions with NHTSA relative to the concept of externally remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors as it might be applied to future seat belt assemblies. At th at time, GM noted that FMVSS 209 does not specifically address a retractor which is actuated by an electrical signal from a remotely located deceleration sensor. This omission introduces a regulatory uncertainty which discourages vehicle manufacturers fr om considering the incorporation of this relatively new technology into their restraint planning. Further, it is unclear whether or not the test procedures contained in FMVSS 249 are compatible with remote sensing. With this letter, we are requesting tha t the agency: 1) provide an interpretation affirming the regulatory permissibility of seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated emergency locking retractors, and 2) initiate rulemaking, if necessary, aimed at ensuring the compatibility of t he FMVSS 209 hardware and assembly test requirements and the remotely actuated seat belt retractor concept.

As the GM representatives noted in the December meeting, a strong case can be made for the position that FMVSS 209 currently provides for the use of remotely actuated retractors. There do not appear to be restrictions in the FMVSS 209 definition of seat belt assembly" which would preclude the use of specific seat belt assembly designs. Further, FMVSS 209 defines an emergency-locking retractor as one, "incorporating adjustment hardware by means of a locking mechanism that is activated by vehicle accelera tion, webbing movement relative to the vehicle, or other automatic action during an emergency and is capable when locked of withstanding restraint forces. We believe that this definition applies to a remotely actuated retractor.

There was general agreement among those in attendance at the December meeting that use of the term "retractor in the FMVSS 209 test procedures that apply (S4.3 and S5.2) could be interpreted logically to be a short hand notation for "retractor sub-system " . Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that neither the regulatory history of FMVSS 209 nor SAE J4c, which served as the basis for FMVSS 209, reference a need to restrict the design of retractors to ones with "built-in " mechanical sensing m echanisms. This view further supports a position that no restrictions have been or were intended to be placed on retractor designs given that the performance requirements of FMVSS 209 could be met.

It is our understanding based on discussions with TRW personnel that remotely actuated retractors can be designed to meet all existing FMVSS 209 performance requirements, including sensitivity. In fact, research to date suggests that the threshold sensit ivity of a retractor actuated by an electrical signal from a remote sensor exceeds that achievable with a retractor which incorporates a built-in mechanical pendulum. Thus, no easing of FMVSS 209 requirements would be needed to enable vehicle manufacture rs to include remotely actuated retractors in their restraint planning. Nor would special considerations be needed to encourage vehicle manufacturers to fully investigate the potential of remote sensing. As noted in TRW's discussion paper which was submi tted to NHTSA after the December meeting (copy attached), remote sensing offers significant potential for retractor downsizing and optimization of retractor locations--important factors in vehicle restraint design. Manufactures may also find further ince ntives when the flexibility offered by retractors which activate by electrical signals from remotely placed sensors is fully analyzed.

GM considers this request to be important because it relates to the compatibility of existing safety requirements with new and emerging technology. It is our understanding that agency policy dictates that its rulemaking not be technology limiting. on tha t basis, we request that NHTSA provide an interpretation that FMVSS 209 currently accommodates seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated retractors. Consistent with such an interpretation, we request that the agency review the hardware and assembly test requirements of FMVSS 209 for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept.

Finally, GM believes that time is of the essence and urges NHTSA to expedite its action on this request. Toward that end, we stand ready to provide any additional information at our disposal that

ID: nht88-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES T. STREET -- PRESIDENT, STREET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211). Specifically, you sent me some product sheets showing several different designs of "spinner" hub caps, and asked whether y ou can market these items at both the wholesale and retail levels. The answer is no.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987, letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our past interpretations stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufa cture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). We would consider each sale or offer for sal e of spinner hub caps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108(a), up to a maximum of $ 800,000.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure that your company does business in a way that complies with all our requirements. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at th is address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 25, 1988

FROM: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO AMNON SHOMLO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108

TEXT: Enclosed please find samples of our PEACE decal. It is designed to be placed in front of the center highmounted brake light to project the word "PEACE" when the brake is applied.

If you separate the decal from its protective paper, you will notice that the white letters and design are printed on transparent plastic, in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specif ied candela.

Prior to marketing this decal we would like to know what Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product. If your office is not in the position to fully examine and a pprove the intended use of this decal, please advise where and how we can go about attaining such an authorization/certificate of approval.

I can be reached at (904) 731-6409 daily from 9-5pm. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht88-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: BRIAN HALL -- VS TECHNOLOGY PRESIDENT

TO: VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BRIAN HALL, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

I'm sending this letter to you to find out how to get an approval from the U.S. D.O.T. on a apparatus that I believe will be a useful tool for the safety of a motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver.

This apparatus will be a high level visibility red light that will be worn on the upper back of the driver or passenger on the above mentioned vehicles.

The apparatus is a 2" strap that is worn by putting the arms through the holes so the straps are resting on the shoulders, such as a shoulder harness. There is a square piece of velcro that is sewed to the strap that will be positioned about 3 to 4 in ches above the center of the back. The shoulder harness, as I will call it, is comfortable to wear. The velcro square on the back will be where a red brake light will be attached. The brake light will be made of plastic with the back of the light havi ng a flat surface that will be velcroed to the square velcro patch on the shoulder harness. Coming from the brake light will be two wires that will be plugged to a pigtail connector that will be safety fastened to the existing brake light wires. The sa fety fastner will be included with the package. Instructions on how to locate the right wires will also be in the package "with instructions on were it is best to put the safety fastner pigtail. The brake light connector will be plugged into the pigtai l connector so when the brakes levers are applied the high visability brake light will come on at the same time so surrounding vehicle drivers will have a better chance of seeing the motorcycle driver.

I hope that this brief description of what I'm writing to you about is enough for you to understand what I'm trying to do and why I'm seeking for a U.S. D.O.T. approval on this apparatus.

I have talked to the Arizona D.O.T. about this and they referred me to the U.S. D.O.T. in Washington D.C., which I called, to have the information sent to me on the requirements and specifications needed for such a apparatus.

My intentions are to put this on the market as after market products for those persons who are concerned for their safety as motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver. Also I'm talking to the military about this for on-base requirement for motorcycle, et c. drivers.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA 108(A)(2)

TEXT: As You can see by the enclosed letter, I've been corresponding with Carl Clark, Inventor Contact, at the Department of Transportation, regarding the Joyride Seatbelt Pad.

We propose to sell this pad as a comfort item to be used on the shoulder strap of a standard seatbelt. By eliminating the uncomfortable pressure and chafing of some seatbelts, we believe our product will increase the use seatbelts generally, thereby inc reasing the level of driver safety.

Mr. Clark has advised us that he see no objection to the use of Joyride Seatbelt Pad. Therefore, upon his advice, I am requesting a formal letter from you, as Chief Counsel, that our product does not take the manufacturer-installed seatbelt out of compl iance with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. A sample of the Joyride Seatbelt Pad is enclosed for your reference.

As we wish to distribute our new product shortly, we would be most grateful for you early reply.

Thank you for your help.

ID: nht88-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: DON O. HORNING -- P. E. INDUSTRIAL TESTING LABORATORIES

TO: C-MORE-LITE, JERRY'S SERVICE

TITLE: TEST REPORT NO: 92606

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; LETTER DATED 0 6/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L. FROLLIN; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY SERVICE

TEXT: Enclosed is the photometric data taken on the Halogen H4651 Single Filament Sealed Beam Headlamp and the Halogen H4656 Dual Filament Headlamp.

The two headlamps were mounted on a standard text fixture placed on the goniometer and aimed per specification SAE J579, Dec 84. Candlepower readings were taken at the appropriate settings with both filaments energized on the H4656 headlamp and with the single filament energized on the H4651 headlamp.

These readings were combined to simulate the operation of the C-More-Lite Headlight relay which activates both filaments on the 2-filament headlamp as well as the single filament to effectively provide both low beam and high beam illumination when the hi gh beam is switched on.

The accompanying table of photometric results at 100 ft were made with the aim established per SAE J579, Dec 84, Section 3.4 and the voltage at 12.8 volts. As indicated at the bottom of the table, the maximums could not be combined, as they did not coin cide as to location. Adjusting either lamp to the location of the other maximum did not produce a combined maximum in excess of the permissible maximum of 75,000 cd.

No tests were run utilizing the C-More-Lite relay in the circuit. tests run only simulate the effect of its operation.

As a part of this report a copy of SAE J579, Dec 84, is included for substantiation of test points and maximum and minimum cd. There is also included a diagram of the measurement points combining both upper and lower beams.

It should be noted that this laboratory takes no position relative to the C-More Relay as regards its utilization.

Description of Headlamps used: ITL TEST NUMBER 92606

1. Lamp Halogen H4651 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) High Beam for 4 head light system Replaces 4651, HP4651 2 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 1A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

2. Lamp Halogen H4656 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) Low Beam for 4 headlamp system Replaces 4656, HP4656 3 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 2A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

[TABLE OF PHOTOMETRIC TESTS H4656 AND H4651 SEAL BEAM HEADLAMPS, ITL TEST NO 92606, OMITTED]

[SAE J579 STANDARD OMITTED]

LOWER BEAM & UPPER BEAM (CHART OMITTED)

ID: nht88-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Auto Chek, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard J. Matysiakh President Auto Chek, Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain, GA 30086-02581

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you aske d how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention sta ndard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law enforcement Act of 1981, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would n aturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Relly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the ve hicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titli ng requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 2, 1987

Mr. Frank G. Ephraim Director, Office of Standards Evaluation Plans and Policy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5208 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Ephraim:

Relative to the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, Title VI, which inpart pertains to the Inscribing or affixing of identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts for passenger car lines wit h high theft rates: How will this law impact the body repair process of clipping and/or sectioning of vehicles that are created by different components with conflicting identification numbers?

Enclosed for your review and consideration are several articles that relate to this problem. Your comments as to disclosure. titling and compliance will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Richard J. Matysiak President, Auto Chek, Inc.

ID: nht88-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/88

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: CARL KAPLAN -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT M. S. GOLDKLANG & COMPANY, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/07/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- EPA TO ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, RE ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LE TTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kaplan:

We enjoyed our meeting with you, Mr. Shapira and Mr. Eckstein, and the demonstration of the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD).

The ABLD appears to have some potential for reducing the incidence of rear-end crashes, and it appears that you are addressing the problem of false indications of braking action with some success. As noted during the discussions, the choice of the pedal release speed threshold for early activation of the braking signal does present an interesting problem in setting the trade between reducing false alarms and maximizing the number of early indications of braking. Too, there is the question of how much incremental benefit is obtainable beyond that provided by the current stoplamp system including the Center High Mounted Stoplamp.

We would be interested in seeing data which may bear on the question of the effectiveness of the ABLD. The testing you have commissioned the UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI confirm your representations the next step would be a serious fleet study.

There is always the possibility of NHTSA funding of a project to test a concept such as you propose, however, our research budget is now particularly constrained because of recent cuts in funding levels, and the process of developing a particular project as part of an agency accepted plan of research can be lengthy. Data obtained through privately funded research performed by competent, recognized, objective investigators is accepted for review in the evaluation of a concept by the agency.

The required magnitude of a fleet study to demonstrate the effectiveness of a concept such as the ABLD depends upon several

factors which include, for example, the pretest crash rate of the fleet to be used in the study, the amount of change or difference which is to be detected, the desired degree of assurance that an observed change or difference is not a chance event and t he desired degree of assurance that a real difference would be detected in the study. As an example, you suggest that the use of the ABLD would reduce annual rear-end crashes in the U.S. from approximately 2.6 million to 1.1 million. Assuming your data to be for the year 1984, and a figure of 1,716,768 million vehicle miles of travel for that year, this is a reduction of approximately 58% from a calculated crash rate of 1.55 to .65 crashes per million miles. If it is desired to be fairly sure that an y difference observed in the study would occur by chance only 5% of the time and that a real difference would be detected 95% of the time, a sample of 41.35 crashes is required for each of the experimental and control groups of cars. Consequently, at 1. 55 crashes per million vehicle miles, a sample of 26.73 million vehicle miles would be required. Assuming that the vehicles travel 10,000 miles per year, 2673 vehicles equipped with the ABLD, and a similar number of control vehicles without the device, would be required for a 1 year study.

If any of the values chosen for the computations are changed, of course, the result may be radically different. In this context I would like to note that it appears that your estimate of the effectiveness of the ABLD may be overly optimistic and the bas eline crash rate too high. You should note that 5400 vehicles, half with and half without CHMSL, were included in the second fleet test of the CHMSL. This number was selected on the basis of estimates of crash rate and effectiveness lower than those yo u presented. To demonstrate the effect of changes in such assumptions, the required sample size was recalculated with the assumption that the ABLD would reduce crashes by 20% rather than 58%. In addition, the stringency of the statistical criteria was r educed to allow the possibility that a difference would be observed in the study would occur by chance 20% of the time when there was no real difference and that a real difference would be detected 80% of the time. In this case 5897 vehicles equipped wi th the ABLD and the same number of control vehicles would be required for a one year study.

I am enclosing copies of several documents in response to your requests during our meetings at the NHTSA and with Pat McCann in Senator Lautenberg's office. The SAE paper will provide you with an overview of the technical history of the Center High Mount ed Stoplamp (CHMSL). The two technical reports of the fleet tests of the CHMSL will give you an idea of the sample size and exposure needed to establish the effectiveness of the device. In addition, I have enclosed copies of some pages from

a report which describe statistical considerations in defining the size of sample required in a defined project. The Regulatory Impact Analysis will give you some idea of the rational background prepared before taking regulatory action. Cost/benefi t analysis of a device to be used in addition to the current stoplamp system would be based on incremental effectiveness beyond that provided by the currently required system. The pages from the Code of Federal Regulations will give you the information about the petitioning process as well as current requirements for stoplamps.

During our meetings we briefly discussed the issue of the use of your device as an aftermarket system. We asked for an interpretation of the pertinent regulations by the Chief Counsel and a copy of her response is enclosed. As you can see from the memo randum, her opinion is that the device is illegal as either original or replacement equipment. You or any other individual or group, of course, can petition the agency to change the regulations to permit the use of the device. A more immediate problem for you, however, is that this opinion limits your options for the conduct of fleet tests to evaluate the ABLD.

One option is to equip a fleet to be operated outside the United States. In this case you would have to conform to any relevant regulations of the country in which you conducted the fleet test. A second option would be to identify a vehicle manufacture r interested in the use of the device, who could petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the regulations on the grounds that it would promote the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such an exemption would cover 2 500 vehicles a year. This approach would lengthen the probable time required to conduct a fleet test, but appears to be necessary if you desire to conduct a fleet test in this country.

I hope I have provided you with the information you need. If we can be of further help, please don't hesitate to call me or Dr. Bishop.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES