ID: nht69-1.17

DATE: 04/18/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Auto Test Division, Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of March 17, 1969, and March 26, 1969, pertaining to certain child restraint devices and whether or not they are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. Your specific questions and our corresponding answers are as follows:

Question No. 1: Which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209, which must not?

Answer No. 1: Child restraint devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209 if, by visual examination of the design and the advertising thereof, they are sold as being a Type 3 seat belt assembly. By definition, a Type 3 seat belt assembly is a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.

Question No. 2: How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not?

Answer No. 2: If the manifested purpose of any belt, strap, webbing or similar device is to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, then the belt has to comply with the applicable portions of Standard No. 209. There is a distinct difference between a "child seating system" and a seat belt used to restrain a child. "Child seating system" means an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating and restraining a child being transported in a passenger car. This child seating system is not covered by Standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard.

Question No. 3: Is the criterion (that a given device must comply) whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury?

Answer No. 3: Whether or not the maker of a child restraining belt claims that the device offers protection against impact injury is not the criterion upon which the compliance interpretation is based. (Reference Answer No. 2.)

Further investigation is needed before we can provide an answer to your question pertaining to which specific manufacturers of the belts that you tested are in violation.

To assist you in your project on child restraint devices, we are enclosing the latest copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 and the copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on child restraint systems.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Enclosures: F-38 and 49 C.F.R. Part 371, Docket No. 2-15, Notice No. 2

March 17, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

Consumers Union has under way a project on child restraint devices. As I told you briefly on the phone a couple of weeks ago, the question has come up, which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard 209, which must not? How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not? Is the criterion whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury? I talked to Joe O'Gorman about this problem at some length, but he was not able to provide an answer.

I hope that you, or someone in your office, can throw some light on this question for us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division--

Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc: Morris Kaplan

March 26, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

On March 21, I received a phone call from Joe O'Gorman in response to my letter of March 17 to you requesting advice on how to tell whether any given child restraint device is governed by the Type 3 requirements in Standard 209. I believe Joe now has a clear understanding of our question, and he is trying to obtain an answer.

In the meantime, we would like to amplify for you the information on child restraint devices that appeared on pages 169 and 170 of our April issue. The 15 devices listed as failing to meet the 2000-pound load requirement were sold with safety claims as follows: DEVICES WITHDISCLAIMER:

Penney's No. 0858

Sears No. 1507

Tommee Tippee WP 207

Tommee Tippee WP 205 SP

DEVICES MAKING NO SPECIFIC SAFETY CLAIM:

Auto Babe

Ward's No. 6053 "Tiny World Safety Belt"

Wizard No. 5480 "All Purpose Safety Strap. . ."

DEVICES MAKING SOME CLAIMS:

Hollywood 495 C

497 C "1000-lb. test." "Secures against sudden stops." ". . .allows for. . .with perfect safety."

Kiddie King KKB-1 "Child's Auto Safety Belt." "Protects your child against sudden stops."

Kiddie King KKB-2 "Child's Safety Harness and Belt." "Protection. . .in Autos. . ." ". . .Maximum of safety."

Safety Guard B 12 "Auto Safety Strap." "For protection, comfort, safety." "Will protect children on short stops."

Safety Guard B 112 "Child's Auto Safety Strap." "Exceeds SAE Safety Specifications." "Protection against short stop danger."

Safety Guard B 1212 "Safety Harness Strap." "Protect your child from short stops." ". . .exceeds S.A.E. Safety Specifications."

Toidey SC-3 "Auto Harness." "Keeps little explorers safe." ". . .webbing withstands over 2000 pounds pull."

Our question: Which of these devices are Type 3 restraints; and thus which of them are, according to our static tests, in violation of Standard 209?

We shall appreciate any information you can supply us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division-- Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc. Morris Kaplan

David Tallman

ID: 3167yy

Mr. Brett Reed
Design Engineer
Imo Industries, Inc.
Morse Controls Division
21 Clinton Street
Hudson, OH 44236-2899

Dear Mr. Reed:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, as it relates to electronic transmission shift controls that operate automatic transmissions used in heavy duty trucks and RV's and on solenoid operated powershift transmissions used in various on and off highway vehicles. You asked whether "the intent of [section S3.l.3 of the standard] is to render the engine starter inoperative when the transmission is in a forward or reverse drive gear or when the shift lever . . . is in such a gear." As discussed below, Standard No. 102 expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

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 and equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S3.l.3 of Standard No. 102 reads as follows:

S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

The standard thus expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

You state in your letter that "(t)he interests of public safety will be best served by requiring that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission itself, not the transmission shift lever, is in a forward or reverse drive gear." According to your letter, with the introduction of electronic shift systems and fully electronic transmissions, the connection between the shift lever and the transmission is rarely performed by direct mechanical means, and there is a possibility that the shift lever position may not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission in situations where the transmission control circuitry overrides the shift lever selection in the interest of safety, transmission protection or other criteria related to specific applications. You state that any attempt to artificially match the electronic shift lever's position to the gear currently enaged by the transmission in such override situations involves added cost and complexity, as well as safety and reliability concerns. You also argue that requiring the shift lever to be moved to neutral when the transmission itself is already in neutral due to some override condition imposes unnecessary safety hazards in some applications.

ID: aiam0145

Dear Mr. Sears: This letter reaffirms the position of the National Highway Safet Bureau with respect to the handling of petitions for the addition of new tires as stated in recent telephone discussions with members of the Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance.; It was related during these discussions that further action on th petition of November 13, 1968, requesting the addition of the C78-13 tire size designation to Table I-J of the Appendix A of Standard No. 109 cannot be taken until the information indicating compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is received covering the desired test rim width. The Standards are directed at total motor vehicle safety: accordingly, they are just as applicable to replacement tires as to tires intended for new motor vehicles and the guidelines for addition of new tire size designations and new alternative rims to Standards No. 109 and No. 110 as published in the *Federal Register* of October 5, 1968, therefore apply.; The question of a precedence having been established by the addition o the 5 1/2JJ alternative rim to Table I of the appendix to Standard No. 110, without supporting date, in the case of the C70-15 tire size designation has been raised by your organisation. Our records indicate that your request for the addition of this tire size was based on the petition of August 19, 1968. This Action was well in advance of the procedural guidelines established on October 5, 1968. Although this test rim was added to Table I of the appendix A of Standard No. 110, without test date, the National Highway Safety Bureau believes that a safety hazard could exist if this tire and rim combination is not compatible. We Would, therefore, appreciate test information certifying compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 110 by the 5 1/2JJ rim and the C70-15 tire size combination.; Our records indicate that you have submitted petitions dated July 1 and August 29, 1968, requesting the addition of twelve additional alternative rim sizes to Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. To date, data indicating compliance with Standards No. 109 and No. 110 has not been received and we have advised you in several telephone discussions that no action is contemplated until data is submitted.; In conclusion, We would like to reiterate that all future petitions fo additions to Standards No. 109 and No. 110 must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines published in the *Federal Register* on October 5, 1968. The Bureau makes no provisions or exceptions based on the ultimate use of tha(sic) tires. All new tires will be considered within the framework of these guidelines.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr. Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;

ID: nht71-2.49

DATE: 05/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Distributers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 4, 1971, in which you asked several interpretive questions concerning the recent issuance of regulations on Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (49 CFR Part 568) and corresponding amendments to the Certification Regulations (36 F.R. 7054, April 14, 1971; corrected 36 F.R. 7855, April 27, 1971). I will rephrase your questions slightly in order to answer them.

1. If a person delivers an incomplete vehicle to a truck body assembler for completion, but insists that the vehicle not contain all the lighting required by Standard No. 108, may the assembler carry out the person's wishes as an "intermediate manufacturer" under the regulations? Would identification, clearance, and sidemarker lamps required by Standard 108 be considered "readily attachable accessories" under the regulations, so that the assembler would necessarily be considered a final-stage manufacturer?

The assembler would be permitted under the regulations to put a truck body on an incomplete vehicle, without all the required lighting, and consider himself an intermediate manufacturer. As you suggest, he would be obliged to specify, in the document furnished with the vehicle according to Part 568, that the vehicle does not conform to the standards, and describe the remaining work necessary to make it conform. The lamp assemblies you mention would not necessarily be considered "readily attachable accessories"; in general this agency will leave the determination of such categorical questions up to the parties directly concerned, as long as they act consistently with the regulations.

2. We interpret the new regulation to mean that every vehicle which is sold to the first purchaser for use must be certified. Will this do away with the truck dealer selling an incomplete vehicle direct to the user without a body or other structure on it?

Every completed vehicle must be certified. But an incomplete vehicle is not certified under our regulations, and there is certainly no restriction on the sale of an incomplete vehicle "direct to the user" or to anyone else, except for the requirement for the standards information document. One of the main purposes of the new regulation is to remove artificial restrictions on the production and marketing of incomplete vehicles.

3. If an incomplete vehicle may be sold direct to the user without a final Certification, does this mean that there is no need to certify the vehicle further--even if the vehicle is completed after the sale?

To the contrary -- each manufacturer of a vehicle (or a final-stage manufacturer in the case of multistage vehicles) must affix a certification label in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567; this includes persons who manufacture or complete the manufacture of vehicles for their own use. The label contains information concerning weight ratings, date of manufacture, and identity of manufacturers that is important for enforcement purposes regardless of how the vehicle is marketed.

4. At what point after the sale of a vehicle to the first user does the vehicle become classified as "Used", and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Safety Standards or the Certification requirements?

The answer is, "immediately after sale of a vehicle to a user", but a couple of distinctions should be noted in this connection. Section 108(b)(1) of the Act predicates the cutoff of standards application on the "first purchase of [the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment] in good faith for purposes other than resale." Thus, there must be a bona fide sale, and the standards continue to apply to a vehicle where a person has manufactured or completed the manufacture of it for his own use, until after he sells the vehicle to another person. Also, the "vehicle" in question is the completed vehicle, and the above does not apply in any way to incomplete vehicles.

5. What recourse, other than to refuse to do the work, does the final-stage manufacturer have if the customer or user of the vehicle (1) no longer has the document provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or (2) does not wish to have the work done in accordance with the provisions of the existing Safety Standards or the Certification requirements? If under (1) above the document is not available from the user of the vehicle, is it reasonable for the final-stage manufacturer to assume that all work has been done in conformance with the Safety Standards and that he "has no reason to know" otherwise for the purpose of the final certification (if required)?

If the incomplete vehicle furnished to the final-stage manufacturer does not contain the information document, as it should under the multistage vehicle regulation, then the final-stage manufacturer should contain a copy of the document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The document does much more than assure "that all work has been done in conformance with the Safety Standards"; most importantly, it describes what must be done by subsequent manufacturers to conform with the standards, and may in the future contain required consumer information.

6. Was the vehicle identification number inadvertently omitted from the requirements for the Certification label for multistage vehicles?

The need for a vehicle identification number on multistage vehicles was not apparent when the regulation was promulgated. Since that time several interested parties have suggested that the VIN would be useful for identification of information documents that go with particular vehicles, and for other purposes related to identification of the vehicles in communications with the manufacturer. This agency is considering the possibility of adding such a requirement to Part 567.

ID: 08-003191--zero voltage safe--24 Sept 08 rsy

ID: nht74-2.6

DATE: 09/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Eagle International Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1974, request for approval of the Bendix "dual circuit air brake system" for use on your buses in satisfaction of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. In a subsequent phone call with Mr. Herlihy of this office, you stated that your only concern was whether the standard requires a parking brake system that meets the axle-by-axle retardation force requirements of S5.6.1 and the grade holding requirements of S5.6.2.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unable to "approve" plans or prototype systems for compliance with a standard in advance, because there is no way to establish that a vehicle so equipped actually meets the requirements until it has been manufactured.

With regard to your specific question, S5.6 states that each vehicle shall have a parking brake system that meets the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 at the manufacturer's option. This means that you are free to choose a system which meets either of these requirements but does not meet both.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

July 16, 1974

Sid Williams; 400 7th Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024

Dear Sid:

Enclosed is a copy of our Dual Circuit Air Brake System as developed by the Bendix heavy vehicle system group (their drawing number SA-8117-99). With this is an explanatory writeup describing a circuit operation for normal running, parking position and for service brake failure on the rear or front axle.

We would appreciate receiving your comments and possibly your approval for use in compliance with safety standards #121.

As previously mentioned we would like to avoid the use of spring brakes especially on the tag axle because these wheels are independently sprung and have a tendency to lock up because they do not have a load dividing connection with the drive wheels.

I would appreciate your help on these matters and hope to hear from you soon.

With warmest personal regards,

Sincerely yours,

Harry L. Cuthbert -- Chief Engineer, Eagle International Inc.

Enc: 2

SA-9117-99

EXPLANATORY WRITE-UP

NORMAL RUNNING

1. All reservoirs charged and accessory pressure protection valve open.

2. Parking Control Valve handle in release position. DD-3 Valve (Item 20) does not deliver air. DD-3 locks are disengaged. Service Interlock Valve controlled from its delivery line.

3. "Stand-by" Valve (Item 15) does not deliver any brake valve air, and low pressure indicator switches are open.

4. Service brakes can be applied by treadle valve; primary section of the brake valve applies rear axle and secondary section of the brake valve applies front axle.

SECONDARY BRAKES

1. A service brake failure, which would result in a rear axle circuit reservoir pressure loss will cause the "Stand-by" Valve (Item 15) to open. This will supplement the front axle brakes with rear axle brakes by applying modulated from axle circuit service pressure to the parking diaphragm.

2. A front axle circuit service brake failure will only cause a loss of front axle braking. Full service brakes can be applied on the rear axle through the treadle valve (Item 14).

3. In event of a broken treadle, the parking brakes can be applied as a "Back-up" emergency.

PARKING POSITION

1. When Parking Control Valve Handle (Item 18) is moved to the "park" position, the DD3 locks engage. The parking DD3 Valve will first deliver adequate pressure to the DD3 parking diaphragm, and then exhaust it automatically. In this condition, the parking application will remain applied strictly by "a mechanical means."

2. Service Interlock Valve being decontrolled, is closed and parking brakes cannot be released until PP-1 is pushed and a full service application is made and released, in this sequence.

RCF: dw Current for Drawing Revision #7; 6/18/74 (Graphics omitted) ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION 1 1 AIR COMPRESSOR 2 1 GOVERNOR 3 1 RESERVOIR-SUPPLY 4 1 (Illeg.) 5 1 (Illeg.) 6 1 (Illeg.) 7 1 (Illeg.) 8 3 DRAIN COCK 9 1 SAFETY VALVE 10 1 PRESSURE PROTECTION VALVE 11 3 SINGLE CHECK VALVE 12 3 LOW PRESSURE SWITCH 13 2 AIR PRESSURE GAUGE 14 1 (Illeg.) 15 1 (Illeg.)

TWO-STEP RELEASE OF DD-3 ACTUATORS.

2. (Illegible Words)

3. (Illegible Words)

(Graphics omitted)

(Illeg. table)

ID: nht79-2.30

DATE: 09/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 1979

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Co., Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.

Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet the adjustment requirements of pargaraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 23, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590 Reference: Your letter dated July 17, 1978 to Mr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America - NOA-30.

Dear Mr. Levin:

I have this date, received a copy of your letter, referenced above, concerning the testing of passive seat belt assemblies to FMVSS No. 208 or 209 requirements. I feel that your letter may need some clarification or I need some further interpretation.

The question posed was pertaining to para. S4.5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 208. Your answer to that question was yes, that seat belt passive systems are exempt from FMVSS No. 209 testing with the exception of those that are not required to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements.

My interpretation of the Standard is that the aforementioned paragraph replaces only the assembly performance requirements of FMVSS No. 209, which is a Static Test, with the Dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 208.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 208 states that the passive belt assembly must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 for retractor performance (para. S7.1 Adjustment). Therefore, all passive belt systems whether or not they are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements must conform to paragraph S7.1 (S4.5.3.3) of FMVSS No. 208. If my interpretation is not correct, then a retractor which will encounter more usage in a passive belt system, does not have to be tested for endurance per FMVSS No. 209 (i.e. resistance to environments, cycling and retraction force); but an active belt system which sees far less use, must meet those same 209 tests.

In view of testing programs presently in progress for several manufacturers an early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division

FP:mg

ID: 1984-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Nakaya -- Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1984, asking three questions concerning the compliance test procedures of Standard No. 219 that would be used in testing a truck with a forward tilt cabin. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

You first asked whether in doing the compliance test, "may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?" In conducting Standard No. 210 compliance tests, the agency conducts the test on a fully assembled vehicle (i.e., cabin and chassis/frame).

You then asked whether the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry could be reinforced during the testing. The answer is no; the agency tests the vehicle as manufactured.

Finally, you asked "should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanism be considered within the scope" of the Standard No. 210 compliance testing. The answer is no. The purpose of the standard is to measure the performance of the seat belt anchorages. A failure of the tilt cab latch would not constitute a failure of Standard No. 210. I must note, however, that a failure of a tilt cab latch under the loading experienced during a Standard No. 210 compliance test could raise the question of whether the latch contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I urge you to design the latch in such a manner that it will withstand the loads generated during a crash.

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

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

February 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th S.W. Washington, DC 20590

re: Interpretation of Compliance Testing Criteria - Safety Standard 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda, after reviewing our test procedures used to verify compliance with Standard 210, has a number of questions relating to truck vehicles equipped with a forward tilt cabin:

1. When a forward tilt cabin equipped truck is to be tested for seat belt assembly anchorage performance, may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?

2. If just the cabin is required, would it be possible to reinforce the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry? If the chassis/frame is required, would such reinforcement be allowed?

3. When performing Standard 210 compliance testing, should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanisms be considered within the scope of their Standard 210 compliance varification testing?

Please respond to these questions and discuss any issues relevant to the accurate interpretation of Standard 210 testing procedures and criteria at your earliest convenience.

Thank you, Sincerely, Original signed by H. Nakaya

ID: 17632.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director
Automotive Safety Office
Ford Motor Company
300 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1998, with respect to an interpretation of "permanent" fixation of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) calibration.

Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that "Each headlamp equipped with a VHAD that is manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its manufacturer." You reference our letter to Ichikoh Industries dated June 11, 1997, in which we said that if the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means it is not "permanent." You believe that this interpretation is not in accord with the intent of the rulemaking "and if read literally creates an impracticable and unreasonable standard." You have asked for an additional clarification of the term "permanent."

In your opinion, "the intent of the term 'permanent' was to help prevent adjustment of the VHAD calibration by either service mechanics or the operator, once set by the manufacturer. This would facilitate the proper aim of headlamps equipped with VHAD devices in the field. The [Regulatory Negotiation] Committee never intended that headlamp manufacturers prevent a determined individual from deliberately altering the calibration, as this is neither reasonable nor practicable."

You believe that S7.8.5.2(c) would be satisfied if a VHAD is tamper resistant or tamper indicant. With respect to tamper resistance, you write that a system could be designed so that the calibration mechanism would not permit misadjustment by a customer using ordinary tools or by a dealer using special tools provided only by the vehicle manufacturer. Ford also believes that if a vehicle is designed so that the vehicle structure prevents access to the VHAD calibration mechanism, the calibration should be considered "permanently fixed." Ford also believes that the term "tamper indicant" can be synonymous with "permanent."

Analogizing to emission control calibration systems incorporating a cap which must be destroyed in order to defeat the manufacturer's emission control calibration setting, you believe that a similar cap design could prevent "anyone aiming a headlamp from inadvertently making an adjustment of the VHAD calibration."

I would like to explain our interpretation to Ichikoh Industries in light of the concerns you raise. We disagree that the intent of the requirement for "permanent" calibration is to help prevent adjustment of the VHAD calibration by just service mechanics or vehicle owners. The intent is to prevent adjustment by vehicle distributors and dealers as well. We also acknowledge that headlamp manufacturers cannot design a system that will absolutely prevent intentional tampering. We believe that the test for determining whether calibration is permanent is whether it is tamper-resistant both with respect to owners, service mechanics, vehicle distributors, and vehicle dealers.

The specific question asked by Ichikoh Industries was "(d)oes calibration method that vehicle owner or driver cannot calibrate using ordinary tools conform to [the requirement for permanent calibration]?" As we noted in our reply, this question implied that the calibration could be adjusted by tools that are not "ordinary tools." We stated that if the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means, it is not permanent, and that if the calibration cannot be adjusted, by ordinary tools or otherwise, then it is permanent.

I note that the question we were answering was asked in the context of calibration being performed by a vehicle owner or driver. The point we were trying to make in answering the question was that just because a vehicle owner or driver would need to obtain and use special tools to calibrate the VHAD device would not be sufficient to make the headlamp manufacturer's calibration permanent. However, this principle would not apply in a situation where special tools existed but the headlamp manufacturer reasonably believed that the tools would not available to the public, including service mechanics and vehicle distributors and dealers. This is because, in such a situation, neither a vehicle owner nor a mechanic could obtain or use such tools to calibrate the VHAD device.

We cannot provide an interpretation as to whether a particular design would be tamper-resistant outside the context of specific information about the design. We would be cautious, however, with respect to the approach of making systems "tamper indicant" as opposed to tamper-resistant. In our view, the mere fact that it would become readily apparent that a system has been calibrated would not, by itself, necessarily discourage such calibration. Thus, unless such systems could also be viewed as tamper-resistant, we would not consider them to be "permanent" in the context of the requirement at issue.

We do not agree with Ford's view that the calibration is "permanently fixed" if a vehicle is designed to prevent access to the VHAD calibration feature. Although Ichikoh asked a similar question regarding vehicle structures and aiming devices, its question was in the context of horizontal aiming systems and not calibration. We advised Ichikoh that if the horizontal aiming mechanism was not accessible for aiming the headlamp, it would be regarded as absent for purposes of meeting Standard No. 108. Ford's question is whether the VHAD calibration can be regarded as "permanently fixed" if the VHAD is inaccessible when the headlamp is installed on a vehicle. The answer is no; Standard No. 108 clearly states that the VHAD calibration is to be fixed by the headlamp manufacturer at the time the headlamp is manufactured. This means that its accessibility when the vehicle manufacturer installs the headlamp is irrelevant to the issue of whether its calibration is "permanently fixed."

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/18/98

ID: aiam1834

Dear Senator Hathaway: This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1975, forwardin correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Ron Otis, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposed amendment of the bumper standard. You ask that Mr. Otis' comments be included in the appropriate docket.; Mr. Otis directs his comments to what he believes to be a propose requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. His understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The NHTSA published a Federal Register notice on January 2, 1975 (40 FR 10) proposing a reduction in the required performance level of automobile bumpers. The proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face systems.; On March 7, 1975, the NHTSA issued a new Federal Register notice tha expresses the agency's decision that the proposed performance level reduction (January 2, 1975) should not be adopted. The NHTSA did, however, reiterate its position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The proposal also set forth new requirements that would ensure that a wide variety of materials would continue to be used in bumper systems.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel