ID: 86-6.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI MORIYOSHI -- EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/09/86, TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM HIROSHI MORIYOSHI RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVS 101 CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS AND FMVSS 102 TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE STARTER INTERLOCK AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT; OCC - 0476

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moriyoshi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays, and No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the identification and visibility requirements of these standards for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission. As part of a design you are considering producing, a gear position indicator, using light-emitting diodes (LED's), would be located within the instrument panel. Your letter states that this system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start position, but would not be visible when the ignition switch was in the accessory or off positions. Your letter states further that, in addition to this LED display, the steering-column-mounted gear shift selector would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to Standard No. 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the inboard side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position. The issues raised by your letter with respect to whether the design you are considering would comply with Standards No. 101 and No. 102 are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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 or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 that are relevant to your request. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." (Emphasis added.)

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of section S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102.

I will now address these requirements in relation to the design you are considering. As discussed below, it is our opinion that your proposed design would not meet Standard No. 102's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions must be permanently displayed in view of the driver.

While your design would include two automatic gear position displays, neither display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position. As noted by your letter, NHTSA has interpreted the words "permanently displayed" to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. The display on the instrument panel would not be visible when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off positions. The other display, located on the steering column, would not be visible to the driver regardless of the position of the ignition switch.

NHTSA has previously addressed Standard No. 102's requirement that certain identification be "in view of the driver" in connection with a request for interpretation concerning the identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions. The agency concluded that the pattern "is deemed to be 'displayed in view of the driver' if part of it may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and a reasonable amount of movement of the driver allows him to gain full view of the pattern." (Letter to Daimler-Benz of North America, February 27, 1967)

As noted above, your letter states that the display on the steering column would "only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position." This suggests that little, if any, of the display may be seen from the driver's normal eye position

and that a significant amount of movement of the driver would be required to see the full display. This is further confirmed by a statement in your letter indicating that the driver would need to lean forward, utilizing the flexibility provided by an emergency locking retractor, in order to see the display, and then return to the normal driving position. (Emphasis added) It therefore appears that the display is not "in view of the driver."

While your letter suggests that the degree of visibility provided by the display might be appropriate for situations where the vehicle is not activated, Standard No. 102's requirement that the display be within the "view of the driver" does not distinguish between whether the engine is on or off. We also note that a driver used to viewing the gear position indicator on the instrument panel might not be aware that another display, which would not be visible from a normal driving position, even exists.

Since neither display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position, it is unnecessary to address the issue raised by your letter concerning whether multiple and complementary indicators can be used to meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 for gear position displays, where no single indicator meets the requirements.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-6.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY -- LEBEOUF, LAMB, LEIBY AND MACRAE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/17/86 RE FMVSS 103 AND 104, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL OCC-0349

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey:

This responds to your letter regarding the method of determining the windshield areas required to be cleared under Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You state in your letter that your client, Porsche, is considering a windshield design that would be five percent smaller than the area of the windshield or glazing surface established as Area "A" in Standard No. 104. Area "A" is the largest of the three windshield areas, designated in that standard as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage defrosted within a specified time period under Standard No. 103. Similarly, each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage wiped under Standard No. 104. These areas are established by the angles which are set forth in the SAE Recommended Practices and referenced in Standards Nos. 103 and 104. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You also say in your letter that you understand that the percentages of the "A" area of the windshield, which are required to be cleared under these standards, are based on actual windshield size, less a one-inch border, rather than the theoretical windshield size that is derived using the specified angles in the referenced SAE procedures. You conclude that only the portion of Area "A," for example, which falls on an actual windshield, less a one-inch border, need be used in calculating the percentageswhich are required to be cleared under these standards.conclude that any portion of Area A which falls outside a windshield's actual size is immaterial with regard to the areas required to be cleared under these standards.

2

The agency believes your interpretation of Area "A" is correct, for the following reasons. Unlike the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 128, Fields of Direct View, which was issued and rescinded in 1981, Standards Nos. 103 and 104 were not intended to regulate the size of structural and other obstructions in the driver's field of direct view. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103 requires each passenger car windshield defrosting and defogging system to meet the requirements of section 3 of SAE J902, when tested in accordance with paragraph S4.3 of the standard, except that the "entire windshield" specified in SAE Recommended Practice J902 must be that established as Area A in accordance with Standard No. 104.

Thus, Area A is defined according to the requirements of Standard No. 104. Paragraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 states that Area A of a passenger car windshield must be established as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, using the angles specified in Columns 3 through 6 of Table I, II, III, or IV, as applicable. These tables are set forth in Standard No. 104 and apply to passenger cars of specified overall widths, i.e., from less than 60 inches to 68 or more inches. The angles in these tables vary according to the overall width of the passenger car model. This office agrees that the projection of the correct angles onto an actual windshield surface may produce a projected surface larger than the windshield itself and that only the portion of Area A which is projected onto the actual windshield is material.

Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 also limits the percentage of the windshield required to be cleared to that inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. Since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 for the determination of Area A, this office also agrees that the percentages of the windshield required to be cleared under Standard No. 103 are those inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

As an aside, we note that you state in your letter that your conclusion is based on statements contained in SAE Recommended Practices J903c and SAE J902b. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice J902, Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems, August 1964, not SAE Recommended Practice J902b, as stated in your letter. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966, not SAE J903c, as stated in your letter. In any case, we do not believe the quoted statements affect the requirements of either Standard No. 103 or Standard No. 104, because each reference in the safety standards to an SAE Recommended Practice is to a specific portion of it, not to general language such as your quotation.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-6.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Elinor F. Wilber; Norma Gyle -- Chairpersons, State of Connecticut, Transportation Committee and Seat Belt Subcommittee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Connecticut may set performance standards for belts retrofitted to school buses. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes.

First, we would like to distinguish between a state law which would set standards for belts voluntarily retrofitted to school buses and a state law which requires all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts. As to the latter, Connecticut may require the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses which the State purchases for its own use. However, as explained below, Federal law would preempt Connecticut from requiring other school buses (i.e., those used by non-public schools) to be retrofitted with safety belts.

Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety regulations is governed by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

The first sentence of section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of the States and their political subdivisions that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance as a Federal safety standard unless they are identical to that safety standard. The second sentence of the section provides that the limitation on safety standards does not prevent governmental entities from specifying nonidentical safety requirements for vehicles procured for their own use. However, the second sentence does not permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

It is our opinion that a state standard which requires all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts has the effect of mandating the installation of safety belts in all large school buses operating in that state. Since such a standard regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222) and would not be identical to the Federal requirements for "compartmentalization," we believe it would be preempted under the first sentence of section 103(d). However, a state is not prohibited from requiring the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions (i.e., public school buses) as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not violated.

Connecticut may set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on used school buses, such as for the amount of force the anchorages must be capable of withstanding. As you know, we are currently considering an amendment to FMVSS No. 222 to set performance requirements for voluntarily-installed safety belts on new school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. However, since such an amendment, if adopted, would only affect new school buses and no Federal safety standard establishes performance requirements for retrofitting safety belts, Connecticut would not be preempted from establishing requirements for belts that are voluntarily-installed on used buses. Keep in mind, however, that a state should ensure that its requirements do not prevent vehicles from complying with Federal safety standards. Since FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for belt assemblies used in motor vehicles, Connecticut must not issue a standard for belt assemblies for nonpublic school buses that is not identical to Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: 86-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Wallace

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1986, concerning how our regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that pork, the aide glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings,"Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI % 26-1, Camplas, NY."

Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additional Information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply pith the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, It can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving Visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of 56 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance.

Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials: however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency: If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 19, 1986

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The New York City Transit Authority recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As part of this process, the side glazing on these buses was replaced with glazing marked as follows:

LEXAN MR 5000 SHEET ANSI Z 26-1 CAMPLAS, NY

The Authority has questioned the legality of operating buses with this material and would appreciate any comments your office may have to offer regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

William Wallace Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities

ID: 86-6.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Barbara J. Kelleher -- CRS Research

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey A. Miller to Frederick B. Locker (Std. 213)

TEXT:

Ms. Barbara J. Kelleher CRS Research Buffalo, NY 14226

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that a client planned to produce two child restraint models whose harness and crotch straps would be integral parts of a movable shield. You stated your belief that these straps were an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213. Accordingly, you asked that this agency permit these straps to be attached during the Configuration II testing required by section S6.1.2.1.2. You stated that a similar request for harness attachment was "granted" to the Collier-Keyworth Company.

First, I would like to make clear that this agency does not grant requests by manufacturers to avoid following the compliance test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. He interpret the requirements of Standard No. 213 as they apply to particular factual situations. When those same factual situations arise again, our interpretation of the requirements is the same, regardless of which manufacturer is involved.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a July 3, 1985, letter this agency sent to Mr. Frederick Locker, addressing whether a proposed Collier-Keyworth child restraint could attach its belts during the Configuration II testing. We concluded that belts that are attached to and not easily removed from a movable shield are integral parts of/the shield, within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3(c). This conclusion means that these belts may be attached during the Configuration II testing.

Judging by the pictures enclosed with your letter, it appears that of the two child restraint models designed by your client also has belts that are attached to and not easily removed from the movable shield. If our belief is correct, those belts could be attached during the Configuration II testing.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 346-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 1, 1986

Mr. Stephen R. Kratzke, NOA-32 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I have been retained by Century Products Inc, to request an interpretation of section S5.1.2.3.1.(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraint Systems (48 CFR 571.213) with regard to Century's Model 3000 and Model 400-XL child restraint systems. Since the harness and crotch strap belts of the Model 3000, and the harness belts and the crotch restraint mechanism of the Model 400 XL are integral parts of a movable surface as described in section S5.2.2.2, we request that the belts of these models be attached during Configuration II sled testing. As similar test for harness attachment during Configuration II testing was granted to the Collier-Keyworth Company on July 3, 1985 for a comparable restraint system with an integral harness/shield/crotch strap design. Photographs of Century's Model 400XL restrain systems are enclosed as figures 1 through 5.

The Model 3000 restraint system, figure 1, utilizes harness straps over each shoulder for upper torso restraint and a webbing and buckle crotch strap for lower torso and extremity restraint. Both are integrated with the movable shield in a continuous loop harness and cannot be easily removed. When the shield is lowered the harness straps over each shoulder of the child occupant and the crotch strap must be attached to the seat belt base between the child's legs. Although it is obvious that the crotch strap must be buckled (as a permanent part of the shield) we have also attached a warning label to the crotch strap webbing, figure 2, explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap to preclude any misinterpretation by the consumer.

The Model 400-XL, figure 3, has an integral harness design with straps passing over each shoulder of the child when the shield is lowered. Lower torso protection is provided by a combination shield/crotch restraint design that buckles into the seat base. The crotch restraint mechanism of the Model 400-XL and the shield that provides the lower torso and extremity restraint for the child are one piece and therefore cannot be separated. This shield cannot be properly positioned for a child unless the crotch portion is buckled into the seat base. In order to misuse this design a consumer would have to deliberately remove the harness straps which are threaded through the shield and secured with plastic tips, figure 4. The latching mechanism of the shield has a red label permanently attached to indicate when the shield is not properly latched, figure 5.

We would appreciate a reply to this request at your earliest convenience. If you require more information, please call me at (716) 674-48822.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Kelleher

See 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey A. Miller to Frederick B. Locker

ID: 86-6.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Aaron M. Lowe -- Executive Director, Vehicle Security Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Aaron M. Lowe Executive Director Vehicle Security Association 5100 Forbes Boulevard Lanham, MD 20706

This responds to your letter dated July 22, 1986, requesting this agency to withdraw the granting of four petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard.

You state in your letter that the Vehicle Security Association (VSA) challenges the granting of petitions to Volkswagen of America, Inc., General Motors Corporation, Isuzu Motors Corporation, and Nissan Research and Development, Inc. for exemption of certain vehicle lines beginning in model year 1987. For the reasons given below, the agency believes these petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard were properly granted according to the requirements of section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 543, Petition for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

You state that the lack of theft data concerning vehicles marked in accordance with the theft prevention standard makes it difficult for NHTSA to make a determination, based upon substantial evidence, that a standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with Part 541 in reducing and deterring theft. You add that the agency is not required to approve petitions for exemption and request that the agency withdraw its grants of those petitions for that reason.

Section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act permits vehicle manufacturers to petition NHTSA to allow high theft vehicle lines to be exempted from the standard. To be exempted, a high theft line must be equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment and NHTSA must determine that antitheft device is likely to be as effective as parts making in reducing and deterring theft. This section requires that the agency's determination to grant or deny a petition be made within 120 days after the date of filing the petition. If the agency fails to make a determination within the specified time period, this section also states that the petition shall be considered granted.

In the notices granting the petitions filed by these four manufacturers, NHTSA noted that the limited and apparently conflicting data on the effectiveness of the pre-standard parts marking programs makes it difficult in the first year of this legislation's implementation to compare the effectiveness of an antitheft device with the effectiveness of compliance with the theft prevention standard. Section 605 clearly requires such a comparison, which the agency has made on the basis of the limited data available. However, the House Committee Report states that section 605 was adopted because the Committee was willing to give standard equipment antitheft devices "an opportunity to be proved as effective in deterring theft as the numbering standard." H. R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 17. The agency believes that Congress did not intend that the data limitations in the early phase of implementing the theft prevention standard result in across-the-board denials of exemption petitions.

If, as the standard is implemented, NHTSA receives data indicating that a manufacturer's antitheft device has not been as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the theft prevention standard, the agency may terminate the exemption under section 605(d). The agency will be monitoring these and other theft data in an attempt to effectively implement the purposes of the vehicle theft legislation.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 22, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

VSA officially challenges the granting of petitions to Volkswagon/Audi, General Motors, Isuzu, and Nissan by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for exemptions from the marking requirements of The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984. VSA firmly contends that the petitions did not meet the requirements as established by the Act and therefore should not have been granted.

VSA is a trade association representing manufacturers, manufacturer's representatives, distributors, and retailers of vehicles security systems. These companies sell primarily in the aftermarket. While VSA strongly believes that the installation of security systems in cars can be of great benefit in preventing the incidence of theft, we also must point out that one of the prime benefits of aftermarket security systems as they are installed today in the variety of systems and the differences in installation of each system on each car. These permutations add a degree of difficulty for thieves attempting to steal cars with aftermarket antitheft systems.

The opposite holds true for cars standard equipped with security systems. NHTSA itself provides the reasoning behind this difference. In its "Report on Automobile Antitheft Devices," NHTSA states "once thieves had determined the means to defeat one manufacturer's system, they would, in essence, be able to defeat all such systems since they would be manufactured to the same specifications. Such a result would clearly be inconsistent with the goals of the Theft Act."

Although the agency confines its discussion to a federal standard for security systems, the argument can be extended against original equipment systems. All manufacturers if they standard equip a car line with a security system, must manufacture the systems to the same specifications. Therefore what is true for a federal standard also is true for a standard equipped system. Once a thief disengages a security system on one car in a car line, he can perform the same feat with the remainder of the cars he comes upon in that line. The word "standard" in either case spells trouble for the car owner who possesses such a system. VSA admits that impressive data on the effectiveness of standard equipped security systems was reported in the NHTSA "Report on Automobile Antitheft Devices" regarding the Nissan 280 ZX and the Cadillac Eldorado Convertible; however, NHTSA itself admits that this data is inconclusive. NHTSA's statistics seem to show that in the short term, a standard equipped system could be beneficial. However, as thieves learn the systems, we we question how effective they will be in the long term.

NHTSA's regulations mention that this provision of the Theft Act is to provide this technology an opportunity. VSA wonders whether a car owner who spends over $20,000 for a new car will appreciate it being stolen in order to provide the car companies with an experiment which they could have accomplished without government sanction. We further question whether a car owner will be grateful to hear, that once the car is stolen, recovery of the vehicle will be less likely because the car maker was exempted from the parts marking standard.

NHTSA seems to be inventing Congressional intent rather than implementing the letter of the law. Section 605 (a) (1) of the theft auto states: "Any manufacturer may petition the Secretary for an exemption from the application of any of the requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard under section 602 for any line or lines of passenger motor vehicles which are equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device which the Secretary determines is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the requirements of such standard." Part (c) of this section states that the Secretary shall make the determination based upon "substantial evidence".

NHTSA admits in its regulations that there is little substantial evidence from which to make that determination. "The agency realizes that empirical data bearing directly on the effectiveness of marking done in compliance with the theft prevention standard will not be available for petitions for model years 1987 or 1988. The agency will have to make determinations based partially on engineering judgements about the information otherwise available to the agency on the effectiveness of means for reducing and deterring theft".

VSA feels compelled to remind NHTSA that no where in the law is it required to approve exemptions. If NHTSA concludes that it cannot make a determination on whether a system will likely be as effective as marking parts based on substantial evidence, then the Agency should act responsibly and reject the petition. NHTSA appears to be struggling to justify the petitions based on "engineering judgements." Such tortured interpretations of the law are clearly contrary to public interest.

VSA therefore requests that NHTSA withdraw the granted petitions and instead require marking of the parts according to the law.

Thank you for your attention and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Aaron M. Lowe Executive Director

ID: 86-6.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas MacGregor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas MacGregor Terralab Engineers 3585 Via Terra Salt Lake City UT 84115

Dear Mr. MacGregor:

Thank you for your letter of August 28, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You asked whether the performance requirements of the standard would apply to a propane-fired engine block heater. You explained that the heater has its own fuel system that is independent of the vehicle's fuel system. As explained below, a propane-fired heater would not be covered by Standard No. 301.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements for the fuel system used in certain motor vehicles. The heater you have described apparently does not have any connections to the fuel tank or fuel lines of the vehicle. Instead, the heater has its own propane fuel system. Since the heater is not connected to the vehicle's fuel system, it would not be covered by the standard. Even if the heater were connected to the vehicle fuel system, it would not have to meet the performance requirements of the standard, since it is a propane-fired heater. S3 of Standard No. 301 limits the application of the standard to vehicles that use a fuel with a boiling point above 32o F. Propane has a boiling point below 32o F.

Even though the heater is not covered by the requirements of Standard No. 301, it would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet that describes how our regulations, including those on defect notification and remedy campaigns, apply to equipment manufacturers.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

28 August 1986

Steve Ashe Chief Counsel's Office Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20596

Dear Mr. Ashe:

Per our conversation I am writing to obtain an opinion.

We have been approached to test a propane-fired engine block heater. The propane fuel for the heater is separate and independent of the vehicular fuel system.

While there are standards which cover the test requirements for the heater itself, we need an Opinion which will determine whether impact (crash) and roll-over tests are required per 301, even though the language of 301 excludes LPC since its boiling point is below 32 F.

Also, if the Opinion should state the testing is necessary, would the system have to be tested for each truck and bus style, or would one representative test be acceptable for all installations?

Sincerely

Douglas MacGregor

ID: 86-6.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Groth

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Glenn Groth 3355 Mission Ave. Ste 211 Oceanside, CA 92054

Dear Mr. Groth:

This is in reply to your letter of July 21, 1986, to Dr. Carl Clark of this agency. You have developed a "brake light enhancer," a device which flashes the stop lamps three times before they become steady-burning. The sample you provided us is packaged to describe the device as "the ultimate in rear end collision prevention," and bears a label "This product is for off road use". The device is specifically permitted under Section 25251.5(c) of the California Vehicle Code. Your letter states that several vehicle manufacturers have shown interest in the device, but wish to see "DOT approval." You anticipate that the device might eventually be "a mandatory device like the third brake light now." You have asked Dr. Clark "What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?"

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we establish the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to be met by manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standards apply from manufacture through first sale of the vehicle; after the first sale, as a general rule, modifications may not be performed to a vehicle that take it out of compliance with a standard. However, this prohibition does not extend to modifications performed by the owner himself. The Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which manufacturers certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, without the necessity of prior "approval" by the Department. The Act also requires national uniformity of Federal and state safety standards in that once a Federal standard has been established, a State standard covering the same aspect of performance must be identical to it.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal standard on motor vehicle lighting. Because the Federal requirement does not allow a stoplamp to flash three times before becoming steady burning, a motor vehicle may not be manufactured with the brake lamp enhancer installed. Further, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installs a brake light enhancer, that person could be viewed as having rendered the stoplamps partially ineffective, and therefore as having violated the Act. Because the advertised purpose of this device is to prevent rear end collisions for on road vehicles, the label "This product is for off road use" will not serve to protect any person from liability under the Act.

In summary, your device is permissible under the Act only if it is designed to be installed by a vehicle owner, and so advertised. The fact that it may be legal under California law will not protect a driver from citation for operation of the system in any State where it may not be permitted by local law. You have the right to petition the Department for an amendment to Standard No. 108 to permit or require your device, but at present we are satisfied that the new center high mounted stop lamp sufficiently addresses the identical safety need covered by your system. Because the safety standards are performance oriented rather than design oriented, the agency's regulations are not intended to specify devices or systems of a proprietary nature.

I enclose a copy of our petition regulations for your information. If you file a petition with us, it should contain data substantiating the safety need and demonstrated performance of your device, rather than simple allegations that it prevents rear end collisions. We are returning the sample of your device herewith.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 21, 1986

Dr. Carl C. Clark Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Brake Light Enhancer

Dear Dr. Clark:

Thank you for the time you shared with me on the telephone last Friday, July 18, 1986. I appreciate all the information and help you provided.

At your suggestion, I'm enclosing the following items for your review: (1) A copy o; the patent for the Brake Light Enhancer; (2) A copy of the amendment to the California State Vehicle Code permitting the use of the device on vehicles in California to flash the stop lamps three 3 times before coming on steady; (3) A brochure which briefly describes the product; and (4) A sample of the device for your inspection and testing.

As I mentioned to you over the phone we have several auto manufacturers interested in the device, but before they will commit themselves to using it they would like to see more approvals or endorsements for the product, such as by the D.O.T. We anticipate that if and when the device is approved by the D.O.T., it would initially be offered as an option and later as a mandatory device like the third brake light now.

What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?

Thank you again for all your help. I've enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Glenn Groth

ID: 86-6.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: no addressee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1986, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and your letter to me of november 13, asking for our comments on four new motor vehicle lighting devices.

The first device performs a combination of two functions. It consists of three lamps serving as identification lamps and will meet all requirements of Standard No. 108 for such equipment. The three lamp cluster will also serve a auxiliary stop lamps (mistakenly referred to as a turn lamp in the November letter). The second device is a clearance lamp meeting requirements of Standard No. 108, which would also serve as an auxiliary stop lamp (also mistakenly referred to a a turn lamp in the November letter). The third device is described as a "tracking lamp" ( the diagram shows this to be the rear side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108) meeting all requirements for such; it will also serve as an auxiliary side turn signal indicator. The fourth device will serve as an intermediate side marker lamp, complying with Standard No. 108's requirements, but will also serve as an auxiliary side turn signal lamp. The devices are intended for use on wide trucks and trailers. In your opinion, the auxiliary functions will not "confuse or inhibit" the functioning of lighting equipment required by Standards No. 108.

With respect to the combination of lamp functions or truck and trailers, Standard No. 108, specifically paragraph S4.4, prohibits only the optical combination of clearance lamps with taillamps or identification lamps. These combinations do not exist in any of your four proposed designs. Under paragraph S4.1.3 supplemental lighting devices are permitted as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You have concluded that there would be no impairment. Under the facts as presented in your letter, we have no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

We have noted your request that your letters be accorded confidential treatment because of proprietary commercial information, and your attorney's consent on your behalf that our interpretation may be made public provided that all information identifying you as the writer is deleted. We shall follow this procedure.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-6.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Kunst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kunst Deutsche Tecalemit Deutsche Tecalemit GmbH P.O.B. 120128 D-4800 Bielefeld 12

Dear Mr. Kunst:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. You enclosed drawings of a brake hose end fitting and a vacuum brake hose assembly you manufacture, and asked whether the assembly would conform to the constriction requirements of S9.2.1. In our opinion, the answer is no.

Your letter did not clearly state the size of the inside diameter of the hose used in assembly 90 28B 758. That dimension is necessary in order to ascertain whether constriction requirements are met. We believe, however, based on the markings at the bottom your diagram -i.e., "TUBE 12.5x2.0 DIN 73 37B" - that the brake hose has an outside diameter of 12.5 mm, and a wall thickness of 2.0 mm. The hose would therefore have a nominal inside diameter of 8.5 mm. (If our assumptions are incorrect, please do not hesitate to contact us.) *

Paragraph S9.2.1 of Standard No. 106 states:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly shall be not less than 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for light duty.

To pass the constriction test of S9.2.1, a vacuum brake hose assembly (heavy duty) must have an inside diameter that is at least 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. This, if the nominal inside diameter of the hose is 8.5 mm, the inside diameter of the assembly must be not less than 6.38 mm at any point. If the assembly is intended for light duty, under the 70 percent requirement its inside diameter must be not less than 5.95 mm at any point.

You stated that the inside diameter of end fitting 90 279 346 is 4 mm + 0.5 mm. Because of this size, the part of the fitting which is attached to the hose would not meet constriction requirements of S9.2.1 for either light or heavy duty applications.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington DC 20590 USA

Subj.: Federal Safety Standards MVSS 106 Paragraph S 9.2.1, Constriction -

Dear Sirs,

In the a. m. matter we wrote to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, Mr. Stanley R. Scheiner. Today we have received the information from Mr. Scheiner that your office is responsible in this case.

Herewith we would like to give you the following information:

In conjunction with a development for General Motors, we urgently require your interpretation of paragraph S 9.2.1, regarding the constriction of the size of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly.

As you can learn from the enclosed drawing information, the end fitting 90 279 346 with an inside diameter of 4 mm + 0,5 mm tolerance will be used for the brake hose assembly, drwg. no 90 288 758.

Please confirm that this design comply with paragraph S 9.2.1.

We would deeply appreciate your short term reply.

Yours faithfully

DEUTSCHE TECALEMIT GMBH i.v. Kunst

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS