ID: nht95-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1995

FROM: Charles A. Grandy -- Baker and Daniels

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as Applied to Automobile Wheel Manufacturers

ATTACHMT: 1/30/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Charles A. Grandy (A44; Std. 110; Std. 211)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to submit a formal inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regarding the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contained in 49 C.F.R. @ 571 ("Safety Standards") to autom obile wheel manufacturers. Specifically, this letter seeks confirmation that automobile wheel manufacturers are not required to certify that wheels they manufacture comply with any Safety Standards.

As you know, 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 requires that a "manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall certify to the distributor or dealer at delivery that the vehicle or equipment complies with applicable motor vehicle safet y standards prescribed under this chapter." (Emphasis added). Unless a motor vehicle safety standard applies, however, this certification provision does not come into effect. Based on the applicable regulations and our conversation on October 10, 1995, the certification requirement does not appear to apply to automobile wheel manufacturers.

As we discussed on October 10, 1995, and by way of background information, our firm represents an automobile wheel manufacturer that exports wheels to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States to be used in the production of passenger cars . The manufacturer does not produce truck wheels, wheels for sale in the aftermarket or such items as wheel nuts, wheel discs or hub caps. Instead, the manufacturer produces automobile wheels for use exclusively in the OEM market to be used for the pro duction of passenger vehicles. Our question is limited to the delivery of such wheels.

In our recent conversation we concluded that automobile wheels, as such, are not subject to any of the Safety Standards. We discussed specifically the application of the Safety Standards described at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.110 and 49 C.F.R. @ 571.211. Upon review, neither of these provisions appears to apply to automobile wheels and we find no other Safety Standards applicable to automobile wheels. Accordingly, automobile wheel manufacturers should not be subject to the certification requirement describe d at 49 U.S.C. @ 30115 when delivering such automobile wheels.

Please review these issues on an expedited basis and confirm, if you will, our stated conclusions. You may direct all correspondence to the undersigned at the above-referenced address. If you should have any questions or comments, or need any additi onal information, please feel free to contact the undersigned directly at (317) 237-1400. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

ID: nht95-4.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui, -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Service of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM SABURO INUI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the ser vice brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service bra ke, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

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

ID: nht95-4.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Borje Kukka

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/11/95 letter from Gerald R. Stewart to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 11281)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kukka:

This response to your request for an interpretation whether NHTSA's statutes and regulations would apply to a process you intend to market, in which two horizontal parallel grooves are etched into the lower portion of motor vehicle windshields. The grov es apparently facilitate windshield cleaning by scraping water and debris off the windshield wipers as the wipers pass over the grooves. You provided a videotape on the process and a portion of a windshield etched with the grooves.

I am enclosing two interpretation letters, one dated March 1, 1985 and another dated October 28, 1988, both addressed to Mr. Andrew P. Kallman of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Kallman asked NHTSA's opinion of a process that is very similar to your process. Th e letters explain how NHTSA's regulations would apply if your process were used on new vehicles or windshields and on windshields of a used vehicle.

Please also note, NHTSA has no authority to "approve" or certify your process. If you understood any previous correspondence from agency personnel to mean that NHTSA approves of your product, has endorsed it an any manner, or has made commendations about it (e.g., it "can improve a driver's ability to drive safely,") that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion.

State laws may affect operations that you conduct in that State. If you decide to do business in a particular State, you should seek legal advice on requirements for conducting your type of business in that State, including requirements the State may ha ve for persons modifying windshields or for vehicles with modified windshields.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions concerning NHTSA's legal authority, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820. I am, un der separate cover, returning your videotape and windshield portion.

ID: nht95-4.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/03/95 Letter from Bob Clement to Ricardo Martinez

TEXT: Dear Congressman Clement:

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr. Pommer has been told that this cannot b e done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is not Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how t he modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are mi nimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element o f design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disco nnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part, Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the re quirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crast Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position.

A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion . . . Any bench or split-bench seat . . . having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions.

Since the 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts.

The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt , is is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of th ose belts and anchorages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht95-4.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the an swer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are conce rned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy en closed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on hi s or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 29, 1995 EST

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark Heminway -- Director of Fleet Operations, The Hertz Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/95 letter from Mark Heminway to John Womack (OCC 11167)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you requested from the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) an opinion as to whether a process Hertz has developed for digitally scanning original written and hand-printed signatures and applying the scanned signatures to odometer disclosure statements using a laser printer meets the requirements of 49 CFR Section 580.

The process you describe raises the issue of whether use of digitally-scanned and laser-printed reproductions of the signature and hand-printed name on odometer disclosures complies with the requirement of 49 CFR @ 580.5(c) and (f) for the signature and printed name of the transferor and transferee. After careful review of the sample Hertz submitted of a title completed using its process and the description of the process in your letter in light of the Federal odometer disclosure statute and regulation s, the agency concludes that the process of digital scanning and laser printing of the signatures on vehicle titles as described in your letter and exemplified by the accompanying sample you submitted fulfills the requirements of the Federal odometer dis closure law. It would be advisable, however, for Hertz to ascertain whether its process also meets applicable requirements of state laws governing motor vehicle titles. States may have different or additional requirements which would affect their willing ness to accept titles printed using the Hertz system.

Section 580.5(c) of NHTSA's odometer disclosure regulation requires that the "written disclosure must be signed by the transferor, including the printed name." 49 CFR @ 580.5(c). Section 580.5(f) specifies the same requirement for the transferee signing the odometer disclosure. In the preamble to the final rule adopting these provisions, and in many interpretations of those requirements, the agency has stated that the signature and printed name requirement means that both the signatures and printed na mes of the transferor and transferee must be handwritten by the respective parties to the transaction. It has made it clear that entry of these items in typewriting, either manually or by means of a computer, does not satisfy the regulation.

Handwriting or handprinting, unlike typewriting, can be subjected to handwriting analysis which is an indispensable tool in identifying the actual individuals who complete fraudulent odometer disclosures. Thus, the agency views the handwriting and hand- printing requirements as essential to the successful identification and prosecution of perpetrators of odometer fraud.

It is our view that the Hertz system as described in your letter and evidenced by the sample you enclosed satisfies the need for an adequate handwriting sample, as well as protection against unauthorized use, and therefore NHTSA's regulations, permit its use. The digital scanning and laser printing of the signature and printed name provided by Hertz' system (as shown on the sample you provided to this office) produce a handwriting exemplar that is sufficiently clear for handwriting analysis. In additi on, the system you describe whereby access to use of the digitally-scanned signature is password-protected appears to provide adequate security against use of the signature and hand-printed name by anyone other than the person who wrote it.

We wish to caution that this opinion should not be construed as a blanket approval of the use of signature and hand-printed names that have been digitally scanned. It is based to a large extent on the quality of the example that you provided with your l etter. Both scanners and computerized printers vary considerably in the degree of resolution and clarity of the image, and scanners also vary in the accuracy with which they reproduce the image from the original.

Accordingly, we cannot assume that all combinations of scanners and printers would be capable of producing an image that will provide a handwriting and hand printing exemplar that is adequate for handwriting analysis. Therefore, if any changes are made in the process or the equipment used that make the signature and/or hand printed name less clear than they appear on its sample, Hertz should submit an example of the product of that change for review by NHTSA before using it on actual odometer disclosur es.

I hope this information is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions regarding this interpretation, or any other legal questions concerning the Federal odometer disclosure statute and regulations, please write to this office at the a bove address, or call Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Michael A. Nappo

TO: Chief counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO: 9/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MICHAEL A. NAPPO (A43; STD. 108); 6/8/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SHAWN SHIEH; 5/10/91 AND 3/21/91 LETTERS FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO CHRIS LAWRENCE; 8/17/89 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (VSA 108 (A)(2)(A) TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; 7/8/85 LETTER FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO DON BENFIELD

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

Enclosed is some information on a new product that our company will be trying to market in the near future. Could you please send us any information on how this product might effect local and national laws?

Product Name: AUTO AD

Concept: To offer the consumer a better way to advertise with great exposure and less cost.

Operation: The AUTO AD is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexable screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. This screen has LED's (lights) which will be controlled by a processing unit that will be attached to the screen with a cable. The processing unit will then be controlled by a key pad that will be mounted close to the automobile driver. The whole unit will run off the power from the car battery through the cigaret lighter or hardwired in.

NOTE: An adaptor will be made so the AUTO AD can also be used in the home or business using a 120v outlet.

Uses: * selling the auto * advertising the business * as a safety device when the auto breaks down one can signal for help * general advertising

Need: With the high cost of advertising through radio, tv, signs, papers, etc., the consumer is looking for a cheaper way to advertise more effectively.

THANK YOU. (Diagrams omitted.)

ID: nht95-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vladimir Salita

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERESA THOMPSON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/30/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO WAYNE FERGUSON (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/10/95 LETTER FROM VLADIMIR SALITA TO CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA (OCC 10907)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Salita:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to three inventions you are developing a warning and teaching device for improving driving habits and fuel economy, a deceleration warning light, and a self-adjustable windshield wiper. The first item would "warn drivers by indicating the excessive deceleration, acceleration and dangerous speed at turns by emitting sound signals," and would be mounted on the dashboard. The second item would measure "actual vehicle deceleration" and control "the frequency of light flashing (preferable high-mounted brake light)," to alert the drivers of following vehicles. The third item would control "the rate of windshield wiper sweeps according to the intensity of rain." I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your devices would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the devices installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your devices, I would like to bring three standards to your attention.

Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, would be relevant to your dashboard-mounted warning and teaching device. That standard specifies requirements to protect occupants from impact with interior components and could affect where or how the device could be installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would be relevant to the deceleration warning light. That standard requires, among other things, that all original motor vehicle lighting equipment be steady burning in use, unless the standard provides otherwise. Since the standard does not specify deceleration warning lights as an exception to this requirement, they must be steady burning. Therefore, your added flashing deceleration light could not be installed on new vehicles. Because center high mounted stop lamps (CHMSLs) are not permitted to flash and must be activated only by the service brake, your use of the CHMSL as a deceleration light also is not allowed on new vehicles.

I am enclosing copies of two recent letters (addressed to Mr. Wayne Ferguson, July 30, 1993, and Ms. Teresa Thompson, May 11, 1995), which provide a more detailed discussion of requirements relevant to deceleration lights.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, would be relevant to your self-adjustable windshield wiper. That standard specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping systems. The standard would not preclude the inclusion of a self-adjustable windshield wiping feature. However, a vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that the windshield wiping system with such a device met all of the requirements of that standard.

No standards would apply to your devices to the extent that they were sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Therefore, your flashing deceleration light could not be installed by such businesses on used vehicles. If your device affects a CHMSL installed in compliance with Standard No. 108, it could not be installed by the above named businesses. Similarly, your other devices could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You may wish to seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22303.

Finally, all three of your devices are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that the manufacturer would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You have obviously spent a great of time and effort thinking about how to improve driving safety. We appreciate your efforts in this area and the contributions that inventors such as you make to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. If you have any further questions about lighting requirements, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992. For further information about other safety standards, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at the same telephone number.

Enclosures

NHTSA INFORMATION SHEET ENTITLED "INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT" (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht95-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, North American Operations Safety, Affairs and Regulations, GM

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry, raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the "park" position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm.

The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a "static" measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving.

This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the "park" position and that the transmission remains locked in "park" after key removal. (60 FR 30006; June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective.

Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that "[each] vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." To demonstrate that the vehicle is in "park" prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state:

Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). n1 Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes.

n1 The parenthetical reference occurs only in S5.3(b).

In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The "dynamic" method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The "static" method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop.

Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the "rocking" motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non-production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring.

NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the "static" method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again "static").

This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114.

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

ID: nht95-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

We have received the application of Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The application meets our procedural requirements, and a Federal Register notice requesting comment is being prepared for publication.

We shall inform you when the Administrator has reached a decision on this matter, which we estimate will be between the middle of September and the middle of October.

Cantab's previous exemption from Standard No. 208 expired on May 1, 1993. Accordingly, Cantab may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) if it has manufactured for sale and sold vehicles manufactured after that date. Its application states that "[in] the preceding twelve months, Cantab has manufactured nine Morgans for sale in the United States." Within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, please furnish the total number of Morgans that Cantab has manufactured for sale after May 1, 1993, and sold in the United States, between May 1, 1993, and the date of your response. Cantab should be aware that any sales of nonconforming vehicles before a grant of its application may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). If Cantab determines that it has manufactured and sold noncomplying vehicles, then it is required to notify and remedy the noncompliance according to statute. Alternatively, it may file an application for a determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 that its noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. If this application is granted, Cantab would be excused from the statutory requirement to notify and remedy.

As a final matter, the application indicates Cantab's belief that it would be exempt from the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 for 1995 since only .75 car would be subject to the requirement. Although .75 car is less than one vehicle, the agency rounds up from .50 vehicle in its calculations of compliance. For the same reason, the 1.87 vehicle estimated for 1996 compliance would be two vehicles, not one. The application is sufficient to cover both years.

If you have any questions on this matter, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).