ID: 1983-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Liberty Square

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P.O. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter of September 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office, for our reply. You have asked about Federal standards for motorcycle headlamps in connection with your investigation of an accident in Indiana involving a motorcycle reputedly equipped with "a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5"...smaller than a stock light." Indiana Law requires that motorcycles be equipped with headlamps meeting Federal standards.

The principal Federal standard on motorcycle headlighting is SAE Standard J584a, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The standards do not list permissible sizes for motorcycle headlamps that are not sealed beam, specifying only that the light emitted comply with requirements at various photometric test points. Thus, the small size of the lamp in question is not indicative that it failed to meet Federal motorcycle requirements.

However, we are not aware that motorcycle headlamps are available in rectangular sizes smaller than those used on passenger cars, i.e.,4" by 6". Perhaps the lamp in question was intended by its manufacturer for use as a driving lamp on passenger cars; its size is consistent with that type of lamp. But without further information I'm afraid we can be of no greater assistance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Reference # 3-1538

September 27, 1983

P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P. 0. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your letter about standards for sizes of motorcycle headlights.

I was unable to locate information on Department of Commerce standards in this area. However, Mr. Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised me that Federal transportation laws and standards have been under the jurisdiction of that agency since 1969. He asked me to send him a copy of your letter so that he could investigate your question and answer you directly.

Any further requests on this matter should be sent to:

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20590 (202) 426-9511

Sincerely,

Christopher Benya Office of Consumer Affairs

cc: Taylor Vinson

September 9, 1983

Department of Commerce 14th St. East St. Northwest Room 5725 Washington D. C. 20230

Attention: Lee Gray Director of Consumer Affairs

RE: Our File No. 8-309072-1 Our Insured: Thomas Daniels Loss of: 8-12-83

Dear Mr. Gray:

I am investigating a serious accident involving an automobile and a motorcycle and the investigating police officer in his report stated that the light on the motorcycle was a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5" and was smaller that a stock light.

A check of the Indiana Statute regarding lamps or reflectors on motorcycles states that no motorcycles shall be operated on public streets or highways by a resident of this state that is not equipped with a lamp or reflectors meeting the standards of the US Dept. of Commerce as amended. You will note that they refer to the standards set by the Department of Commerce.

If you could forward to this office a copy of the directive showing the standards of headlights required on motorcycles that the Indiana Law refers to.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

P. T. Miller Asst. Distr. Claim Manager

66 E. SOUTH WATER ST./CHICAGO, IL 60601/(312) 372-1818

ID: 1983-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA--30

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.

The answers to your four questions are as follows:

A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).

B) See answer to A.

C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. It appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.

D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements of S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 25, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements for standard S3.5.1.(b) of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda is developing a new model in which the armrest, by design, should meet the standard S3.5.1.(b). It is difficult for the design to meet standard S3.5.1.(a) or (c). The requirement states, "It shall be constructed with energy-absorbing material that defects or collapses to within 1.25 inches of rigid panel surface . . ."

Our questions are as follows:

A) Is this requirement applied to the whole area of an armrest or part of an armrest?

B) If this requirement applies to part of an armrest, what is the area that it applies to?

C) Does Mazda's design conform to standard S3.5.1(b)? (See attached sketch)

D) If Mazda's design does not conform to standard S3.5.1.(b), what kind of amendment is required? Example: At least the pelvic impact area has to meet the requirement.)

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

***Insert Diagram Here***

ID: 1983-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State Purchasing and General Services Commission; Texas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.222). You indicated that you have been informed that section S5.1.2 of that standard requires that 90 percent of the total projected area of the seat backs on school buses must lie between a horizontal plane passing through the seating reference point and a parallel horizontal plane 20 inches above the seating reference point, and that this requirement appeared to be a geometric impossibility. The information you received about the requirements of section S5.1.2 is erroneous.

Section S5.1.2 does not specify any requirements for the total projected area of the seat back. It simply mandates that the projected area of the seat back between the two planes you described be at least 90 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. This requirement is very simple to satisfy geometrically by using a rectangle. If the seat back were rectangular, the area between the two planes would be 100 percent of the width of the seat multiplied by 20. The agency allows the width of the seat back to be multiplied by 90 percent so as to permit the use of seat backs which taper up at the top, but which still provide an adequate level of safety protection for the occupants.

The reason for specifying a requirement for the amount of area a seat back must have between these two planes is to ensure that "compartmentalization" is not compromised. Compartmentalization is the term for protecting the occupants in the event of a crash by confining them within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. If the seat back in front of a school bus occupant occupied less than 90 percent of the area between the two planes (the area that occupant is most likely to contact in case of a crash), the padded area to cushion the blow of that occupant might not be sufficient.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address and at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 11, 1983

Mr. Steve Kratzke, Attorney Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

As you requested during our recent telephone conversation, I am asking for an interpretation of Paragraph S5.1.2. of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection." I understand that the value

90% X Seat Width X 20

to be the projected area in square inches of the seat back (in a vertical plane) that lies between two horizontal planes, one going through the seating reference point (SRP), and the other through a point 20 inches above the SRP.

I have been informed by one of the engineers at a school bus body plant that 90% of the total projected area of the seat back must lie within these two planes. It appears to me that this is a geometric impossibility!

Your consideration of this request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief

TCM/dh

ID: 1983-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rivkin; Sherman & Levy

TITLE: CSA INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Donald M. Schwentker Rivkin Sherman and Levy 900 l7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

This is in response to your August 29, 1983 letter regarding the classification of a four-wheel drive vehicle with variable ground clearance, for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. The vehicle's suspension is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode, to provide increased on-highway stability. In the high clearance mode, the vehicle meets the criteria in 15 U.S.C. 2001(3) and 49 CFR 523.5 for "automobiles capable of off-highway operation," but it would have insufficient ground clearance to meet that definition in the cruise mode.

As you correctly note in your letter, the phrase "capable of off- highway operation" focuses on the ability of a vehicle to perform off-highway functions." (Emphasis added.) The vehicle in question has high ground clearance capability when needed to facilitate off-road driving. You also note that four-wheel drive capability, one of the necessary criteria to meet the "automobile capable of off-highway operation" definition is typically not a permanent operating mode, but is selectable by the driver when needed. We conclude that the off-road driving criteria on 49 CFR 523.5 need not be met on a permanent basis, so long as the driver can control the availability of the off-road capability.

Therefore, we agree that the vehicle in question, based upon your description, would be classified as an "automobile capable of off-highway operation," and therefore included in the light truck category for standards compliance purposes. See 15 U.S.C. 2001(2) and 49 CFR 523.5.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 29, 1983

Roger C. Fairchild, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Interpretation of 49 CFR S523.5, Light Truck Definition

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

As you know, 49 CFR S523.5 defines a light truck for for corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) purposes under Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

A vehicle may qualify as a light truck if it is an automobile (other than a passenger automobile) designed for off-highway operation . Section 523.5(b) provides that an automobile may be classified as one "capable of off-highway operation" if it ".. . has 4-wheel drive .. . and .. . at least four of the .. . (five characteristics ( specified in S523.5(b)(2)."

I interpret this regulation to mean that if these characteristics are met during certain driving modes, the automobile is "capable of offhighway operation" and is , therefore , a light truck. Specifically, if the vehicle's suspension system is adjustable to lower the body during cruise mode to provide increased on-highway stability (during which mode only two of the five specified criteria are met, rather than the required four) , the vehicle should still qualify as a light truck. The logic of this interpretation is supported by the fact S523.5(b) refers to "an automobile capable of off-highway operation" and that the 4-wheel drive characteristic specified in S523.5 (b) (1) is virtually always selectable by the operator, and not full-time. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, I would appreciate, at your earliest convenience, confirmation of the interpretation that the required four of the five characteristics specified in 49 CFR Section 523.5(b) (2) need not be met under all driving conditions for a vehicle to be classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes.

Sincerely yours,

RIVKIN SHERMAN and LEVY Donald M. Schwentker DMS:kg

ID: 1983-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in response to your September 23, 1982, letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle, Safety Standard No. 118, Power-Operated Window Systems, to power sunroofs. The agency apparently has never previously addressed this question.

Standard 118 specifies requirements only for power-operated window and partition systems. A power sunroof would be considered neither a "window" nor a "partition" and therefore would not be subject to the standard. Our standard was intended to apply to the typical power side windows and the power tailgate window of station wagons. The reference to "partitions" in the standard was adopted as part of the July 23, 1970, final rule establishing Standard 118 and was intended to assure that power-operated interior partitions, such as might be used in a taxi or a limousine, would comply.

Although Standard 118 does not apply to power sunroofs, we strongly recommend that safety precautions along the lines of those established in that standard be incorporated in power sunroof designs. It appears possible that the types of accidents which the standard was intended to prevent could also occur as a result of the unsupervised operation of power sunroofs.

If you have any further questions to this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by Frank Berndt Cheif Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt: We sincerely request information concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118: "Power Operated Window Systems" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of MVSS 118 are applicable to a power-operated sunroof.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this inquiry. We are looking forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

ID: 1983-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steve Lampeas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steve Lampeas: 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset, New York 11030

Dear Mr. Lampeas:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the legality under Federal laws of your patented device, the "Trunk Truck." It appears from the material you enclosed that the device extends in twin booms from the rear of the car, and that a stop lamp or taillamp is mounted at the end of each boom (you refer to it as a "natural extension" of these lamps).

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no person (except the vehicle owner) may modify a vehicle so that equipment that is on the vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Therefore, you must assure yourself that all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 continue to be met with respect to rear lighting. This would include not only the lamps at the end of the booms, but those remaining on the car. In addition to stop lamps and taillamps, rear lighting includes, turn signal lamps, back up lamps, and license plate lamps. As on other load-bearing vehicles, such as boat trailers, these lamps should continue to be visible even with a load installed.

You should also ask the States whether such a device is legal. States have jurisdiction over the use of motor vehicles within their borders.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr.Frank Berndt Chief Council of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington D.C. 20590

RE: Trunk Truck

Dear Mr. Frank Berndt:

As per my telephone conversation today with Roger Fairchild, I am enclosing in this letter and sending to you a description and illustration of the Trunk Truck, which is a new patented devise that I have invented.

Before I go into production of this item I want to check with your legal department to be sure that there are no laws that the federal level that my be violated or any safety test that may be required, when this item is attached to a motor vehicle and is in use.

I believe your office has jurisdiction in this matter and would very much appreciate an early opinion and response.

Sincerely,

Steve Lampeas

TRUNK TRUCK

Need to move something quickly? It can be done with a Trunk Truck.

With this new patented device, you can transform your family car in minutes into a van, truck, or trailer and after you have moved your items you can change it back to your family car.

The Trunk truck is a telescoping, self adjusting, precision designed, light weight, high tensile aluminum alloy device, ready for instant use. It is a natural extension of the tail lights and breaking lights of your car. It is road worthy, stable and safe to use.

The Trunk Truck is an inexpensive way to move almost anything. It can be used by merchants, campers, outdoor vendors, house owners, and many others.

This patented device is highly versatile, proving stretch space not thought possible before, to take and carry a variety of items for the occasional or frequent moving job you map have.

The Trunk Truck will free the active man, from the dependency of a second car, van, truck, or trailer.

There will be no further need for additional garage space, license plates, insurances or inspection stickers and registration fees.

Its user are limitless. For example: Taxi Cab Fleet owners can use the Trunk Truck as the start of a new line of moving services.

With a medium sized car, you can expect to have a loading area of 30 square feet, a loading volume of 90 cubic ft. and an approximate weight load of 600 lbs.

The Trunk Truck can be installed easily and at a moderate price in your foreign or domestic car, out of the way inside your trunk.

For further information on the Trunk Truck, contact Lampeas Assoc. at 117 Aldershot Lane Manhasset L.I. N.Y. 11030

Trunk Truck Transform your car into a Van, Truck or Trailer in minutes

* Graph Inserted Here

ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill

ID: 7027r

Mr. Neil Friedkin
Attorney at Law
325 Exterior Street
Bronx, NY 10451

Dear Mr. Friedkin:

This responds to your letter asking about the certification of a converted vehicle. You explained that your client leased a 1986 Mercedes and that as part of the lease agreement, Coachbuilders Ltd converted the vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. In a pending lawsuit, your client is alleging that Coachbuilders did not recertify the vehicle after conversion and that the conversion did not conform with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381). You asked the agency to explain our regulations about conversion and recertification. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The agency's certification regulation requires the manufacturer of a new vehicle to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture (567.4 and 567.5). Persons that alter certified vehicles before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale are required to allow the original certification label to remain in place and to add an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered continues to conform to all applicable standards (567.7).

Once a vehicle is purchased for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement for an alterer to certify the vehicle's compliance with the standards. The Safety Act, in 114, requires manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles to certify the vehicles' compliance, but does not extend this requirement to other persons. The Safety Act further provides, in 108(b)(1), that the requirement for a vehicle to comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

In this case, we would consider the purchase by the leasing company to be the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. If the modifications were made before that purchase, the modifier would have been required by 567.7 to certify that the altered vehicle continued to conform with the applicable safety standards. If, however, the modifications were made after the leasing company had purchased the vehicle, the modifier would not have been required to make any certification that the modified vehicle continued to conform to all applicable safety standards.

If modifications were made after the leasing company purchased the vehicle, the only provision of Federal law that would apply would be section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle complies with those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

In the case of your client's 1986 Mercedes, there would be no violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition if the car, as modified, complied with those standards that were applicable to 1986 convertible passenger cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:567#VSA d:4/13/92

ID: 7034

Ms. Eileen Mathews
Industry Manager, Hose and Tubing
General Electric Company
2 Summit Park Dr.
Suite 410
Independence, OH 44131

Dear Ms. Mathews:

This concerns your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking about FHWA's regulation 393.45 (49 CFR 393.45) and NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. FHWA provided us a copy of its March 6, 1992 response on regulation 393.45. This letter answers your question about Standard 106.

You ask about S7.3.6, 7.3.10 and 7.3.11 of the standard. Those sections set forth performance requirements for limiting the amount a hose may change in length under specified conditions (S7.3.6), for the tensile strength of a hose assembly (S7.3.10), and for the tensile strength of an assembly after immersion in water (S7.3.11). Each of these sections excludes certain items from the requirement.

Your question relates to those exclusions. S7.3.6 excludes coiled nylon tubes for use in assemblies that meet the FHWA requirements of 393.45. S7.3.10 excludes coiled nylon tube assemblies that meet 393.45. S7.3.11 excludes coiled tube assemblies that meet 393.45.

You ask whether those exclusions in S7.3.6, 7.3.10 and 7.3.11 "require compliance with 393.45." The answer is no. Standard 106 does not require tubing to meet 393.45. Instead, compliance with 393.45 is a condition for excluding the item from S7.3.6, 7.3.10 or 7.3.11.

The other condition, relevant for S7.3.6 and 7.3.10, is that the brake hose be coiled nylon tubing. According to your letter, the brake hose (tubing) of your concern would be made from a material other than nylon. Since the second condition would not be satisfied, such hose would not qualify for the S7.3.6 exception, and an assembly made from such hose would not qualify for the 7.3.10 exception, regardless of whether the hose meets regulation 393.45. Thus, S7.3.6 and 7.3.10 would apply to hose and assemblies made from your product, without exception.

S7.3.11 does not specify that the coiled tubing must be nylon to qualify for the exception. While NHTSA intended to specify nylon (see, preamble to rule adopting the exclusion, 39 FR 28436; August 7, 1974), as adopted, S7.3.11 excludes a "coiled tube assembly" that meets regulation 393.45 from its requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:106 d:5/11/92

ID: 7044

Stephen E. Selander, Esq.
Legal Staff
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P. O. Box 33122
Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Selander:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with an electronic locking ignition system that you are developing. You asked whether an electronic code, which would be entered into the locking system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system, would be included within the standard's definition of "key." As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

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

You described the operation of your planned locking ignition system as follows. When an electronic code is entered into the locking system by the operator, a match is made with an electronic code stored in the system's memory. When the correct match occurs, the operator may move the locking system out of the "lock" position to other positions such as "accessory", "off," "on", or "start", in order to activate the vehicle's engine, motor, or accessories.

You also stated that, with the locking system out of the "lock" position, the transmission can be shifted out of the "park" position in order to operate the vehicle. The transmission shift lever must be returned to the "park" position before the locking system may be put back into the "lock" position. Placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position would automatically cause removal of the electronic code from the system. At that time, re-entry of the electronic code would be necessary to operate the vehicle. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent-- (a) normal activation of the vehicle's engine or other main source of motive power; and

(b) either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

The term "key" is defined in S3 of the standard to include "any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device." We agree that an electronic code which is entered into a locking ignition system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system comes within this definition.

For GM's planned system, removal of the key would occur when the locking system is placed back into the "lock" position by the operator, since the electronic code is automatically removed from the system at that time and the vehicle will not operate unless the code is re-entered. Therefore, under section S4.2, placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position (i.e., removal of the key) must prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

We note that section S4.5 of Standard No. 114 requires (except under limited specified circumstances) a warning to the driver to be activated whenever the key required by section S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. For GM's planned system, activation of the warning would be required (other than under the limited specified circumstances) if a driver opened the door without placing the locking system back into the "lock" position, since the electronic code (key) would remain in the locking system in that situation.

Standard No. 114 also has several other requirements related to keys. Of particular note is one set forth in a new section S4.2.1, which takes effect on September 1, 1992. Under that section, the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position must (except under limited specified circumstances) prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:114 d:5/22/92