ID: nht88-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/26/88

FROM: RON MOXHAM

TO: ERICA JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/17/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108, VSA 108(A)(1)(A), VSA 108(A)(2)(A), PART 567.7; LETTER DATED 02/09/89 FROM J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES EXON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones

Mr. John Massero of your office referred me to you for a technical question. I am in the process of developing an add-on-trunk for mini vans, etc. This would be a detachable box which could be placed on the vehicle when needed. It would attach either to the liftgate bumper, or frame. It would extend 16"-20" beyond the bumper (when in use). See attached drawing.

My question is what highway regulations will I have to comply with? Will the "trunk" have to have a bumper? Will it have to have separate taillights & stoplights? Etc.

I would appreciate any information you can provide regarding this project.

Please let me know if I can provide any further information.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht88-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/88

FROM: KARL H. MAYER -- DR ING H. C F PORSCHE AG RULES AND REGULATIONS PORSCHE

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION/CLARIFICATION FMVSS 101 AND FMVSS 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; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM DEAN HANSELL TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA, RE PORSCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102

TEXT:

Dear Ms. Jones,

In connection with the development of a new vehicle transmission we would like to request your opinion concerning regulatory questions raised by this transmission and its related gear shift mechanism, taking into account Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stan dards 101 and 102.

We understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We also realize that, under the National Traffic Motor Vehicles Safety Act, it is the responsibility o f the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles and equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Nevertheless, in our opinion it can at times be helpful and desirable for both the NHTSA and a motor vehicle manufacturer if a candid dialogue can be brought about regarding new technological developments and related regulatory questions. It is the inten t of this letter to create such a dialogue, as needed, in connection with the questions we are presenting.

I. Descriptions of the transmission, its functions and the operation of the gear shift lever

The above mentioned motor vehicle transmission is characterized by two functions -- i.e., a manuel gear shift and an automatic gear shift -- combined in a single unit. The transmission will thus let the driver decide at any time if he wishes to shift manually or transfer that task to the automatic portion of the transmission.

A motor vehicle equipped with such a unit does not have a clutch pedal. Regardless of which of the dual functions is chosen, its operation depends entirely on the position selected for the gear shift lever.

As is customary, the gear shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The movement between the two slots corresponds to the change-over from the automatic to the manual function or vice versa. Movement of the lever between the slots can be accomplished while driving the vehicle forward or also while the vehicle is standing still, entirely at the option of the driver.

To accomplish the change from one slot (or function) to the other one, the driver only needs to move the shift lever to the other side across a tranverse connecting slot. As attached drawing 1 shows, this change can only be made from the "D" position on the automatic side to the "M" (manual shift) function on the other side, or vice versa.

When the slot exchange takes place from the automatic to the manual function, at first there is no actual gear shift change; i.e., the vehicle remains in the gear it was in on the automatic side. Only after a further "shift order" is given by the dri ver (by tapping on the shift lever) is the desired gear shift change achieved; i.e., either by shifting up (+) or by shifting down (-). (Shifting on the manual side has a "rocker" characteristic similar to that found with a computer video control, which always returns the gear shift lever to the "M" position after being tapped).

When changing from the manual to the automatic function, at first the gear selected on the automatic side is "taken along" from the one selected by the driver in the manual mode. However, immediately thereafter the automatic speed adaption of the aut omatic function takes over. This adaption, as usual, depends upon the load factor and the engine revolutions as well as the vehicular speed, and corresponds to the conventional functioning of existing automatic transmission units.

II. Questions resulting from the new transmission and Standards 101 and 102

1. We are of the opinion that th s new type of transmission with a dual function is basically permissible under the FMVSS, provided certain requirements are met as per FMVSS 101 and 102. We would like to know whether the NHTSA agrees with this inter pretation of the regulations.

The requirements we have taken into consideration in reaching our conclusion are, among others:

The shift lever can be reached by the driver. FMVSS 101. S5.1. hand operated controls, item (j) of the list.

The shift pattern manufactured as per drawing 1, is continually visible to the driver on the middle console during daylight, FMVSS 101, S5.1 displays, item (c) of the list.

The shift pattern, as per drawing 2, shown in the speedometer, is continually visible to the driver and provided with illumination, which is in accordance with the requirement contained in FMVSS 101, S5.3.1.

If a gauge is listed in column 1 of Table 2, and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 5, then the gauge and its identification required by S5.2.3 shall be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. Controls, gauge s, and their identifications need not be illuminated when the headlamps are being flashed.

The above mentioned illumination of the shift pattern is adjustable, in accordance with FMVSS 101, S5.3.3.

In the automatic mode the gear position can be set selectively to P, R, N, D, 3, 2, or 1, clearly readable on the guide display plate of the gear shift on the middle console, as well as clearly marked for the driver by illuminating the corresponding a rrows (arrow) on the shift display in the speedometer.

The engine can only be started if the shift lever is in the P or N position as per FMVSS 102. S3.1.3.

[FOLLOWING PAGE MISSING]

4. The display shown in drawing 3 differs from the mode depicted in drawing 2 only by including the letter "M" on the manual side. The corresponding arrow would be illuminated during use of the manual mode. Additionally the arrow of the selected sh ift position would light up.

Please advise us if the display mode shown in drawing 3 is permissible.

Note: The speedometer depicted in drawings 2 and 3 will have a scale reading in MPH in the version manufactured for the USA instead of a scale in KM.

We are prepared to provide you with any further information that you would need to consider this inquiry, whether by telephone or in writing, or, if you would prefer, in a face-to-face meeting. We have developed a working model of the dual function shif t lever which we are prepared to demonstrate for you, if that would be helpful to you in evaluating these questions.

Your early favorable consideration of these requests would be greatly appreciated so that we can move this technology toward production as soon as possible.

A confidential treatment of this inquiry in accordance with 49 CFR Part 512 ist requested. (See enclosed declaration.)

Very truly yours,

Enclosure

(FIGURE 1-3 OMITTED)

ID: nht88-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; ERIKA Z. JONES; EAS-ASE

TO: IRVING GINGOLD, ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Irving Gingold, Esq. 529 Nassau Road Roosevelt, NY 11575

Dear Mr. Gingold,

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1988, asking whether any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to an airport baggage conveyor. The answer is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.), authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. Conversely, we have no authori ty to regulate vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" or equipment that is not "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (IS U.S.C. 1391(3) I defines a motor vehicle as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primar ily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Under this definition, any vehicle intended and sold solely for off-road use is not considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, even if it is operationally capable of highway travel. We have long offered "airport runway vehicles" as an example of ve hicles that are not motor vehicles, because they are sold solely for off-road use. NHTSA has specifically stated that an airport baggage trailer is not a motor vehicle, in a July 11, 1983 letter to D.F. Landers. Since the airport baggage conveyor to whic h you referred in your letter is not a "motor vehicle," none of our safety standards or other regulations would apply to the vehicle. We are not aware of any other Federal agency that has established safety standards applicable to airport baggage conveyo rs.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 27, 1988

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Jimmy Knight v. TWA et al My file #1422

Gentlemen:

I represent a client who was seriously injured while riding an airport baggage conveyor on October 9, 1984. I would appreciate it if you could forward to me any and all information pertaining to the safety standards that were applicable to conveyor type of vehicles as our client was operating.

Your cooperation would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

IRVING GINGOLD

IG:pe

ID: nht88-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/88

FROM: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT, PETERSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY

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

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF "EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO PAUL SCULLY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The members and counsel of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, who met with you on April 14, 1988, requested that I send you a summary of the interpretations which industry has been using regarding the term, "effective projected luminous area" . This relates to an inquiry from Wesbar and the agency's response on the meaning of this term.

On October 28, 1970, the National Highway Safety Bureau issued the following interpretation:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object, such as a mounting screw, mounting ring, or an ornam ental bezel or trim. This allows the area of rings or other configurations (raised portions) molded in the lens to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

On October 28, 1979, an interpretation was issued by Roger Compton, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, to American Motors Corporation which read as follows:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object. This interpretation allows the area of rings, or ot her configurations molded to the lamp to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

The above interpretations are basically the same. The vehicle lighting industry has been using these definitions, based on opinions from your agency, for about 18 years. Prior to that time, this same basic definition was even used by a number of indivi dual states. Also, the independent testing laboratories throughout the nation, as well as all manufacturers, have been excluding reflex areas in calculating "effective projected luminous area" for well over 40 years.

In 1987, the Society of Automotive Engineers through the SAE Lighting Committee adopted the following language which is now a part of SAE J387-Terminology:

"Effective projected luminous area" is the part of the light emitting surface measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, (but including congruent reflexes), which is not obstructed by opaque objects such as mounting screws, mounting rings, bezels or trim or similar ornamented feature areas. Areas of optical or other configurations, for example, molded optical rings or markings, shall be considered part of the total "effective projected luminous area" even if they do not contribute significantly to the total light output. The axis of the lamp corresponds to the H-V axis used for photometric requirements."

Again, you will note that the SAE term clearly excludes the reflex reflector areas. A prismatic reflex reflector is constructed to return light from an outside source. In contrast, a lens optic is designed to direct light which originates inside the le ns area. While it is true that a small amount of light escapes through the prismatic reflector area, this light cannot be controlled or directed and provides nothing more than a minimal glow of light.

I confirmed that the vehicle manufacturers in Detroit have also relied on the interpretations issued by your agency and its predecessor as described above.

The letter to Wesbar Corporation, dated March 16, 1988, appears to have been caused by a misunderstanding involving some engineering terms. We respectfully suggest a prompt clarification should satisfy everyone.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: R. H. MADISON

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your March 31, 1988, letter asking for our interpretation of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, as it applies to a seat installed in a multipurpose passenger vehicle and equipped with a safety belt. You attached a sketch of your seat and asked whether the safety belt assembly is considered to be attached to the seat. You asked this question in order to determine whether the seat would be subject to the specified forces of paragraph S4.2(c) of the standard. The answer is that N HTSA considers the assembly to be attached to the seat.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the m anufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the facts provided in your letter. In this regard, I want to note that rendering an opinion in this case was complicated by the fact that your sketch does not show the seat structure and its interrelationship with the vehicle structure and belt anchorage.

In your letter, you refer to a vehicle having a "Belt Attachment Frame" made from steel members attached to the vehicle's structure. You said that,

"(r)esting on the Belt Attachment Frame is a plywood deck . . . The seat cushion rests on but is not otherwise attached to the deck. The seat belt attachments pass through the deck and are secured to the Belt Attachment Frame. Other portions of the s eat or its supporting structure might rest on and contact the Belt Attachment Frame and might extend to or beyond it. However, except for the deck, no part of the seat or its structural members would be attached to the Belt Attachment Frame." (Emphasis added.)

The answer to your question depends on whether the Belt Attachment Frame is considered part of the seat. Based on the information you provide, we

conclude that the Belt Attachment Frame is part of the seat itself. According to your letter, the deck for the seat cushion is attached to and supported by the Belt Attachment Frame; it appears that the Belt Attachment Frame is a necessary and functiona l part of the seat structure. Since we interpret the Belt Attachment Frame to be a part of the seat, and since the seat belt assembly loads will be transferred to the Frame in the event of a crash, we consider the seat belt assembly to be attached to th e seat, for purposes of testing the seat under S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: nht88-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TERRY K. BROCK -- NATIONAL SALES MANAGER COONS MANUFACTURING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217; OCC 1009; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SABASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brock:

This is a response to your letter of last year seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether the front entrance door of a bus may be considered as an emergency exit under Standard 217. You stated that some of your company's buses have the front entrance door labeled as an emergency exit, and equipped with the emergency release mechanism required by Standard 217. You enclosed an August 28, 1987 letter from the New Jersey Department of Transportation referencing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that "require . . . emergency exits (to) comply with" Standard 217. The letter from New Jersey states that a "front entrance d oor cannot be considered (as an emergency exit) since the intent of the regulations is to provide emergency escape through push out windows and roof escape hatches."

You asked whether we interpret Standard 217 as precluding front entrance doors from also serving as emergency exits. The answer to your question is no. As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. Contrary to the opinion stated in the New Jersey letter, it never has been this agency's position that only push-out window and roof exits may be used to satisfy Standard 217 requirements. (See 37 FR 939 4, 9395, May 10, 1972; copy enclosed.)

The question of whether a front entrance door may be a required emergency exit under Standard 217 depends upon (1) the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); and (2) whether the vehicle is a school bus, or a bus other than a school bus. I will ad dress each of the possibilities separately.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of More Than 10,000 Lbs.

A front entrance door can serve as a required emergency exit under Standard 217 in a bus that is not a school bus, and that has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, paragraphs S5.2.1 and S5.2.1.1 of Standard 217 generally require the bus t o have "side exits and at least one rear exit," or "one side door for each three passenger seating positions." If the bus configuration precludes installing an accessible rear exit, then a manufacturer may install a roof exit under the conditions set out in S5.2.1.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of 10,000 Lbs. or Less

A front entrance door can also serve as a required emergency exit for buses other than school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. For these buses, the vehicle must have windows or other emergency exits that meet the requirements set out in parag raphs S5.2.2, or S5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. If the vehicle's emergency exits are standard, roll-down windows, or the vehicle's entrance and exit doors, then these exits must meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Under that provision, the windows and doors must be manually operable, and must open to a position that provides a specified area for getting out. Note that under S5.5.1, these exits do not have to meet Standard 217 marking requirements. The agency has determined that people who are ol d enough to read instructions generally are familiar with the operation of standard, roll-down windows and doors, and that there is little justification for requiring emergency exit markings for these exits. (40 FR 17266, April 18, 1975.)

If the vehicle's emergency exits are push-out windows or some other emergency exit, then the vehicle must comply with paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. A manufacturer must label these exits under S5.5 because they are specially-installed emergency exits who se means of operation may not be obvious to the passengers.

School Buses

A front entrance door can not serve as a required emergency exit in a school bus, regardless of the vehicle's weight. Paragraph S5.2.3 of Standard 217 requires all school buses to have either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) "one emergency door on th e vehicle's left side that is in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment and is hinged on its forward side, and one push-out window." A manufacturer who chooses to meet school bus emergency exit requirements under the second option could not use t he front entrance door as a required emergency exit under Standard 217, since that door would not be in the rear half of the passenger compartment. However, if a manufacturer chose to install an "additional" emergency exit such as a front entrance door, NHTSA regulations would not prohibit installing this exit. As the agency long has held, any "extra" emergency exit installed in a school bus must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Please understand that this letter addresses only Standard 217, and does not address or interpret any Federal Motor Carrier regulations. If you have any questions about those regulations, you should contact the Federal Highway Administration.

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

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/07/88

FROM: MAMORU ARISAKA -- MANAGER AUTOMOTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED

TO: MS. ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 FROM MAMORU ARISAKA FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sirs,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. are, as one of the leading manufacturers of automotive lamps and associated equipment in Japan, devoted to development of new lighting systems representative of our state-of-the-art technology.

One of such innovative lighting systems we are developing is a headlamp called "Rolling Headlamp". The central feature of this new headlamp is its mechanism to change automatically the mounting angle of lamp vis-a-vis the motorcycle, in order to assure stable photometric performance of the headlamp. Please refer to the figure below.

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground surface regardless of inclination of the motorcycle. In other words, the headlamp keeps its geometrical position independently of the motorcycle movement.

With regard to this new headlamp, we would like to ask you if it is acceptable (legally permissible) in your country. As you see, this headlamp is designed exclusively to be mounted on two-wheel vehicles.

Your prompt reply will be highly appreciated. Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation,

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht88-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DONALD FRIEDMAN -- PRESIDENT-LIABILITY RESEARCH, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is a response to your letter dated November 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system "Cradle S afe," and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call "Premie Cradle," and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, defor mable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs.

Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows:

"In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant.

The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed."

You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because "the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obviou s." To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn.

On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety

Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your "Premie Cradle" product.

By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a "modified" Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 21 3. You state further that a restraint system you call "One-ride" also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the "One-ride" restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the Apri l 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency; a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy; and submiss ions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products.

As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dum my), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an "unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicl e and not required in (Standard 213) testing." You explained that the "belt" to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment.

I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials b ecause they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 po unds (infant restraints).

Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies "no complete . . . and no partial separation" of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4" thickness which in deforming, tear slight ly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant.

Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall:

Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of

less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as o ne of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a wa y as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely; and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the syste m, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance.

Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. Th e system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16" woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compre ssion-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam.

Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be "covered" with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable "covering" if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbi ng padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding.

The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the mater ial's compression-deflection

performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213.

You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifyi ng a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified "long-established static tests" of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requ irements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2.

The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three proce dures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Stand ard 213.

Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles.

Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 "Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system..." is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not r equired in testing, need not conform to this paragraph.

Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the "belt" to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child re straint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any b elt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly.

In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended fo r use in restraining a child.

Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 l b. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed "travel crib" category and does not require dynamic testing.

Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR @ 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended "for use by children in a weight range that includes ch ildren weighing not more than 20 pounds.") That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17. 4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specifie d 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems.

The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluatio n of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child res traint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978; 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy i s a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulem aking process.

Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.)

While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard.

Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum.

Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grant s your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: NORMAN D. SHUMWAY -- CONGRESS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shumway:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ernest P. Crockett, who received a State of California citation for having tinted film on his car windows for medical reasons. You asked me to review Mr. Crockett's letter and provide a ny comments or assitance that I could. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Mr. Crockett suffers from systemic lupus erythematosus and as a result needs protection from ultra-violet rays. He consulted with the California Highway Patrol and was told that the law allowed him to use tinting film on his car windows, if he had a med ical letter stating that this was necessary. Not known at this time to Mr. Crockett was a provision in the California law prohibiting the use of noncomplying medically-necessary devices during darkness. Mr. Crockett had Security Glass System's "Almost Clear" tinting permanently installed on his windshield and front windows and was subsequently given a citation by the California Patrol for not being in compliance with @ 26708(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code. Upon further inquiry, Mr. Crockett lea rned that his film was unacceptable because it had been permanently affixed, and that a much darker tint (blocking 70 percent of light) film was allowable, if it was removable at darkness.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 pe rcent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the v ehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle's glazing are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of glazing, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device that would result in a light t ransmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of a passenger car, or result in the window no longer complying with any other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation. The materials enclosed with Mr. Crockett's letter appear to show that the business that installed the film on his car windows did not render inoperative compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, since the film installed on Mr. Crockett's car windows is said to have 70 percent light transmittance.

However, Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. We do, however, urge vehicle owners not to take actions that degrade the performance of required safety features.

The individual States have the authority to govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. In this case, the State of Californai has exercised its authority to establish requirements in this area. The wisdom and fairness of applying those requ irements to individuals in Mr. Crockett's situation is something to be decided by the State of California, not the Federal government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/88

FROM: LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER -- SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

TO: TAYLOR VINSON--ATTORNEY ADVISOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/15/88 TO LOUIS F. KLUSMEYER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to help determine the desirability of adding a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" warning light to the light configuration which is normally used on automobiles. As presently envisioned, this light woul d be amber in color and would be illuminated when the driver removes pressure from the accelerator pedal sufficiently to cause the automobile speed to start to decrease, due to the effect of engine compression, and would be extinguished automatically whe never the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal.

SwRI considers that a "deceleration light" of this type has the potential to reduce the incidence of automobile rear-end collisions (see Attachment 1) and that this potential is maximized if the light is located in as conspicuou a location as possible . The "best" location is considered to be immediately adjacent (or as close as possible) to the location of the "high-mounted stoplamp" since this location appears to offer the highest degree of visibility and would also serve to attract attention to th e high-mounted stoplamp area.

This location appears to have already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, since it is mentioned as a consideration in FMVSS No. 108 on page PRE 137, and the principle is in widespread use on schoolbuses which use a manually activated flashing a mber light to warn that the red stop lights are about to be turned on and that all traffic must stop.

A review of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment) has failed to locate any requirement which would preclude locating an additional light adjacent to the high-mounted stoplamp; however, this type of requirement was conside red at one time (FMVSS 108, pages PRE 132-133 and PRE 135) and SwRI would like to find out if any requirement exists now, or is contemplated for the future, which would prevent the use of this location.

If I can provide further information or answer any questions which might expedite the answer to this question, please call (512) 522-3017.

Sincerely,

DECELERATION LIGHT MAXIMUM BENEFIT SITUATIONS The following three categories of driving situations are considered to be the situations in which deceleration lights would be of maximum benefit in reducing rear-end collisions.

HEAVY TRAFFIC (High speed/high traffic density with decreased vehicle separation distances)

High traffic density, with the associated decrease in visibility and increased need for enhanced reaction time, leads to a situation where reaction times become additive and eventually reach the point where a following driver is placed in a situation where his vehicle has exceeded its physical capability of stopping in time to avoid an accident. Deceleration lights offer the potential for minimizing this progressive lengthening of reaction time and thereby permitting long strings of cars to stop saf ely. Deceleration lights would also provide valuable information about adjoining lane driver intentions, particularly in lane change situations where an apparent opening in an adjoining traffic lane may be about to vanish if the driver of the vehicle at the front of the opening has decided to slow down and has taken his foot off the accelerator preparatory to stepping on the brakes.

MERGING TRAFFIC (Converging situations between vehicles entering or leaving limited access roadways)

A particularly volatile and rapidly changing situation occurs when two streams of traffic merge and the driver of the vehicle with the right-of-way is often forced to guess whether or not a merging driver is going to yield, speed up, or slow down. Th is guess is made harder by the fact that most drivers control their merging maneuver by use of the accelerator pedal only, and thus leave only the rate-of-change of their speed as a clue to their intentions. The driver with the right-of-way is almost al ways driving the faster, overtaking, vehicle and would be able to see a deceleration light which could furnish valuable clues about the other driver's intentions. A deceleration light would also furnish valuable information to drivers following the vehi cle with the righ-of-way if that driver decides to "let up on the gas" and give a merging vehicle more room to complete the merging maneuver.

DECREASED TRACTION (Braking situations where low traction may cause skids or other loss of control situations if brakes are applied too heavily)

Many drivers fail to realize the need for increased spacing between car during slippery conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc.). At the same time most drivers are taught that the proper way to slow down in slippery conditions is to let up on the accelerat or and allow the vehicle to decelerate gradually. This combination is likely to cause accidents involving following cars which do not realize that they are following a car which is slowing down until it is too late for them to make a controlled stop. A deceleration light would provide this information for following drivers and allow them to initiate their own stop, or speed reduction, in time to remain in control.