ID: nht92-9.17

DATE: February 8, 1992

FROM: Carl C. Clark -- Safety Systems Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rich (Rice) -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: CC-92028

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/9/92 from Paul J. Rice to Carl C. Clark (A39; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I would appreciate your legal interpretation of the glass-plastic glazing types covered by the designation AS-14 in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205. The definition reads,

" 'Glass-plastic glazing material, means a laminate of one or more layers of glass and one or more layers of plastic in which a plastic surface of the glazing faces inward when the glazing is installed in a vehicle."

Subsequently in the standard, Item AS-14 Glass-Plastics are identified as glass-plastic glazing materials that pass certain tests and meet labeling requirements. These may be used anywhere in any motor vehicle except a convertible (a restriction added because of the possible degradation of the plastic layer(s) by direct sunlight).

This prohibition of the use in convertibles of AS-14 glass-plastic glazing, and AS-15A, Annealed Glass-Plastic Glazing, was subsequently limited to the windshield, allowing the use of these materials for the side and rear windows of convertibles (57 FR 1652, January 15, 1992). Item AS-14 has no stipulations as to the nature of the glass other than those qualities examined by the stipulated tests, and indicated by the required label. Is this a correct interpretation?

In response to a General Motors Corporation letter/petition (56 FR 12669, March 27, 1991), clamping of the glass-plastic glazing sample was allowed for Test 26, (effective date September 26, 1991, revised by the correction - 56 FR 49149, September 27, 1991, to be "effective upon publication in the Federal Register"). With clamping, a test of penetration through the material could be achieved for a two-ply glass-plastic glazing sample. Without clamping, the sample might crack and fall through the test frame without demonstrating its penetration resistance.

My understanding, then, is that if one meets the requirements of AS-14 material, whatever the form of the "glass," one can today use this material for automobile glazing in any position, except for the windshield of a convertible. Please correct me if I am wrong. This would therefore include a "tempered" or an "annealed" glass-plastic glazing, even though one could also call the "annealed" glass-plastic glazing used for a side window "Item 15A" (56 FR 18526, April 23, 1991). A Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 18559, April 23, 1991) has proposed calling "tempered" glass-plastic glazing Item 15B, to be used anywhere in the motor vehicle, excluding the windshield. The final rule on this proposal has not yet been issued.

May I note my understanding that the tempered glass-plastic side window material developed by DuPont and used in the contract for which I was the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative while at NHTSA (NHTSA Report DOT ES 807 397, Contract DTNH22-87-c-07442) and in my research reports with Peter Sursi (SAE 851203, 870320, and 890226) would pass all of the AS-14 requirements, once clamping is allowed for Test 26, and so could be designated as AS-14 material, with proper labeling, and put into use immediately. Please correct me if I am wrong.

May I note that the terms "annealed" and "tempered" are qualitative terms for a quantitative process of heat treatment of the glass as if cools from the melted condition. In the discussion of the new glass-plastic "items" 15A and 16A and 16B (56 FR 12669, March 27, 1991), NHTSA agreed to drop the "proposal to prohibit the installation of strengthened glass-plastic glazing in windshields and other locations requisite for driving visibility." This was because of industry comments that the term "strengthened" glass is, in effect, another qualitative term for the quantitative process of heat treatment, intended or a consequence of the industrial process used. Even annealed glass is "strengthened" to some extend, and windshield edges are appropriately tempered to some extend to reduce breakage in installation. A potential future difficulty with Items 15A and 15B is the need for a quantitative definition of conditions and proportion of the total surface that leads to or defines when a glass is "annealed" and when "tempered." To what extent can the small test sample be considered representative of the entire glazing piece used in the vehicle? In my view, the problem disappears if the glass, however named, meets the tests specified for AS-14 material, in which case it can be labeled AS-14, with the appropriate warning label also added as required, and put into general use immediately. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A number of companies have been running road tests of two-ply tempered glass-plastic side windows. My hope (and plan) is to have more of these tests, a process that can extend beyond private use, in my view, if indeed the glazing meets AS-14 requirements. May future road tests go forward with commercial installation of after-market glass-plastic glazing that meets the AS-14 tests and is properly labeled, whatever the designation of the glass component?

ID: nht92-9.18

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, EAS, GENERAL MOTORS

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to NHTSA memorandum dated 12/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6741)

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change.

As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413).

As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions.

ID: nht92-9.19

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Marc C. Gravino -- Williams & McCarthy

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Marc C. Gravino (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am seeking in your legal opinion as to the interpretation of Standard 108 of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Code, found at Title 49, S571.108 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In particular, I would like to obtain your opinion as to the following question: Does NHTSA Standard 108 contain any requirement that the parking lamps, tail lamps, or side marker lamps (otherwise sometimes commonly referred to "marker" lights or "delineation" lights) operate INDEPENDENTLY of the ignition or equivalent switch, so that when they are activated, they will remain activated regardless of whether or not the ignition switch is in the on or off position? If there is such a legal requirement, was it in effect for cars manufactured in 1988 and sold in the U.S.?

I have reviewed Standard 108, Subsection 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.5.7, a copy of which I have enclosed herewith for your reference.

I was referred to you by Mr. Gene Wright, who I understand is the Chairman of the signaling and marking devices committee of SAE. Thank you for your assistance in providing a legal opinion in this matter. If there is any further information you need from me, or if you would like any clarification, please feel free to write to me or call me at my office at 815/987-8900.

Attachment

Copy of 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-89 Edition) regarding Section 571.108. (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-9.2

DATE: February 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen C. Bartch -- Applications Engineer, Quigley Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/92 from Stephen C. Bartch to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You stated that you propose to convert certain 1992 Ford vans to your 4x4 drive system; however, the fuel tank in the vans interferes with the transfer case placement. You therefore plan to either replace the OEM tank with a smaller one that has identical attachments or modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference. You requested that we summarize your responsibilities regarding Standard No. 301.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meets all applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. The operations you propose to conduct on 1992 Ford vans would make you an alterer, and the operations would affect the compliance of the vehicles with Standard No. 301.

An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567.7. Alterers make this certification by affixing a permanent label on the altered vehicle, which identifies the alterer, the date of alteration, and states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards, such as Standard No. 301, that specify dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body

builder's guide."

I have enclosed a pamphlet which provides additional information concerning relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985, entitled: Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985, entitled: Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted)

ID: nht92-9.20

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Charles Danis, P.Eng. -- Les Entreprises Track Test Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 121 - S5.3.3 (as per our phone call with your Mr. Marvin Shaw, on February 6th 1992)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Charles Danis (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

We recently performed a compliance FMVSS 121 test on an articulated bus made by MCI Greyhound Canada. For the middle axle of this articulated bus, MCI is using different air pressures than those specified in paragraph S5.3.3. of FMVSS 121 (for reasons of safety).

Based on the attached interpretation dated July 23rd 1976 from your Mr. Frank A. Berndt, MCI is using 40 psi as initial service reservoir system air pressure and 28 psi as brake. chamber pressure (at .45 sec. max.). In the case of release, MCI is using 40 psi.

We would appreciate very much if you could confirm by return that this attached interpretation is still valid.

ID: nht92-9.21

DATE: February 6, 1992

FROM: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Marking requirements of FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated March, 1992 (est.) from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Watanabe (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

As the overseas company of our firm-Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Japan, there are Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Thailand and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Taiwan. We would like to have your advice about the Manufacturer Identification Mark required by FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b) on Thai or Taiwan made headlamps for U.S.

As the Manufacturer Identification Mark, Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TH STANLEY", "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), as well as Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TW STANLEY", "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters). Can Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. use one of the marks to identify the manufacturer in order to conform the requirements of FMVSS NO. 108 S7.2.(b)?

In connection with this matter, we inform you that "TH STANLEY" and "TW STANLEY" have been made an application to the U.S. Patent and Trade Marks Office as a trade mark. However, "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters), "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters) are not registered as a trade mark, because we think that they are not a trade mark, but a manufacturer's name.

ID: nht92-9.22

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Frederick Harris -- Proprietor, Frederick Harris Associates

TO: National Highway Traffic Safety Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frederick Harris (A39; Std. 302; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I am planning to put on the market a cloth device containing light weight plastic items useful to a baby while in an automobile. The cloth item will be adjacent to but not touching a child sitting or laying in a nearby safety seat.

Please advise what national safety standards/regulations may apply to such a device from the viewpoint of need to be fire-safe, or any other safety considerations.

ID: nht92-9.23

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William A. Boehly -- Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: Subject: ACTION: OVSC's Request for Legal Interpretation, FMVSS 210

TEXT:

This responds to the December 20, 1991, request from the Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for an interpretation of the phrase "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" in S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210 as it applies to a conversion van manufactured by Glaval, Inc.

These Glaval vans have seats in which a rigid metal bracket is attached to the anchorage by means of a bolt on one end and the webbing of the belt passes through the rigid metal bracket at the other end. The rigid metal brackets can pivot around the bolt, depending on how tightly the bolt is fastened down. Regardless of how much the bolt is tightened, it would seem that the bracket would pivot if the belt system were restraining an occupant in a crash.

S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires a line from either the seating reference point or another point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage to form an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20 degrees and not more than 75 degrees. The issue in this instance is whether the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" should be determined with reference to where the webbing passes through the upper end of the rigid metal bracket or with reference to the bolt on the lower end of the rigid metal bracket.

Previous agency interpretations have defined the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" as the contact point between the webbing and the metal or rigid plastic hardware which is nearest the SgRP. Applying this concept to the design in question would result in the nearest contact point being determined with reference to the upper end of the rigid metal bracket through which the belt webbing passes.

An exception to this general rule is belt designs with flexible wire stalks. Even though these stalks are typically plastic-coated metal, the wire stalks are more akin to webbing (because of their flexibility) than to metal or rigid plastic hardware. Because of this flexibility, NHTSA has said that the nearest contact point for these wire stalks is not the upper end of these stalks where the webbing contacts it, but the lower end of the stalk where it is anchored to the vehicle.

In addition, NHTSA said in a February 15, 1973 letter to Mr. Kato of Nissan that, if a rigid bracket can be rotated around its attachment bolt, the centerline of the attachment bolt would be considered the "nearest contact point" for the purposes of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

It is my opinion that the letter to Nissan is of general applicability to safety belt systems in which the terminal hardware on the belt is free to pivot around the anchorage bolt. The purpose of the anchorage location requirement is to ensure that the webbing crosses an occupant's body at an angle that is neither too shallow or too steep. The effective angle of the webbing is determined by the nearest point on the vehicle that does not alter its location under the influence of non-crash stresses on the webbing. In the case of the Glaval vans, as in the Nissan situation, the anchorage bolt is the fixed point around which the belt and its related hardware pivot and should be used as the "nearest contact point" under S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

You should note that my opinion is premised on the assumption that the metal bracket used by Glaval is free to pivot around the anchorage bolt. If the bracket were fixed in place, the "nearest contact point" for purposes of S4.3.1.1 would be the point at which the webbing contacts the upper end of the bracket.

ID: nht92-9.24

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Robert Salton -- Engineer, Performance Friction Corp.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert Salton (A39; Std. 105)

TEXT:

On the recommendation of your staff, I am requesting an interpretation of a regulation contained in the FMVSS-105 Safety Standard.

The sections in question are:

1. S.5.1.4.1 (Regulations) 2. S.7.11.1.1 (Procedures)

We are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade/recovery test - baseline check stops.

The interpretation will make clear to us exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the Fade and Recovery Check Stops. Also, what values of pedal effort would be considered non-compliance (i.e., peak, average, sustained) greater than 10 lbs or less than 0 lbs.

I have spoken with Zack Frazier of your staff and he is familiar with our questions. I regret that no data or vehicle instrumentation traces are available to me at this time.

Please call me if you have any questions. My need is urgent so as to continue brake system development and testing.

ID: nht92-9.25

DATE: February 4, 1992

FROM: Douglas Kubehl -- Technician, Safety Engineering Associates, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Douglas Kubehl (A39; Std. 209)

TEXT:

As an engineer, I have been asked to obtain a legal translation of FMVSS Part 571.209, which I have enclosed for your reference. Specifically, my interest lies in the wording of parts 209-S4.4 and 209-S5.3.

In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: "The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds". My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds.

Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied.

We have previously addressed this question to John Lee of NHTSA's enforcement division. Mr Lee indicated that as per enforcement testing, part 209-S4.4b(4) requires a 5000 pound loop load. When asked for a written confirmation/interpretation, Mr. Lee referred us to your office.

We look forward to your response regarding appropriate interpretation. Thank you for your attention in this matter.